(05-22-2017 03:04 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 11:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 04:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To be fair, it would be bigger news if he had said "we are hosed" (not that I think that is the case).

Fortunately, there are some mitigating factors in the meantime...

1. For 2017, the ACC gets Orange Bowl money but the Sugar and Rose bowls are semi-finals. True, unless Notre Dame is it, either the SEC or B1G will get OB money, but at least one of them won't... And if it's the B1G, the ACC gets Citrus bowl money.

2. All ACC teams get the $3 million "no network" money. That is for 2018 also.

BOTTOM LINE: 2017 should be fine, though there will be a significant shortfall in 18.

The sooner the OB is renegotiated, the better we'll be. That deal was/is an unmitigated disaster. I'm sure there was a backstory to it, but I haven't heard it.

ACC football was pretty much a disaster the entirety of the 10 previous years before the OB contract was negotiated.

Swofford was definitely not working in a position of leverage.

What I don't understand is why do you evenly split with the 2nd or 3rd choice from the Big 10 and SEC as others asked? It would have still been lucrative for those conference if the split was 35 Million to the ACC and 20 Million to the others.

AS it is now, it's 27.5 Million 27.5 Million.

The ACC wasn't in a position of power so it may have needed support.

The ACC signed a suspiciously and obviously bad deal.

Either we tanked the negotiations, or we bought something for some reason that almost certainly stems from our position of weakness.

I tend to believe we bought something for some reason. I would, however, A) like to confirm that, B) figure out what the something was, and C) figure out the some reason.

(05-22-2017 04:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Easiest way to avoid to an embarrassing situation where they passed over a Big 12 or PAC-12 team was simply not to have them in the contract (which they probably viewed as more likely to happen or would have included them). Based on the time period, I am not even completely confident even the Big Ten would have been included if not for the Citrus.

Agree with this...there's no way they want to face TCU instead of Ohio State, even if TCU is ranked #5 and Ohio State is ranked #9. That's the situation they've got to avoid...combination of too-small brands and too far away.

I agree with others though, I'll never understand the 50/50 split. I do appreciate that the ACC was in a bad spot, and maybe the B1G/SEC just played hardball. What's the alternative for the Orange Bowl...the AAC?

I kind of think the best all-around situation would be an arrangement where the SEC, ACC and Big 12 share the Orange and Sugar to get the two best possible matchups.

(05-22-2017 04:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Look at the teams who are there though. They have the SEC who was top of the world when this was negotiated, they have Big Ten which has a good folowing and gives up the highly lucrative Citrus Bowl when in it, and they have arguably the most powerful team brand in Notre Dame. Each of these three want in the Orange Bowl rather than the at large NY6 bowls as the Orange pays significantly more. The PAC-12 and Big 12 were not happy being left out of this. I am pretty sure there were articles at the time. Will look and see if I can find one.

Edit: they could have made special rules with each conference. I discounted that more than I should have. That said, there is clearly a desire to both get top brands and show they are not being partial to anyone which is why they take the top ranked at large as long as it works in the contact and it is not a rematch. Easiest way to avoid to an embarrassing situation where they passed over a Big 12 or PAC-12 team was simply not to have them in the contract (which they probably viewed as more likely to happen or would have included them). Based on the time period, I am not even completely confident even the Big Ten would have been included if not for the Citrus.

The "not giving specific teams special treatment" is true in the narrow confines in which you said it. True. But I think it's a stretch to apply it as a general rule (see ND).

And the best way of ensuring the best available team plays in the bowl is to get the biggest possible pool and claim the first pick.

The ACC/OB didn't do that. Instead, they created a system that benefitted the B1G/SEC, and I'm curious as to why.

(05-22-2017 04:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 04:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Look at the teams who are there though. They have the SEC who was top of the world when this was negotiated, they have Big Ten which has a good folowing and gives up the highly lucrative Citrus Bowl when in it, and they have arguably the most powerful team brand in Notre Dame. Each of these three want in the Orange Bowl rather than the at large NY6 bowls as the Orange pays significantly more. The PAC-12 and Big 12 were not happy being left out of this. I am pretty sure there were articles at the time. Will look and see if I can find one.

Edit: they could have made special rules with each conference. I discounted that more than I should have. That said, there is clearly a desire to both get top brands and show they are not being partial to anyone which is why they take the top ranked at large as long as it works in the contact and it is not a rematch. Easiest way to avoid to an embarrassing situation where they passed over a Big 12 or PAC-12 team was simply not to have them in the contract (which they probably viewed as more likely to happen or would have included them). Based on the time period, I am not even completely confident even the Big Ten would have been included if not for the Citrus.

The "not giving specific teams special treatment" is true in the narrow confines in which you said it. True. But I think it's a stretch to apply it as a general rule (see ND).

And the best way of ensuring the best available team plays in the bowl is to get the biggest possible pool and claim the first pick.

The ACC/OB didn't do that. Instead, they created a system that benefitted the B1G/SEC, and I'm curious as to why.

How about to get the BIGGER name brands that will TRAVEL. To get the spot in the B1G or SEC you are gong to have to be a Big name, the smaller schools are not getting the spot.

In the PAC or B12, you have the chance of TCU, Baylor, Kansas State or Utah, Washington that will not travel well.

(05-26-2017 04:36 PM)spenser Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 04:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 04:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Look at the teams who are there though. They have the SEC who was top of the world when this was negotiated, they have Big Ten which has a good folowing and gives up the highly lucrative Citrus Bowl when in it, and they have arguably the most powerful team brand in Notre Dame. Each of these three want in the Orange Bowl rather than the at large NY6 bowls as the Orange pays significantly more. The PAC-12 and Big 12 were not happy being left out of this. I am pretty sure there were articles at the time. Will look and see if I can find one.

Edit: they could have made special rules with each conference. I discounted that more than I should have. That said, there is clearly a desire to both get top brands and show they are not being partial to anyone which is why they take the top ranked at large as long as it works in the contact and it is not a rematch. Easiest way to avoid to an embarrassing situation where they passed over a Big 12 or PAC-12 team was simply not to have them in the contract (which they probably viewed as more likely to happen or would have included them). Based on the time period, I am not even completely confident even the Big Ten would have been included if not for the Citrus.

The "not giving specific teams special treatment" is true in the narrow confines in which you said it. True. But I think it's a stretch to apply it as a general rule (see ND).

And the best way of ensuring the best available team plays in the bowl is to get the biggest possible pool and claim the first pick.

The ACC/OB didn't do that. Instead, they created a system that benefitted the B1G/SEC, and I'm curious as to why.

How about to get the BIGGER name brands that will TRAVEL. To get the spot in the B1G or SEC you are gong to have to be a Big name, the smaller schools are not getting the spot.

In the PAC or B12, you have the chance of TCU, Baylor, Kansas State or Utah, Washington that will not travel well.

Not really. If you want big names that travel, open it up to as many schools as possible and take first pick. Pass over the Baylors and TCUs of the world, and pounce on the UTs and OUs.

Washington will travel if its team is doing well; it's Washington State that doesn't travel very well because it has a small fanbase to begin with. Oregon also travels well, don't really know about Oregon State. I've seen an Oregon State fan post on here so maybe he/she could enlighten us.