FSU AD Stan Wilcox told the trustees today that they were in negotiation...and it's coming.
https://twitter.com/fineout/status/535831166260367360
Consistent with what pretty much every official has implied when pressed on the issue. Swofford is the one that's been poor mouthing it the most.
I hope the ACC is playing hardball on the network negotiations, and that's why it's taking so long.
(11-21-2014 01:51 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]FSU AD Stan Wilcox told the trustees today that they were in negotiation...and it's coming.
https://twitter.com/fineout/status/535831166260367360
Consistent with what pretty much every official has implied when pressed on the issue. Swofford is the one that's been poor mouthing it the most.
I hope the ACC is playing hardball on the network negotiations, and that's why it's taking so long.
http://www.heraldsun.com/breakingnews/x7...or-playoff
Swofford also said that the ACC has been “quietly aggressive” in working toward an ACC television channel, similar to the SEC’s venture with ESPN that debuted this year.
-- heraldsun
NINJA NEVER WEAR NAME TAG
I don't understand why people can't see when Swofford is at work. He'll talk something down then all of a sudden..BAM...there it is. He did this with the ND deal and with the GOR among other things. It's just the way he is. I thought the use of the term "quietly aggressive" in the article, is extremely fitting.
(11-21-2014 02:14 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand why people can't see when Swofford is at work. He'll talk something down then all of a sudden..BAM...there it is. He did this with the ND deal and with the GOR among other things. It's just the way he is. I thought the use of the term "quietly aggressive" in the article, is extremely fitting.
Jamin - it's a cultural blind spot.
Swofford's from Wilkesboro, meaning part of him is hillbilly moonshiner at heart. You have to listen to them VERY carefully as they play at words and playing po-mouth is art form.
I watch folks from NW NC and SW Va pick Yankees and "Floridiots" like field hands pick squash or cucumbers all the time.
Nothing of substance is revealed until after the deal is done and you have been hooked.
If Swofford is guaranteeing everyone a channel publicly and getting their hopes up, he would be weakening his negotiating position. ESPN could say "well you have to have a network now no matter what". I'd rather them keep expectations down until something is finalized. I don't see a way to do it without converting Raycom sports though. They pretty much exist to show ACC content.
(11-21-2014 07:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]If Swofford is guaranteeing everyone a channel publicly and getting their hopes up, he would be weakening his negotiating position. ESPN could say "well you have to have a network now no matter what". I'd rather them keep expectations down until something is finalized. I don't see a way to do it without converting Raycom sports though. They pretty much exist to show ACC content.
maybe have espn acc channel while allowing raycom to keep the digital stuff
(11-21-2014 07:13 PM)Chris02M Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]If Swofford is guaranteeing everyone a channel publicly and getting their hopes up, he would be weakening his negotiating position. ESPN could say "well you have to have a network now no matter what". I'd rather them keep expectations down until something is finalized. I don't see a way to do it without converting Raycom sports though. They pretty much exist to show ACC content.
maybe have espn acc channel while allowing raycom to keep the digital stuff
The sec bought back rights to stand up espnsec. No big deal for acc to do the same. Swoff actually said that a while ago. People like to ignore those facts and claim that raycom is a deal killer for the network.
(11-21-2014 07:33 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:13 PM)Chris02M Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]If Swofford is guaranteeing everyone a channel publicly and getting their hopes up, he would be weakening his negotiating position. ESPN could say "well you have to have a network now no matter what". I'd rather them keep expectations down until something is finalized. I don't see a way to do it without converting Raycom sports though. They pretty much exist to show ACC content.
maybe have espn acc channel while allowing raycom to keep the digital stuff
The sec bought back rights to stand up espnsec. No big deal for acc to do the same. Swoff actually said that a while ago. People like to ignore those facts and claim that raycom is a deal killer for the network.
I would just like to say how much I enjoy reading your posts. I've always wanted to hear a Clemson perspective that is not run rose red with hate about Swofford or perceived (or real, perhaps) injustices in the past from the ACC.
(11-21-2014 07:33 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:13 PM)Chris02M Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]If Swofford is guaranteeing everyone a channel publicly and getting their hopes up, he would be weakening his negotiating position. ESPN could say "well you have to have a network now no matter what". I'd rather them keep expectations down until something is finalized. I don't see a way to do it without converting Raycom sports though. They pretty much exist to show ACC content.
maybe have espn acc channel while allowing raycom to keep the digital stuff
The sec bought back rights to stand up espnsec. No big deal for acc to do the same. Swoff actually said that a while ago. People like to ignore those facts and claim that raycom is a deal killer for the network.
Raycom was written into our contract. SEC had side deals. It'd pretty much be the entire Raycom Sports business to take the ACC contract so I think it starts with buying them out.
I'm sure none of you will like my comment, but I'll believe it when I see it at this point.
Second with 'I'll believe it when I see it' mindset.
Most critical of all....and not mentioned in this thread. If it doesn't bring in revenue that is in the same universe as SEC/B1G network....then it doesn't matter.
Meanwhile, FSU is about to lose money in the ACC title game.....AGAIN.
This conference has so many issues to fix, and all we really get are empty Swofford promises of someday, something might happen, and hypothetically, it just might deliver some revenue...maybe.
Just tired of all the rhetoric we heard pre GOR and I see no changes.
(11-21-2014 11:01 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Second with 'I'll believe it when I see it' mindset.
Most critical of all....and not mentioned in this thread. If it doesn't bring in revenue that is in the same universe as SEC/B1G network....then it doesn't matter.
Meanwhile, FSU is about to lose money in the ACC title game.....AGAIN.
This conference has so many issues to fix, and all we really get are empty Swofford promises of someday, something might happen, and hypothetically, it just might deliver some revenue...maybe.
Just tired of all the rhetoric we heard pre GOR and I see no changes.
Patience. Most of the time those promises are not empty. They just happen when you least expect it.
(11-21-2014 11:01 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Second with 'I'll believe it when I see it' mindset.
Most critical of all....and not mentioned in this thread. If it doesn't bring in revenue that is in the same universe as SEC/B1G network....then it doesn't matter.
Meanwhile, FSU is about to lose money in the ACC title game.....AGAIN.
This conference has so many issues to fix, and all we really get are empty Swofford promises of someday, something might happen, and hypothetically, it just might deliver some revenue...maybe.
Just tired of all the rhetoric we heard pre GOR and I see no changes.
If you want to make money on the ACCCG go back to the team you were in Bowden's last years and stay at home during the title game. Then you can make cash money off the game.
Perhaps FSU would not be so financially challenged if you hadn't kept Bowden an extra five years and produced that 38-27 record that helped to undermine the value of the ACC. Now, Miami certainly helped you with that going 37-26 during the same five year period.
It's one thing to have a sense of entitlement when you consistently produce but FSU took nearly a decade off and the ACC paid the price and as a member of the ACC, you are paying the price now. Now, at least you righted your ship, unlike Miami which has never lived up to Miami standards in the ACC.
I realize that conference living is still new to you, but every school has it's niche. Some schools are for football, some for basketball, some for Olympic Sports, some are just cannon fodder for an easy in-conference win. All conferences have that mix.
Quit bitching about your sweetheart deal in the ACC where you get to play in a football conference against schools that don't solely live and die for football (Clemson and VT excluded) such that they pour all their resources into football. If you had to play in the SEC you would be eating one to two additional losses per year. And you would be one of the great football schools in the SEC, but not THE school.
You have the best of all worlds, in the ACC, yet you continue to ***** and moan. Recognize the good deal that you have and appreciate it for a change.
(11-21-2014 11:01 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Second with 'I'll believe it when I see it' mindset.
Most critical of all....and not mentioned in this thread. If it doesn't bring in revenue that is in the same universe as SEC/B1G network....then it doesn't matter.
Meanwhile, FSU is about to lose money in the ACC title game.....AGAIN.
This conference has so many issues to fix, and all we really get are empty Swofford promises of someday, something might happen, and hypothetically, it just might deliver some revenue...maybe.
Just tired of all the rhetoric we heard pre GOR and I see no changes.
Poor f'ing baby...your university might lose some money.
(11-21-2014 09:56 PM)ringmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:33 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:13 PM)Chris02M Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]If Swofford is guaranteeing everyone a channel publicly and getting their hopes up, he would be weakening his negotiating position. ESPN could say "well you have to have a network now no matter what". I'd rather them keep expectations down until something is finalized. I don't see a way to do it without converting Raycom sports though. They pretty much exist to show ACC content.
maybe have espn acc channel while allowing raycom to keep the digital stuff
The sec bought back rights to stand up espnsec. No big deal for acc to do the same. Swoff actually said that a while ago. People like to ignore those facts and claim that raycom is a deal killer for the network.
I would just like to say how much I enjoy reading your posts. I've always wanted to hear a Clemson perspective that is not run rose red with hate about Swofford or perceived (or real, perhaps) injustices in the past from the ACC.
My opinion: The extra year of probation was wrong, but I don't believe Swofford had anything to do with that. All those guys are gone. It was over 30 years ago. Our current situation is this: the sec won't invite us, so the next best place is a healthy, thriving acc. I just don't see an anti Clemson conspiracy in the duke-UNC-UVA administration. I could be wrong. I get the feeling that there is great unity after trading up for Louisville, the GOR and now the coming network. I could be way off, but that's what I read between the lines.
(11-21-2014 11:01 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Most critical of all....and not mentioned in this thread. If it doesn't bring in revenue that is in the same universe as SEC/B1G network....then it doesn't matter.
can't put a price tag on an intangible asset such as brand exposure ...
all things ACC ...
24/7/365 ...
what's it worth ...
I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT
perhaps I missed the memo ...
but why can't we syndicate ACC network over-the-air & on a dedicated channel ...
why must we choose one or the other ...
why must we exclude raycom, an integral partner ...
just asking ...
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
(11-22-2014 11:10 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 09:56 PM)ringmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:33 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:13 PM)Chris02M Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2014 07:11 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]If Swofford is guaranteeing everyone a channel publicly and getting their hopes up, he would be weakening his negotiating position. ESPN could say "well you have to have a network now no matter what". I'd rather them keep expectations down until something is finalized. I don't see a way to do it without converting Raycom sports though. They pretty much exist to show ACC content.
maybe have espn acc channel while allowing raycom to keep the digital stuff
The sec bought back rights to stand up espnsec. No big deal for acc to do the same. Swoff actually said that a while ago. People like to ignore those facts and claim that raycom is a deal killer for the network.
I would just like to say how much I enjoy reading your posts. I've always wanted to hear a Clemson perspective that is not run rose red with hate about Swofford or perceived (or real, perhaps) injustices in the past from the ACC.
My opinion: The extra year of probation was wrong, but I don't believe Swofford had anything to do with that. All those guys are gone. It was over 30 years ago. Our current situation is this: the sec won't invite us, so the next best place is a healthy, thriving acc. I just don't see an anti Clemson conspiracy in the duke-UNC-UVA administration. I could be wrong. I get the feeling that there is great unity after trading up for Louisville, the GOR and now the coming network. I could be way off, but that's what I read between the lines.
Swofford had nothing to do with the extra year that the ACC subcommittee levied onto Clemson. He was a newbie and the committee was mostly academics and faculty advisors, not even the AD's. The extra year was for the cash money that was supposedly changing hands. Then Clemson did not appeal the extra year as they should have, nor did the ACC office properly schedule what in the past had been an automatic appeal. It was not handled properly all around but the crux as I remember was cash that had touched the coaching staff not just an alum bag man.
Times were different back then, the ACC had just come out of the deemphasis decades of football that Duke pushed through in 1962 with the 800 rule.
