(07-20-2016 01:04 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Yes gloss over the Cuse was nationally relevant in FB until the latest slide of mediocrity over the last 15 years. A few special recruits, new facilities and an innovative coach can turn that around in a few seasons. We have the coach and AD now, are updating the Dome to SoA and we landed one of the best HS QBs in the country for 2017.

Indeed.

Syracuse was actually the first school approached by the ACC when the league began considering expansion in the late 1980s. The Seminoles eventually joined and Syracuse could have. At the time the Orange preferred to remain independent.

As we know, Syracuse was very much in the picture again when the league expanded in 2003. And then, a few years ago, the deal was done.

The Syracuse Orange are a natural fit for the ACC and always have been. The accomplishments of the school as well as its potential are both a matter of record. Syracuse has nothing to prove.

Glad you're aboard, Orange. It's an honour.

(07-20-2016 05:34 PM)Bigtexnole Wrote:  A great step n the right direction.

The next hurdle is going to be finding a way to get the 3-5-5 scheduling installed to freshen up the schedule.

[....]

Here's hoping. A scheduling arrangement like that yields better matches for our network and greater conference cohesion over time.

(07-21-2016 06:09 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 05:34 PM)Bigtexnole Wrote:  A great step n the right direction.

The next hurdle is going to be finding a way to get the 3-5-5 scheduling installed to freshen up the schedule.

[....]

Here's hoping. A scheduling arrangement like that yields better matches for our network and greater conference cohesion over time.

I think that scheduling arrangement would be Awesome....I wonder if we could make something like that work in light of the NCAA vote last spring?

Thanks for the Cuse support.... refreshing to see it coming from a Nole fan. cheers

(07-21-2016 06:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 06:09 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 05:34 PM)Bigtexnole Wrote:  A great step n the right direction.

The next hurdle is going to be finding a way to get the 3-5-5 scheduling installed to freshen up the schedule.

[....]

Here's hoping. A scheduling arrangement like that yields better matches for our network and greater conference cohesion over time.

I think that scheduling arrangement would be Awesome....I wonder if we could make something like that work in light of the NCAA vote last spring?

Thanks for the Cuse support.... refreshing to see it coming from a Nole fan. cheers

The NCAA rules on scheduling are still VERY rigid. If you want a championship game in football, you MUST play every team in your own division - no exceptions. The only way the ACC could even simulate a 3-5-5 schedule would be to reshuffle divisions every year - something the school presidents would be unlikely to approve, IMO.

IMO the ACC need to try again, but instead of proposing total deregulation, this time be specific:

Quote:For conferences with 12 or more teams, allow a CCG as long as (1) it's split into two divisions, and (2) each team plays a minimum of 8 conference games, including at least 4 from the same division.

That should be the gist of it - and, I think, much more likely to pass than total deregulation.

(07-21-2016 07:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 06:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 06:09 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 05:34 PM)Bigtexnole Wrote:  A great step n the right direction.

The next hurdle is going to be finding a way to get the 3-5-5 scheduling installed to freshen up the schedule.

[....]

Here's hoping. A scheduling arrangement like that yields better matches for our network and greater conference cohesion over time.

I think that scheduling arrangement would be Awesome....I wonder if we could make something like that work in light of the NCAA vote last spring?

Thanks for the Cuse support.... refreshing to see it coming from a Nole fan. cheers

The NCAA rules on scheduling are still VERY rigid. If you want a championship game in football, you MUST play every team in your own division - no exceptions. The only way the ACC could even simulate a 3-5-5 schedule would be to reshuffle divisions every year - something the school presidents would be unlikely to approve, IMO.

IMO the ACC need to try again, but instead of proposing total deregulation, this time be specific:

Quote:For conferences with 12 or more teams, allow a CCG as long as (1) it's split into two divisions, and (2) each team plays a minimum of 8 conference games, including at least 4 from the same division.

That should be the gist of it - and, I think, much more likely to pass than total deregulation.

We all know it was a total power play by Delaney...maybe the SEC can play nice now and side with the ACC since we are new BFFs.

What a great day for the ACC. After all the negativity from some fans and outsiders the ACC networks are going to be implemented. We will all be together for the next 20 years. It's just wrong to say the schools are not making the effort in football - even "little Wake" (7700 students total) has built a huge IPF and is working persistently. Really I don't see any slackers anywhere - UNC hiring Chizik to improve their defense, the 4 new coaches this year, etc.

I also read about smaller alumni bases, stadiums, in the ACC compared to the SEC and the B1G, etc. but many fans of our schools have not taken even one class there - people in Syracuse and NY State liking SU, or people in N Florida and S Georgia liking FSU, Catholics liking ND and BC, etc. Sometimes these are called bandwagon fans but usually their fanship has to do with state or city affiliation, the team being an underdog, liking the head coach (as with Bowden) as opposed to just supporting a winning team. What this means is that there will be more consumers of these networks than just grads from these schools. Those numbers are going to be underestimated.

So true Atom:. Syracuse has an extremely strong and dedicated fanbase particularly within a 100 mile radius which is over 3 million in population. The T-shirt fans fill the Dome.

i just want all the football and basketball games to be on at least one channel on tv (that doesn't require an extended sports network package). don't care about revenues unless they start distributing some of that to fans.


even in Greenville SC, there have been Clemson football games that I could not find on tv.

Was on vacation last week when this broke. I'm sure everyone was waiting for me to answer this.

My answer: Cautiously optimistic

Optimistic because:

- The right things are being said in terms of revenue, of being very competitive with the B1G and SEC. That is pretty specific, and that's big talk. I was waiting to hear more general platitudes about being competitive with the other power five leagues, record revenues, etc. We'll see if it happens, but those who've talked money have said the right things by specifically referencing the SEC and B1G. At least the target was the correct one, which I don't think has always been the case.

- The linear channel. A lot of talk that this wasn't going to be a possibility. Landing the actual channel is a strong statement, and hopefully encourages ESPN not to treat the ACC like the red haired step child.

- The three year delay. I actually like the sound of this. I like the idea of them waiting to package it with the other Disney content to get the best carriage at the best rate. I feel like patience will be rewarded here, and was very nervous that the ACC was so self-conscious about not having a network like the big boys that they'd take a bad deal just to be able to wave a flag about it. The delay indicates (hopefully) the patience to get the best deal revenue wise. I think it will pay off.

- Also, on the three year delay...I like the idea that the ACC Network will have a couple of years develop a unique voice on the low profile digital platform before launching the linear network. I think the linear network will be a much greater success if the ACC can position itself differently than the BTN and SECN. I'd like the ACC to be a little hipper, funnier, and more fun, with a bit of a sense of humor about college sports. It should be fun, not "Triumph of the Will" propaganda. If the BTN is Bob Ley, the SECN is Chris Berman, I'd rather the ACCN be Scott Van Pelt.

- Goodbye Raycom syndication. Welcome to the 21st century ACC.

- FSU's worst case scenario avoided. While it may not have ever been likely, the dissolution of the ACC always had the possibility of leaving FSU in a really bad spot when the musical chairs finally stopped. Envisioning a scenario where the SEC and B1G took a combination of OU, TX, Kansas, UNC, NC State, UVA, VT, GT. For academic and market duplication reasons, there was always the possibility that FSU gets left with a bunch of also rans, or on an island in the Big 12. I don't think they'd fall that far down the list, but it was possible.

- Who knows how true the narrative is, but the story that has been painted of the ACC recognizing the importance of improved football as an element of this deal is encouraging. It would be nice to think that the current run is not just a happy accident, and that more than FSU and CU are along for the ride. If the current improvement is really a sign of all hands on deck football wise, that's good to hear. I like hearing a tacit acknowledgement from the top that pre-2012 ACC football was the garbage every reasonable person knew it was. There are some people who try to spin it differently, that ACC football was ok or even good before the last couple years, and now the conference leadership has flat out acknowledged that it wasn't. As always, the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have a problem...us football-first folks have always been frustrated by the lack of evidence that anyone at the ACC even realized they had a real football problem.

Cautiously because:

- We've heard this song and dance before. Do I need to link the back-slapping, Swofford-fondling columns after the 2010 deal was made? We won't know for a while if this gets the job done, revenue wise.

- TV deal/GOR extension. 20 years. The ACC isn't going to be able to take it's product on the market as a free agent in the next two decades, and a true free agent bidding situation was the one scenario that might have made up a lot of ground. If this deal turns out to be lacking once again, there's no end in sight.

- Digital network is not available stand alone. I was really intrigued by a standalone, for-purchase ACC Network, as a possible source for additional revenue and as a model for the future.


So we'll see. I didn't see or hear anything that screamed "danger!" to me like the 2010 deal did immediately. There were red flags all over that one.

(07-21-2016 06:05 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 01:04 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Yes gloss over the Cuse was nationally relevant in FB until the latest slide of mediocrity over the last 15 years. A few special recruits, new facilities and an innovative coach can turn that around in a few seasons. We have the coach and AD now, are updating the Dome to SoA and we landed one of the best HS QBs in the country for 2017.

Indeed.

Syracuse was actually the first school approached by the ACC when the league began considering expansion in the late 1980s. The Seminoles eventually joined and Syracuse could have. At the time the Orange preferred to remain independent.

As we know, Syracuse was very much in the picture again when the league expanded in 2003. And then, a few years ago, the deal was done.

The Syracuse Orange are a natural fit for the ACC and always have been. The accomplishments of the school as well as its potential are both a matter of record. Syracuse has nothing to prove.

Glad you're aboard, Orange. It's an honour.

IIRC Syracuse was a member of the Big East when they were approached by the ACC.
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/storie...5ZTg9IrK1s

It solidifies the ACC as the #3 conference....

The PAC 12 is in worse shape than people realize....where is the $$$ for them???

The Big XII is interesting right now....we'll see how they end up. They won't have a network though