XLance
Hall of Famer
Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
RE: Can the ACC survive itself?
(07-13-2016 05:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: (07-12-2016 05:37 PM)ericsaid Wrote: (06-12-2016 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: (06-12-2016 02:01 PM)IR4CU Wrote: I posted this on the ACC board but thought I would post it here as well as I am definitely interested in thoughts from folks from the SEC on this subject.
Notwithstanding any external forces such as the SEC, Big 10, or ESPN, I wonder if the ACC will be able to win the long term battle against it's most deadly enemy - itself. Based on the vitriol from the fans concerning the potential nine game football conference schedule, I have my doubts. On this topic alone, it is clear that the fans are torn, the administrations are torn, and the athletic departments are torn - heck even fans of the same school appear to be torn. No matter how this issue is resolved, some schools are going to be very upset. I think this stems from the fact that as a group, we do not have any overall common ground in terms of history, culture, or athletics. Think about this ... if each ACC institution could have one and only one men's sports program, which sport would each school pick? Clemson, FSU, Miami, and VT would most definitely pick football. GT, Louisville, and NC State would be torn between football and basketball - I think GT would ultimately pick football and NCSU and UL would ultimately pick basketball. Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Wake, and UVA would definitely pick basketball (although Syracuse might pick Lacrosse). I am unsure where Pitt would fall - I am guessing football but it might be basketball?? Boston College would most likely pick hockey. So, is it any wonder that this league goes through so much turmoil on every decision: it really does come down to basketball vs football where we are pretty evenly divided and as far as I have seen so far, none of the schools are truly willing to make significant compromises. Then, if you look at geography and history, we have old Big East vs old ACC and North vs South. It's a wonder this conference hasn't already imploded (or exploded!). Now compare this to the SEC - they have one school (Kentucky) that would select basketball, one school (Vanderbilt) who may select either or possibly baseball - the remaining 12 schools are 100% on board for football. I am not saying that this makes the SEC "better" than the ACC but they are most definitely of the same mind and work together for the same goals as a conference - from a football and ultimately from a revenue standpoint, this has served them very well. Will the ACC ever get to this level of like mindedness? Unfortunately, I seriously doubt it will and therein lies the true enemy of our conference and the one that ultimately may lead to it's demise at some point in the future.
I have been verbally attacked by ACC fan boys for referring to the conference as ESPN's version of Frankenstein's monster. I did so precisely for the reasons you presented. It is a conference cobbled together by ESPN in part to shelter Old Big East property they didn't want to fall into Delany's hands when the BTN was still an independent network. In part to keep Florida State from going to the SEC in '91 because it feared the SEC would gain too much leverage. Georgia Tech was the only natural addition that they have made. And, now you can add the hybrid relationship with Notre Dame which at the time was more like an organ donor to keep the conference alive.
The problem now is that the pieces can't move to their natural destinations. IMO Florida State and Clemson do belong in the SEC. I could see the SEC accommodating Virginia Tech as well. N.C. State / North Carolina would only be market grabs. Miami is a decent addition but if we had Florida State do we really need them? I don't think so.
Pitt and Syrcause, and possibly B.C. belong in the Big 10, or back in the Big East.
Virginia and Duke need to drop down a division and join the Ivy League. UNC?
These kinds of placements could have happened before FOX bought the majority interest in the BTN. Then ESPN could have retained the B1G rights and utilized them for Hockey, Lacrosse, and Basketball and used the SEC for Football, Baseball, and Gymnastics. Then the more natural movements would have made some sense.
But to answer your question I think ESPN, like the Gothic Dr., is stuck with the havoc wrought by its creation!
Wait, so you think ESPN is against the SEC? The SEC is ESPN's cash cow.
ESPN is not against the SEC. They were against an SEC in 1991 that wasn't fully under their control from landing the one product in Florida that would have given the SEC unquestioned control over a major State and market. F.S.U. added more value to the ACC which was ESPN's soon to be 100% owned conference than ESPN could attain from F.S.U.'s membership in a partially owned SEC. ESPN is for ESPN. Feeding the cash cow comes second.
After re-reading several accounts of FSU's move to the ACC, not a single one mentioned ESPN. Not on the ACC side or not from the SEC perspective. The one thing that does keep turning up, however, is that FSU avoided talking to the SEC so that they could find out if they had been accepted by the ACC (in effect turning down a SEC offer).
You can try to re-write history if you want, but the truth is FSU had an opportunity to go to either the SEC or the ACC and rejected the SEC in favor of an offer from the ACC (and ESPN had not one single thing to do with it).
|
|