Delaney has obviously run circles around him for over a decade, but the presidents and ADs still support him. I find it hard to believe that they are all incompetent morons (a few maybe, all is unlikely). Anyone know why???

(04-20-2016 01:29 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Delaney has obviously run circles around him for over a decade, but the presidents and ADs still support him. I find it hard to believe that they are all incompetent morons (a few maybe, all is unlikely). Anyone know why???

Swofford keeps getting a raw deal when all the blame for the ACC's shortcomings falls at his feet. He is only a representative of the ACC who cant make any of these important media decisions without the approval of the presidents. So when the question is asked "why do the presidents continue to support him?" Well the simple answer is he is only doing their bidding. The same way that Swofford keeps getting the blame for these deals unfairly, Delaney keeps getting undue praise for decisions that the BIG presidents make. The real question that should be asked is why do the ACC presidents keep letting BIG presidents run circles around them?

(04-20-2016 01:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The real question that should be asked is why do the ACC presidents keep letting BIG presidents run circles around them?

Good question indeed.
FLossY Out...

Oh boy...

(04-20-2016 01:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 01:29 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Delaney has obviously run circles around him for over a decade, but the presidents and ADs still support him. I find it hard to believe that they are all incompetent morons (a few maybe, all is unlikely). Anyone know why???

Swofford keeps getting a raw deal when all the blame for the ACC's shortcomings falls at his feet. He is only a representative of the ACC who cant make any of these important media decisions without the approval of the presidents. So when the question is asked "why do the presidents continue to support him?" Well the simple answer is he is only doing their bidding. The same way that Swofford keeps getting the blame for these deals unfairly, Delaney keeps getting undue praise for decisions that the BIG presidents make. The real question that should be asked is why do the ACC presidents keep letting BIG presidents run circles around them?

I agree with this somewhat. It was the ACC presidents that ultimately voted no to an ACC Network the first go around and in large part he does do what they say.

The issue for me as the head of the conference, Swofford has to be the leader. Delaney was a visionary when it came to rights models. He even negotiated this recent deal without a consultant.

It is not all Swofford's fault, but he lacked vision when it came to handling the conference's media rights.

(04-20-2016 03:00 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Oh boy...

LOL, don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of John Swofford, but I think he, like all Conference commish's get too much credit/blame for decisions that presidents make, because they are the faces of their respective conferences.

One of the biggest mistakes Swofford made, besides refusing to allow for competitive bids (red flag anyone???) was the incredibly long time he locked the ACC into such a crap contract to a TV network that works against the conference.


Gives the BIG lots of time and extra $$$$ to pick apart the ACC.....maybe SEC if the gap keeps growing at this pace.


The real issue will be in a few years when ESPN tries to trick the ACC into another crappy extension that requires a GOR extension. Swofford won't get everyone to sign a GOR extension this time around.

Because for most of them, what Swofford has delivered and what they prioritize align. They haven't cared about money or football success...the insulated, good ol boy, Tobacco-road country club "above it all" gentlemens' club is what they want. The most important thing is to do the conference or dinner party circuit with your elite compatriots and share a mint julep and a cigar and slap each other on the back.

The ACC is last to the party in treating this like the business it is. Half the conference is newcomers for whom that social set and cache doesn't matter much if at all. Many in the other half are realizing that you can't just "Ah, what's a million dollars here or there to men like us" when you're talking about $10-25M.

It's no mystery to me why he's been supported all along, but I am a bit perplexed why he's still there NOW. When the ACC was at a crisis point, around the time of the last realignment, and the start of the playoffs and the formation of the access bowls, I could kind of see the logic in not trying to start over in the midst of that, and that his personal contacts could go a long way to keeping the ACC afloat. And I think he did a decent job navigating that.

But the last two years have presented a perfect opportunity for him to walk away, with the ACC stabilized and experiencing a golden era in performance. There's nothing about his performance that suggests that he's the best person to lead going forward, and he's had two public failures in the past six months. That is what I really don't understand...what on earth FSU, Miami, VT, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and Clemson have invested in this guy, and I find it hard to believe that Tobacco road is still able to keep him jammed in place given that nobody can deny the realities any more.

The best explanation is that by and large, the ACC's athletic departments just haven't real big boy modern-day football operations. And I don't exclude FSU from that brush by any means.

With the way schools are investing in facilities and coaches, I have a hard time understanding their current patience with Mr. Swofford.

It would be nice to to get a new commissioner in there soon to give them time to settle in before the next round of contract negotiations.

No you can't have Tom....

If Swofford is a problem isn't he also a solver? The ACC was suppose to die, but it didn't. The long term tv contract he negotiated is bad, but at the time it wasn't. I'm not saying he isn't without faults. But I agree with the previous poster who said that Swofford is an agent of the university presidents. That being said; this is a very conservative part of the country; much more so that Texas. I do think new blood is needed & no, I no longer want Jurich. His last hires says he is getting stale. We need a bold thinker & doer. But would that be accepted by the ACC membership? Perhaps now yes, since the ACC has undergone such a massive transformation. I hope so for the conference's sake.

(04-20-2016 10:34 PM)texasorange Wrote:  If Swofford is a problem isn't he also a solver? The ACC was suppose to die, but it didn't. The long term tv contract he negotiated is bad, but at the time it wasn't. I'm not saying he isn't without faults. But I agree with the previous poster who said that Swofford is an agent of the university presidents. That being said; this is a very conservative part of the country; much more so that Texas. I do think new blood is needed & no, I no longer want Jurich. His last hires says he is getting stale. We need a bold thinker & doer. But would that be accepted by the ACC membership? Perhaps now yes, since the ACC has undergone such a massive transformation. I hope so for the conference's sake.

The presidents surely make the final decisions, but they can approve or disapprove only what the Commissioner presents to them. JS brought them his proposals and recommendations based on his "diligent study" of the sports media landscape. Let's face it, JS probably got input from two sources, ESPN and Chad Swofford. He was starstruck by the World-wide Leader and placed the conference in their hands. They ate his lunch. The presidents were counting on him to find the best possible course to follow. I think they were all complacent, if not lazy. Meanwhile Delany was blazing new trails and continues to play the media companies like a fiddle.
By now, these same presidents must know that their confidence in Mr. Swofford was misplaced. If they haven't retained IMG by now, then they simply aren't trying.

I remember thinking at the time the 2010 contract was signed that it was too long and that I was uncomfortable with putting all of the ACC eggs in one ESPN basket. TBH, I didn't give the tier 3 rights a second thought at that time.

I think Notre Dame's value is its football program.. The ACC does not have it! We should really consider adding two more teams that play both football and basketball in the ACC. Notre Dame must decide sooner or later, if wants to remain in the ACC!

(04-20-2016 07:52 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  No you can't have Tom....

I was thinking the same thing, but honestly, he's the best in the business. He might be exactly what the ACC needs.

Re: Swofford
The ACC is still here and appears like they will be one of the four survivors even though the ACC was not in a very strong position. The Big 12 on the other hand probably won't live out their GOR.

What else do you need to know?

(04-21-2016 07:29 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 07:52 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  No you can't have Tom....

I was thinking the same thing, but honestly, he's the best in the business. He might be exactly what the ACC needs.

I think most of usLouisville fans agree on this point!

Who says there will be four? While I think it's likely, we could still see the B1G and SEC cherry pick the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 to death. You guys need to stop counting your chickens and act more like you might not make it.

(04-21-2016 07:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  Re: Swofford
The ACC is still here and appears like they will be one of the four survivors even though the ACC was not in a very strong position. The Big 12 on the other hand probably won't live out their GOR.

What else do you need to know?

Where is it law that 4 is the final number?

I think you are more likely to see 2 HUGE conferences (B1G and SEC) and more consolidation.

The rich schools/conferences don't like sharing and the number 4 holds NO loyalty for them.

(04-21-2016 08:20 AM)nole Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 07:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  Re: Swofford
The ACC is still here and appears like they will be one of the four survivors even though the ACC was not in a very strong position. The Big 12 on the other hand probably won't live out their GOR.

What else do you need to know?

Where is it law that 4 is the final number?

I think you are more likely to see 2 HUGE conferences (B1G and SEC) and more consolidation.

The rich schools/conferences don't like sharing and the number 4 holds NO loyalty for them.

Then prepare for the 40% Federal Tax bracket and the loss of your tax exempt status! You would now be professional minor league sports officially!