There has been a lot of discussion and debate and teeth gnashing for years now about a potential conference television network.

Many doubted that it would ever come to pass. Others argued that even if it were to form, it would be a shell of the agreements signed by other conferences.

Some even went so far as to suggest that their school's athletic director and/or president were manipulated and/or tricked by the conference into buying a sack of magic beans. To them, that is the only reasonable explanation for their school having signed onto a long-term GOR.

Now that it appears to be fait accompli, and is reportedly going to push the conference firmly into third place from a revenues standpoint, and now that everyone has agreed to extend the GOR until 2036, has your view shifted at all?

Is the 2019 launch date too far away for you? Are you worried that other conferences are going to blow by the ACC when they renegotiate their own conference television network packages?

Are you at least satisfied that the ACC is clearly ahead of the Big 12 on just about every level now? Also, depending on what happens with the Pac-12 Network, which by all accounts has been a complete and unmitigated disaster, it is looking more and more likely that the ACC will be firmly entrenched ahead of it too.

So what's the problem now? I'm sure that for some of you there are still a great many of them. You just have to consult with each other on the talking points to figure out what those are exactly? For others, could this represent a seachange in how you view the conference and your participation in it? I sure hope so because it appears that we are all stuck with each other for the foreseeable future.

Of course, nobody knows what the terms of these new agreements are. Whatever they turn out to be, I'm sure that it will be an absolute disaster for the ACC, and that the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of that traitorous John Swofford, who once again snookered the powers that be at Clemson and FSU into signing on. The bastard!

(07-19-2016 10:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  Of course, nobody knows what the terms of these new agreements are. Whatever they turn out to be, I'm sure that it will be an absolute disaster for the ACC, and that the blame can be laid squarely at the feat of that traitorous John Swofford, who once again snookered the powers that be at Clemson and FSU into signing on. The bastard!

Nobody knows the terms of this agreement. I'm sure no matter what they are the acc fanboys will be overjoyed. The credit will be given to that genius swoffie who oh so intelligently had to sign 2 grant of rights extensions because the first one failed to get a network The beacon of light !

Well, what would constitute a realistic success for you?

you insert the names....

(07-19-2016 11:13 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Well, what would constitute a realistic success for you?

That's the question!

Realistic success for Ragu -- ACC with an unequal distribution of revenue, slanted heavily towards FSU (you know, so they can pay bills and all).

I’m not sure that I’m the type of Clemson fan that you are looking to get a response from. I don’t have the same level of doom and gloom as some of the other Clemson fans when it comes to the ACC.

For me, I think we need to come back to these questions in a few days after there has been a formal announcement and after more details have trickled out. Right now, we just don’t know any financial details. I will admit that the 2036 date is a little concerning. There is definitely the potential that the financial gap between the ACC and the B1G/SEC could be much improved with this deal, but may diminish over time as the other conferences renegotiate. However, it is not worth stressing over now since we don’t know the details and we can’t predict what the landscape is going to look like years from now.

In terms of the ACC Network itself, I’m very excited about this. As a Clemson fan, I hope to hardly ever be on the network during football season, however. :) I’m always going to hope for 8 PM on ABC for home games and Noon on ABC for away games, but realistically, there will always be our games against the in-state FCS teams, as well as our games against G5 schools, plus the less than stellar conference matchups that I will be more than happy to watch on the new network.

The biggest thing I’m looking forward to will be more non-football content. I think Clemson gets pretty good coverage during football season, and decent coverage during basketball season. However, more basketball coverage during the non-conference portion of the season, as well as more baseball and soccer coverage will be very welcome. Some coverage of golf could be cool also. I might even watch some lacrosse, even though we don’t have a team at Clemson. Heck, I even hope they have shows covering cool research projects going on at the different universities. Maybe even televise stuff like the ACC InVenture competition.

Overall, if this means that I can see a lot more Clemson basketball, baseball, and soccer, I’ll be very happy. Seeing the other stuff I mentioned will be nice as well.

Now, back to the financial topic. If the 2019 delay of the linear network is based on the expiration dates of Disney’s current contracts with DIRECTV, Dish, and the larger cable companies, then I understand. I also understand that the longer it is delayed, the less expensive it is for our partner, ESPN, to re-acquire content from Raycom should that be necessary. I just hope the per-year payouts go up considerably between now and then based on the fact that we committed to such a long term contract. In other words, I hope we don’t have to wait until after the channel exists in 2019 to see a large increase. There better be a pretty attractive increase immediately based on the 20-year commitment. I also hope we don’t have issues getting on these platforms like the PAC-12 has. I don’t expect that we will, based on the fact that we are partnered with Disney and they have their suite of channels to package together and that we are not trying to have all of those crazy regional channels like the PAC-12 did. A lot can change with the market between now and 2019, however.

Oh, one last thing… We better be staying at eight conference games. :) I don’t think this needs any additional conversation because we’ve gone over it many times, but as you know, we Clemson fans are pretty passionate about staying at eight conference games. In fact, I really hope we get some confirmation on that topic this week as it relates to the new agreements and the new networks. I’m ready to hear some confirmation that we are staying at eight games and then I can get back to stressing over which P5 teams Clemson is going to schedule in 2021, 2024, and beyond.

(07-19-2016 12:42 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Realistic success for Ragu -- ACC with an unequal distribution of revenue, slanted heavily towards FSU (you know, so they can pay bills and all).

Revenue should be more based on merit. Not heavily slanted

Better schedule for football powers that carry the conference in the biggest revenue sport

Better divisions that are fair Stop letting the coastal trio dictate policy that doesn't maximize assets

Close money to the sec and big 10

Stop treating acc like second class citizens compared to the sec. ESPN acts as their partner. Give them way more passes than they do with fsu

I'll wait on the actual financial and other terms to become a reality before passing judgement. If it's as good as what is being reported this will finally be something positive out of the conference, but as we have seen far too often with this conference (remember when the rainbow and unicorns crowd was bragging about how much money we were going to make off the Orange Bowl because we "owned the rights"?) there's often things promised that do not become reality.

The problems I see is we aren't going to see any benefits for another three years, and we are stuck in a suicide pact for 10 additional years with a bunch of schools who show little to no commitment to improving their football product.

(07-19-2016 12:59 PM)Ragu Wrote:  * Revenue should be more based on merit. Not heavily slanted
* Better schedule for football powers that carry the conference in the biggest revenue sport
* Better divisions that are fair Stop letting the coastal trio dictate policy that doesn't maximize assets
* Close money to the sec and big 10
* [ESPN] Stop treating acc like second class citizens compared to the sec. ESPN acts as their partner. Give them way more passes than they do with fsu

All fair and reasonable points, IMO. Unfortunately we found out from the 2012-13 ACC Manual that the divisions are etched in stone, which makes fixing the schedule a monumental task.

(07-19-2016 01:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'll wait on the actual financial and other terms to become a reality before passing judgement. If it's as good as what is being reported this will finally be something positive out of the conference, but as we have seen far too often with this conference (remember... how much money we were going to make off the Orange Bowl because we "owned the rights"?) there's often things promised that do not become reality.

Again, it's very understandable to be cautious here... that Orange Bowl deal was one of the worst, most deflating things in recent ACC history (at least since the 2010 TV contract was signed - for 12 long years).

Look, there are reasons for optimism about the ACC Network - but that's not a license to kick those who weren't so optimistic in the past. JMO, though.

(07-19-2016 01:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'll wait on the actual financial and other terms to become a reality before passing judgement. If it's as good as what is being reported this will finally be something positive out of the conference, but as we have seen far too often with this conference (remember when the rainbow and unicorns crowd was bragging about how much money we were going to make off the Orange Bowl because we "owned the rights"?) there's often things promised that do not become reality.

The problems I see is we aren't going to see any benefits for another three years, and we are stuck in a suicide pact for 10 additional years with a bunch of schools who show little to no commitment to improving their football product.

Yeah beat that f'ing drum...BTW, Cuse is spending big bucks to upgrade the Dome, hired an excellent FB coach, and hired an AD with more contacts than any other AD out there. You might readjust your talking points....

(07-19-2016 12:59 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 12:42 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Realistic success for Ragu -- ACC with an unequal distribution of revenue, slanted heavily towards FSU (you know, so they can pay bills and all).

Revenue should be more based on merit. Not heavily slanted

Better schedule for football powers that carry the conference in the biggest revenue sport

Better divisions that are fair Stop letting the coastal trio dictate policy that doesn't maximize assets

Close money to the sec and big 10

Stop treating acc like second class citizens compared to the sec. ESPN acts as their partner. Give them way more passes than they do with fsu

Not that I agree with you on that point - I don't - but how about you tell us what % of revenue each ACC school deserves.

(07-19-2016 12:59 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 12:42 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Realistic success for Ragu -- ACC with an unequal distribution of revenue, slanted heavily towards FSU (you know, so they can pay bills and all).

Revenue should be more based on merit. Not heavily slanted

Sounds like a contradiction because if you go by "merit" than FSU's cut would be heavily slanted.

Again, my point from earlier stands.

(07-19-2016 02:22 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Cuse hired an AD with more contacts than any other AD out there. You might readjust your talking points....

does he know football ...
does he know basketball ...
does he know bo ...

DIDDLY SQUAT

ACC payouts are already adjusted based on merit, to some extent. For example, for 2014-15 the payouts ranged from Florida State ($27.6M) to Syracuse ($24M). This is mainly due to reimbursements for bowls and post-season events --> i.e. accomplishments. You could argue that $3.6M isn't enough of a bonus for winning the ACCCG and going to a playoff game in Pasadena, CA, but that's just implementation of the existing policy.

see also http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2016/0...-team.html

I was one that posted a less than postive message when it looked like no OTA component would be included in the deal. In light of the news coming out now, I am cautiously optimistic.

I am extremely happy to hear about a dedicated OTA channel. I understand the reason for the three year delay, but it is digging a larger hole in comparison to SEC/BIG. It may prove that the longer view the conference is taking will result in more parity in regards to conference monies.

The GOR extension was expected, and I am wary of the consequences. If the monies are there to make the ACC competitive when compared to other deals, then the GOR is a great thing to keep the conference stable. If the monies are lacking, then it will have a tremendous negative effect as time goes by (Pretty much a no-brainer position). It comes down to what the finances work out to be.

As far as all of the bitching and moaning, I understand the viewpoint of there being only a few football-first schools in the conference, and the negatives associated with that. I agree to an extent, but that doesn't mean that I am oblivious to the steps schools have taken to address their football issures.

I am not here to crap on other teams. To be honest, it took Clemson close to 15 years to get serious and open up the purse strings. I think that Syracuse went on the cheap with Shaeffer (SP?), but have made what I think is a great hire both at HC and AD. Couple that with a dome renovation and IPA, and they are now doing pretty much what they can (They could up the ante with increasing support staff). VT was in a tough spot with a living legend as a head coach pretty much like FLST was with Bowden; they could make an immediate bump back into being a power. I do worry about Fuente's recruting at the moment. Pitt has had a bad run with coaches leaving; they have a good one with Narduzzi. Hopefully, they do what is necessary with holding on to him.
UNC has improved on their recruiting, and seem poised to build on their success from last year. Duke has been amazing (for Duke) under Cutcliff.

I recognize the strides that other programs are attempting, and am happy to see it.

With all of that said, yes, Swofford is still a scumbag.

(07-19-2016 02:57 PM)green Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 02:22 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Cuse hired an AD with more contacts than any other AD out there. You might readjust your talking points....

does he know football ...
does he know basketball ...
does he know bo ...

DIDDLY SQUAT

no....he doesn't know crap.

(07-19-2016 03:19 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  I was one that posted a less than postive message when it looked like no OTA component would be included in the deal. In light of the news coming out now, I am cautiously optimistic.

I am extremely happy to hear about a dedicated OTA channel. I understand the reason for the three year delay, but it is digging a larger hole in comparison to SEC/BIG. It may prove that the longer view the conference is taking will result in more parity in regards to conference monies.

The GOR extension was expected, and I am wary of the consequences. If the monies are there to make the ACC competitive when compared to other deals, then the GOR is a great thing to keep the conference stable. If the monies are lacking, then it will have a tremendous negative effect as time goes by (Pretty much a no-brainer position). It comes down to what the finances work out to be.

As far as all of the bitching and moaning, I understand the viewpoint of there being only a few football-first schools in the conference, and the negatives associated with that. I agree to an extent, but that doesn't mean that I am oblivious to the steps schools have taken to address their football issures.

I am not here to crap on other teams. To be honest, it took Clemson close to 15 years to get serious and open up the purse strings. I think that Syracuse went on the cheap with Shaeffer (SP?), but have made what I think is a great hire both at HC and AD. Couple that with a dome renovation and IPA, and they are now doing pretty much what they can (They could up the ante with increasing support staff). VT was in a tough spot with a living legend as a head coach pretty much like FLST was with Bowden; they could make an immediate bump back into being a power. I do worry about Fuente's recruting at the moment. Pitt has had a bad run with coaches leaving; they have a good one with Narduzzi. Hopefully, they do what is necessary with holding on to him.
UNC has improved on their recruiting, and seem poised to build on their success from last year. Duke has been amazing (for Duke) under Cutcliff.

I recognize the strides that other programs are attempting, and am happy to see it.

With all of that said, yes, Swofford is still a scumbag.

Definitely time for him to consider retiring.

Cheers,
Neil

We simply don't have all of the details yet. But even when we do have them and it turns out that we are told the projections are the league will get annually an additional $3-$5 million each as a result of this, there will be those who will see this as the greatest thing since sliced bread and there will be those who will have peni$ envy of the SEC and B1G and moan about the fact that their team is stuck in this miserable conference for at least another 20 years.

As usual, the truth is in the middle, which is why I have always said the best the ACC can strive for is to be third in terms of conference revenue distribution, alternate between second and third in terms of product on the football field and alternate between being first or second in terms of product on the basketball courts.


Neil