http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/83...ailblog-71

Quote:Lastly, a question from DL in Chicago: John Swofford states he's extremely happy with the ACC coverage and exposure, but SEC got much more coverage just for media days. This, to me, is a really huge reason the ACC network needs to come to fruition. What's the real deal with the ACC network holdup?

Hale: A network may be a good way to generate more revenue, but I don't think it drives coverage elsewhere so much as it is a reaction to it. The SEC Network has been successful because the SEC already had a massive audience. Other leagues have networks, too, but the SEC still gets more headlines. That's about the league, not the network.

As for the reality of an ACC network launching sometime soon, there's a lot at play, and I'm not smart enough to explain all the dollars and figures that would go into that. I will say that just because Swofford hasn't been outspoken on the subject doesn't mean a lot isn't happening behind closed doors, and I think he's smart in waiting for the right deal -- not just the first deal. The media landscape is changing rapidly -- from streaming services to the rise of mobile platforms to the decline in cable subscriptions -- that the ACC would be smart to think about what a successful network needs to look like 10 years down the road. Gaining ground on the SEC is about creating a new paradigm, not trying to be better at a system the SEC has already mastered.

the best way to catch up with SEC in money is for ACC to start beating them more often and I think that is going to happen. they aren't getting all of the top talent like they used to given more programs are trying to be competitive at football now.

(07-24-2015 03:23 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  the best way to catch up with SEC in money is for ACC to start beating them more often and I think that is going to happen. they aren't getting all of the top talent like they used to given more programs are trying to be competitive at football now.

Guess you didn't catch the subtle nuances.

(07-24-2015 03:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:23 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  the best way to catch up with SEC in money is for ACC to start beating them more often and I think that is going to happen. they aren't getting all of the top talent like they used to given more programs are trying to be competitive at football now.

Guess you didn't catch the subtle nuances.

nobody is in your league, bro. you know that

(07-24-2015 03:47 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:23 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  the best way to catch up with SEC in money is for ACC to start beating them more often and I think that is going to happen. they aren't getting all of the top talent like they used to given more programs are trying to be competitive at football now.

Guess you didn't catch the subtle nuances.

nobody is in your league, bro. you know that

No offense intended and while I don't no your intent, no offense taken.

I like David Hale.

But his comment about the ACC being smart to take several additional years in order to setup an ACCN that will take advantage of future platforms is stupid. And he's not the first person to say that, as clowns on here and elsewhere have been saying it for a couple years now as well.

Why is it stupid? Because if the ACC creates a "different" ACCN than what the BTN and SECN currently are, and then is more successful in the future due to its implementation or platforms or whatever, than the BTN and SECN would change their format to that of the ACCN and jump back in front of the ACCN in revenue.

Ever heard the saying that the NFL is a copycat league? Is that not the exact same thing that collegiate conferences are doing in regards to networks? Successful things will be mimicked. That's what would happen if the ACC somehow created a "gamechanger" of an ACCN. But the ACC is not going to create a "gamechanging" network. Don't. Be. Ridiculous.

I agree with David Hale. Not so much from the technology perspective, but the general concept.

ESPN has all the leverage right now. Whatever deal gets worked out, the ACC will likely be extended locked up for 20 years, into the mid 2030's. There is very little that can happen to REDUCE the ACC's leverage...and some stuff that can happen to increase it. It's different than the SEC, who was in a run of seven straight titles, and had nowhere to go but down. They had to strike when the iron is hot.

Money is important...but if ESPN is offering a deal for an ACCN that puts, say $3M extra on the table...that's probably not worth locking yourself up.

I guess I think of it this way...the ACC is in a better position now, with improved football performance the last two seasons and a national title in basketball, than it was in 2012. If football continues to improve, it's only going to put the ACC in a position for a better deal 2-3 years from now.

If ACC football falls back to it's BCS-days norm, then it's screwed, totally screwed anyway, and a network or a few million dollars aren't going to matter. As a stock, the ACC is just coming off it's low...extending for 20 years now is still selling low, with little upside.

(07-26-2015 11:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I like David Hale.

But his comment about the ACC being smart to take several additional years in order to setup an ACCN that will take advantage of future platforms is stupid. And he's not the first person to say that, as clowns on here and elsewhere have been saying it for a couple years now as well.

Why is it stupid? Because if the ACC creates a "different" ACCN than what the BTN and SECN currently are, and then is more successful in the future due to its implementation or platforms or whatever, than the BTN and SECN would change their format to that of the ACCN and jump back in front of the ACCN in revenue.

Ever heard the saying that the NFL is a copycat league? Is that not the exact same thing that collegiate conferences are doing in regards to networks? Successful things will be mimicked. That's what would happen if the ACC somehow created a "gamechanger" of an ACCN. But the ACC is not going to create a "gamechanging" network. Don't. Be. Ridiculous.

Wouldn't they do it anyway if the market called for it? Why not be the innovator instead of the follower? Wouldn't people say that the ACC were the last ones to get a network, weren't they smart enough to do it first instead of following everyone else again?

Why take several years longer than required to make a "better" network that other conferences could copy in short order? What's wrong with giving up potentially millions of dollars per school in order to have a network that may not make the ACC millions of dollars more per year than the BTN and SECN, and if it did, would quickly be PASSED by those networks as soon as they implemented the ACCN's platforms/technology/whatever David Hale was implying?

(07-27-2015 09:13 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I agree with David Hale. Not so much from the technology perspective, but the general concept.

ESPN has all the leverage right now. Whatever deal gets worked out, the ACC will likely be extended locked up for 20 years, into the mid 2030's. There is very little that can happen to REDUCE the ACC's leverage...and some stuff that can happen to increase it. It's different than the SEC, who was in a run of seven straight titles, and had nowhere to go but down. They had to strike when the iron is hot.

Money is important...but if ESPN is offering a deal for an ACCN that puts, say $3M extra on the table...that's probably not worth locking yourself up.

I guess I think of it this way...the ACC is in a better position now, with improved football performance the last two seasons and a national title in basketball, than it was in 2012. If football continues to improve, it's only going to put the ACC in a position for a better deal 2-3 years from now.

If ACC football falls back to it's BCS-days norm, then it's screwed, totally screwed anyway, and a network or a few million dollars aren't going to matter. As a stock, the ACC is just coming off it's low...extending for 20 years now is still selling low, with little upside.

The ACC has to pretty much start a network in 2017 or they are in trouble. (I say 2017 NOT because that's what media and message board fans are suggesting, but because the ACC needs a network asap and it's getting closer and closer to being too late to launch in 2016.)

Is the ACC going to win a national title these next two seasons in football and continue its strong record in major bowls and against the SEC? Some of that is possible, maybe even likely, but all of it seems doubtful. The ACC doesn't appear to be on the verge of a major slip, but its mid/low-tier schools don't appear to be on the verge of improving, either. This may be the high water mark for the ACC during the next 5-10 years.

I don't think waiting makes much difference. Whether the ACC agrees to a 20-year deal with ESPN soon, or agrees to an 17- or 18-year deal several years from now, is insignificant. The ACC isn't just going to jump the Big Ten and SEC in on-field production and tv viewership in a few years. And what would the ACC be negotiating and using as leverage anyways? ESPN already owns the ACC. They have the leverage. Or are you suggesting they would offer the ACC less than a ~50/50 split like the BTN and SECN? Because if it's something like that, then ESPN is going to pay the ACC less and that's just how it's going to be. That's what happened with the Orange Bowl. Two more years isn't going to change that.

(07-27-2015 11:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC doesn't appear to be on the verge of a major slip, but its mid/low-tier schools don't appear to be on the verge of improving, either. This may be the high water mark for the ACC during the next 5-10 years.

If you go down the list, I think you can make a case for several mid/low tier schools:
* BC: the Dazzler has them moving in the right direction, IMO
* SU: new AD will pull the plug on Schafer, probably this year - then we'll see who replaces him...
* Pitt: we've already see encouraging signs from them, now let's play the games!
* VT: I'm very confident about this season, and I believe Beamer will retire after next season, so the question is what happens next?
* UNC: their "D" almost HAS to be better this year under Chizik
* Wake: slow/steady progress
* Louisville: I'm a Petrino guy
* Miami: I think either Miami wins 10 games or they get a new coach.

(07-27-2015 11:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  if... ESPN is going to pay the ACC less... that's just how it's going to be. That's what happened with the Orange Bowl. Two more years isn't going to change that.

Orange Bowl deal was bad because of no P5 champ to pair with (true, ACC should've gotten >50%, but I don't know what went on behind closed doors, so maybe they really couldn't?). If the SEC had it to do over again today, maybe they would pair with the ACC instead of the Big XII? Who knows? Another season like last year for both leagues and I'd feel more confident...

Just sayin. Now you can tell me why I'm wrong...

(07-27-2015 12:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC doesn't appear to be on the verge of a major slip, but its mid/low-tier schools don't appear to be on the verge of improving, either. This may be the high water mark for the ACC during the next 5-10 years.

If you go down the list, I think you can make a case for several mid/low tier schools:
* BC: the Dazzler has them moving in the right direction, IMO They were awful for a few years and are now back to about their norm. They aren't going to jump up consistently to play at the level of a VT (when good) or UL (at present).
* SU: new AD will pull the plug on Schafer, probably this year - then we'll see who replaces him... So what? Cuse has simply been bad - not mediocre, but bad - for awhile now. A new coach doesn't necessarily change that.
* Pitt: we've already see encouraging signs from them, now let's play the games! We do? I'll wait until they show encouraging signs in things that matter during the fall.
* VT: I'm very confident about this season, and I believe Beamer will retire after next season, so the question is what happens next? [Insert TerryD-style objection here] I'm not even worried about VT long-term. You are not mid/low-tier, even if you have a few down years. They'll be fine if they hire the right coach post-Beamer.
* UNC: their "D" almost HAS to be better this year under Chizik GTS, take a shot.
* Wake: slow/steady progress Who cares? They're Wake.
* Louisville: I'm a Petrino guy Not mid/low-tier and not worried about UL.
* Miami: I think either Miami wins 10 games or they get a new coach. They aren't winning 10 games and they aren't going to fire Golden if he only wins 9, even if they've pretty much underachieved every year and literally shat the bed every single year after their FSU loss. They lost a lot of key guys from last year's team, but at some point Golden has to prove his worth. I think he stays if they go 8-4 and he has to go if he's 7-5 or worse. Long-term you have to think they'll rebound to some extent. Short term, however, status quo.

I'm mainly talking about UNC, NC State, UVA, Pitt, Cuse and BC. There's nothing to suggest those schools are going to step their game up to a level in which they've either never before played or haven't played in quite some time. Who of that list is poised to land in the top 25 with any consistency? Wake, I don't expect anything out of you. Duke, if you can simply be a consistently mediocre team that frequently makes low-level bowls, you're doing your job.

(07-27-2015 11:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  if... ESPN is going to pay the ACC less... that's just how it's going to be. That's what happened with the Orange Bowl. Two more years isn't going to change that.

Orange Bowl deal was bad because of no P5 champ to pair with (true, ACC should've gotten >50%, but I don't know what went on behind closed doors, so maybe they really couldn't?). If the SEC had it to do over again today, maybe they would pair with the ACC instead of the Big XII? Who knows? Another season like last year for both leagues and I'd feel more confident...

Just sayin. Now you can tell me why I'm wrong...

The ACC splitting it equally amongst Big Ten/SEC schools is more of an issue than the Orange getting a smaller cut. Either was going to be problematic. Both happening concurrently is criminal negligence by Swofford.

(07-27-2015 01:41 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC splitting it [Orange Bowl payout] equally amongst Big Ten/SEC schools is more of an issue than the Orange getting a smaller cut. Either was going to be problematic. Both happening concurrently is criminal negligence by Swofford.

AGREED. How soon can we arrest him?

(07-27-2015 12:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC doesn't appear to be on the verge of a major slip, but its mid/low-tier schools don't appear to be on the verge of improving, either. This may be the high water mark for the ACC during the next 5-10 years.

If you go down the list, I think you can make a case for several mid/low tier schools:
* BC: the Dazzler has them moving in the right direction, IMO
* SU: new AD will pull the plug on Schafer, probably this year - then we'll see who replaces him...
* Pitt: we've already see encouraging signs from them, now let's play the games!
* VT: I'm very confident about this season, and I believe Beamer will retire after next season, so the question is what happens next?
* UNC: their "D" almost HAS to be better this year under Chizik
* Wake: slow/steady progress
* Louisville: I'm a Petrino guy
* Miami: I think either Miami wins 10 games or they get a new coach.

(07-27-2015 11:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  if... ESPN is going to pay the ACC less... that's just how it's going to be. That's what happened with the Orange Bowl. Two more years isn't going to change that.

Orange Bowl deal was bad because of no P5 champ to pair with (true, ACC should've gotten >50%, but I don't know what went on behind closed doors, so maybe they really couldn't?). If the SEC had it to do over again today, maybe they would pair with the ACC instead of the Big XII? Who knows? Another season like last year for both leagues and I'd feel more confident...

Just sayin. Now you can tell me why I'm wrong...

Let's look at the SEC's and Sugar Bowls thought process. At the time the deal is struck with B12, they have Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor, and other all geographically close to New Orleans. The odds of getting Iowa State are slim and none.

As they look at the ACC they see a conference where WF, BC, and GT, have won the ACC title in the last decade or played for it. These are very small alumni bases. UNC, NC State, and UVa, who have substantial alumni bases, haven't sniffed a title in years. Miami stinks, FSU has shown it can fall on hard times. With the SEC champ going to the playoff, what risk is generated by the SEC's runner-up playing BC or Wake Forest? Moreover, when VT went to the Sugar Bowl in 2011, they were burned out on bowl travel.

The ACC didn't get a bad deal because the SEC and B10 could have elected not to give the ACC the game the higher profile it gets from having the 2nd, or 3rd SEC of B10 team. How much would have been generated by an ACC versus at-large scenario with the potential of getting a P12 school, and AAC or MWC school or the third or fourth school from the B12?

Miami is a tough geographic location. I drove it once from Raleigh and thought I would die. The truth of the matter is that an enhanced Peach Bowl was probably better for the ACC than the Orange Bowl but the OB had the prestige. Atlanta has a proximity effect on ACC schools the way New Orleans does for SEC schools.

And it's not even worth a breath to discuss the Rose Bowl as it is unique and has been for nearly 80 years.

This has gotten off track, so I'll get it back in line.

(07-26-2015 11:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I like David Hale.

But his comment about the ACC being smart to take several additional years in order to setup an ACCN that will take advantage of future platforms is stupid. And he's not the first person to say that, as clowns on here and elsewhere have been saying it for a couple years now as well.

Why is it stupid? Because if the ACC creates a "different" ACCN than what the BTN and SECN currently are, and then is more successful in the future due to its implementation or platforms or whatever, than the BTN and SECN would change their format to that of the ACCN and jump back in front of the ACCN in revenue.

Ever heard the saying that the NFL is a copycat league? Is that not the exact same thing that collegiate conferences are doing in regards to networks? Successful things will be mimicked. That's what would happen if the ACC somehow created a "gamechanger" of an ACCN. But the ACC is not going to create a "gamechanging" network. Don't. Be. Ridiculous.

(07-27-2015 11:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:13 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I agree with David Hale. Not so much from the technology perspective, but the general concept.

ESPN has all the leverage right now. Whatever deal gets worked out, the ACC will likely be extended locked up for 20 years, into the mid 2030's. There is very little that can happen to REDUCE the ACC's leverage...and some stuff that can happen to increase it. It's different than the SEC, who was in a run of seven straight titles, and had nowhere to go but down. They had to strike when the iron is hot.

Money is important...but if ESPN is offering a deal for an ACCN that puts, say $3M extra on the table...that's probably not worth locking yourself up.

I guess I think of it this way...the ACC is in a better position now, with improved football performance the last two seasons and a national title in basketball, than it was in 2012. If football continues to improve, it's only going to put the ACC in a position for a better deal 2-3 years from now.

If ACC football falls back to it's BCS-days norm, then it's screwed, totally screwed anyway, and a network or a few million dollars aren't going to matter. As a stock, the ACC is just coming off it's low...extending for 20 years now is still selling low, with little upside.

The ACC has to pretty much start a network in 2017 or they are in trouble. (I say 2017 NOT because that's what media and message board fans are suggesting, but because the ACC needs a network asap and it's getting closer and closer to being too late to launch in 2016.)

Is the ACC going to win a national title these next two seasons in football and continue its strong record in major bowls and against the SEC? Some of that is possible, maybe even likely, but all of it seems doubtful. The ACC doesn't appear to be on the verge of a major slip, but its mid/low-tier schools don't appear to be on the verge of improving, either. This may be the high water mark for the ACC during the next 5-10 years.

I don't think waiting makes much difference. Whether the ACC agrees to a 20-year deal with ESPN soon, or agrees to an 17- or 18-year deal several years from now, is insignificant. The ACC isn't just going to jump the Big Ten and SEC in on-field production and tv viewership in a few years. And what would the ACC be negotiating and using as leverage anyways? ESPN already owns the ACC. They have the leverage. Or are you suggesting they would offer the ACC less than a ~50/50 split like the BTN and SECN? Because if it's something like that, then ESPN is going to pay the ACC less and that's just how it's going to be. That's what happened with the Orange Bowl. Two more years isn't going to change that.

I just don't agree. Two more years could make a big difference. If the deal is get a network now, and get +$2-3M a year...what difference does that make in the scheme of things? $3M doesn't change anything much, but we can wave the "we got a network" flag I guess.

If this IS the high water mark for the ACC...then we're all screwed anyway (at least those of us to whom those things matter). Because again...$2-3M isn't a game changer.

Two more years, if the ACC performs, in football AND basketball (and basketball didn't exactly carry it's share either for a good stretch there), the ACC certainly could look a lot more valuable. ESPN could get a lot more open to what the ACC wants.

The SEC didn't have any leverage on ESPN either. ESPN owned everything worth having, and at bargain basement prices. But the value of the SEC was such that it was in ESPN's best interest to lock that down for 20 years.

The better the ACC performs, and the closer it creeps toward the end of the contract...the more important it might be for ESPN to also lock up the ACC long term as well.

Again, there's no guarantee that the ACC doesn't totally crap the bed and revert back like the last two years never happened. Far from it...that could easily happen.

But if that happens, the network or $3M extra or whatever it would have...that's not going to matter to anybody. At least you or me.

I don't think anyone's thinking that ESPN has thrown a +$10M offer on the table, and Swofford is too dumb to take it.

The ACC either gets better, or it gets worse. If it gets better, then better off waiting until you can realize some value of that.

If it gets worse, you (and I) aren't going to be any happier just because there's a network.

And to be clear...I don't even think this is Swofford's thinking. I think the ACC will end up sacrificing upside in the desperate lunge for the credibility of a network. I like to tell myself that the ACC is driving a hard bargain and stretching it out, but I don't have faith in that.

(07-27-2015 02:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 12:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC doesn't appear to be on the verge of a major slip, but its mid/low-tier schools don't appear to be on the verge of improving, either. This may be the high water mark for the ACC during the next 5-10 years.

If you go down the list, I think you can make a case for several mid/low tier schools:
* BC: the Dazzler has them moving in the right direction, IMO
* SU: new AD will pull the plug on Schafer, probably this year - then we'll see who replaces him...
* Pitt: we've already see encouraging signs from them, now let's play the games!
* VT: I'm very confident about this season, and I believe Beamer will retire after next season, so the question is what happens next?
* UNC: their "D" almost HAS to be better this year under Chizik
* Wake: slow/steady progress
* Louisville: I'm a Petrino guy
* Miami: I think either Miami wins 10 games or they get a new coach.

(07-27-2015 11:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  if... ESPN is going to pay the ACC less... that's just how it's going to be. That's what happened with the Orange Bowl. Two more years isn't going to change that.

Orange Bowl deal was bad because of no P5 champ to pair with (true, ACC should've gotten >50%, but I don't know what went on behind closed doors, so maybe they really couldn't?). If the SEC had it to do over again today, maybe they would pair with the ACC instead of the Big XII? Who knows? Another season like last year for both leagues and I'd feel more confident...

Just sayin. Now you can tell me why I'm wrong...

Let's look at the SEC's and Sugar Bowls thought process. At the time the deal is struck with B12, they have Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor, and other all geographically close to New Orleans. The odds of getting Iowa State are slim and none.

As they look at the ACC they see a conference where WF, BC, and GT, have won the ACC title in the last decade or played for it. These are very small alumni bases. UNC, NC State, and UVa, who have substantial alumni bases, haven't sniffed a title in years. Miami stinks, FSU has shown it can fall on hard times. With the SEC champ going to the playoff, what risk is generated by the SEC's runner-up playing BC or Wake Forest? Moreover, when VT went to the Sugar Bowl in 2011, they were burned out on bowl travel.

The ACC didn't get a bad deal because the SEC and B10 could have elected not to give the ACC the game the higher profile it gets from having the 2nd, or 3rd SEC of B10 team. How much would have been generated by an ACC versus at-large scenario with the potential of getting a P12 school, and AAC or MWC school or the third or fourth school from the B12?

Miami is a tough geographic location. I drove it once from Raleigh and thought I would die. The truth of the matter is that an enhanced Peach Bowl was probably better for the ACC than the Orange Bowl but the OB had the prestige. Atlanta has a proximity effect on ACC schools the way New Orleans does for SEC schools.

And it's not even worth a breath to discuss the Rose Bowl as it is unique and has been for nearly 80 years.

I think the Orange Bowl setup is really very good for the ACC, other than splitting the money evenly with the B1G and SEC. But the bowl should do decently in the prestige category.

I don't blame the SEC for going to the Big 12 for the Sugar Bowl. The ACC has a terrible rep for travelling to bowl games. But I think there is the possibility of some regret there for the SEC if they end up with a steady diet of Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Baylor in that game.

I'm a little surprised that the SEC didn't keep ownership of the bowl completely, and cut a contract that allowed them to choose the best available of the ACC, Big 12 or ND.

First of all, the ACC should be getting a 50/50 split in the network like other conferences. That is not going to change whether it's started now or in a few years.

ESPN isn't offering the ACC $2M, or $3M or $10M/year for a network. Or is that what they did with the SECN and the 50/50 split was inaccurate reporting? So, again, waiting oes the ACC no good either way.

What you don't appear to be saying but what would make more sense, is that the ACC knows it would have to lengthen its current deal with ESPN to start a network. The ACC, having had none of its mid/low tier programs step up the last decade, has a pretty weak long-term tv contract. But if the ACC can somehow perform well in the next few years, they can agree to an extension with ESPN in order to start the network, and do it for an increased annual payout than the present contract. But even that wouldn't make any sense since by all accounts the SEC didn't get an annual payout increase by extending with ESPN despite it coming at the height of their success.

(07-27-2015 12:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  * UNC: their "D" almost HAS to be better this year under Chizik

(08-02-2015 01:49 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 12:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  * UNC: their "D" almost HAS to be better this year under Chizik

What I meant was this: they were 64th out of 65 last year. True, they could theoretically slip one more spot, but most likely they will improve in rank.

Right?


(right?)