Not an anti ND guy.....but full benefits for football but not revenue sharing?
Dear god ACC......you couldn't have worse leadership.
"ACC’s top scheduling model is 10 league games plus 1 nonconference foe, sources told @Stadium. In this format if Notre Dame plays 10 ACC teams, results would count in ACC standings, sources said. Unknown if ND could earn ACC’s Orange Bowl bid. This needs ACC presidential approval"
If Notre Dame is good enough to even be close to a NY6 at large they'll be picked for it because ratings/attendance is more important to nearly every bowl committee than standings and strength of schedule and performance. It's a business more than it is a reward. It would be brain dead to give ND eligibility to the Orange Bowl because it explicitly eliminates an ACC team from the NY6. Forcing ND to not use the Orange Bowl is smarter for the ACC and doesn't actually hurt ND. The point should be to place ND and the ACC in the NY6 every single year and try hard to squeeze two ACC teams and ND into the NY6.
Do they really think they can pull off 10 league game and an OOC game? If that's the case, just drop the FCS games and play out the regular season. The thought that they've been postponing a decision this long over one game is absurd. We'll be lucky to have an 8 game schedule plus 5 games for ND.
Unlikely they get access to CCG and thus the ACC’s side of the Orange Bowl.
(07-24-2020 11:10 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Not an anti ND guy.....but full benefits for football but not revenue sharing?
Dear god ACC......you couldn't have worse leadership.
"ACC’s top scheduling model is 10 league games plus 1 nonconference foe, sources told @Stadium. In this format if Notre Dame plays 10 ACC teams, results would count in ACC standings, sources said. Unknown if ND could earn ACC’s Orange Bowl bid. This needs ACC presidential approval"
What "revenue sharing" ??
ND makes around $30 million a year from TV and conference payouts.
ACC schools make......$30 million a year from TV and conference payouts.
Green would say:
EVEN STEVEN
Um, so would Comcast now add the ACCN? lol
I mean, how independent are they anymore? barely
(07-24-2020 12:54 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]Um, so would Comcast now add the ACCN? lol
I mean, how independent are they anymore? barely
Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
(07-24-2020 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 12:54 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]Um, so would Comcast now add the ACCN? lol
I mean, how independent are they anymore? barely
Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
If Notre Dame played a 10 game schedule against ACC opponents it will raise the value of your contract and ad rates if only for the year.
The pertinent question here is if N.D. competes as if they were full conference members for this year do they only get a conference split of the Orange Bowl or CFP? If they are only keeping the normal conference share of bowl or playoff money then this arrangement clearly favors the ACC. If not it clearly favors N.D.. But either way 10 games against ACC opponents is clearly an upgrade of the normal ACC schedule in addition to getting a couple of extra games out of Clemson and Florida State.
(07-24-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 12:54 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]Um, so would Comcast now add the ACCN? lol
I mean, how independent are they anymore? barely
Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
If Notre Dame played a 10 game schedule against ACC opponents it will raise the value of your contract and ad rates if only for the year.
The pertinent question here is if N.D. competes as if they were full conference members for this year do they only get a conference split of the Orange Bowl or CFP? If they are only keeping the normal conference share of bowl or playoff money then this arrangement clearly favors the ACC. If not it clearly favors N.D..
Rare time I disagree with you.
ND doesn't have a revenue issue. They have a one time schedule issue.
If they get games....they win.
Unless ACC gets a major reduction in the revenue gap.....they lose. Given ND a lifeboat for free is a loss.
(07-24-2020 02:49 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 12:54 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]Um, so would Comcast now add the ACCN? lol
I mean, how independent are they anymore? barely
Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
If Notre Dame played a 10 game schedule against ACC opponents it will raise the value of your contract and ad rates if only for the year.
The pertinent question here is if N.D. competes as if they were full conference members for this year do they only get a conference split of the Orange Bowl or CFP? If they are only keeping the normal conference share of bowl or playoff money then this arrangement clearly favors the ACC. If not it clearly favors N.D..
Rare time I disagree with you.
ND doesn't have a revenue issue. They have a one time schedule issue.
If they get games....they win.
Unless ACC gets a major reduction in the revenue gap.....they lose. Given ND a lifeboat for free is a loss.
It's a question of vantage point Nole. If you are looking at N.D. revenue vs ACC revenue yes it benefits them more to have a solid schedule vs what they would be looking at otherwise. But if you look at it from how much it could boost the viewership and therefore ad rates for the ACC as a whole to add that many higher profile games plus pick up a couple more from Clemson and F.S.U. what the ACC should be insisting on is a bump in revenue for the year. Unusual scheduling should result in unusual payouts.
Plus it's a good test case for seeing what full inclusion of Notre Dame actually would do for the ACC and ESPN should
pay it that way.
I understand your angle and don't disagree, but I see a potentially mutually beneficial angle as well.
(07-24-2020 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:49 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 12:54 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]Um, so would Comcast now add the ACCN? lol
I mean, how independent are they anymore? barely
Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
If Notre Dame played a 10 game schedule against ACC opponents it will raise the value of your contract and ad rates if only for the year.
The pertinent question here is if N.D. competes as if they were full conference members for this year do they only get a conference split of the Orange Bowl or CFP? If they are only keeping the normal conference share of bowl or playoff money then this arrangement clearly favors the ACC. If not it clearly favors N.D..
Rare time I disagree with you.
ND doesn't have a revenue issue. They have a one time schedule issue.
If they get games....they win.
Unless ACC gets a major reduction in the revenue gap.....they lose. Given ND a lifeboat for free is a loss.
It's a question of vantage point Nole. If you are looking at N.D. revenue vs ACC revenue yes it benefits them more to have a solid schedule vs what they would be looking at otherwise. But if you look at it from how much it could boost the viewership and therefore ad rates for the ACC as a whole to add that many higher profile games plus pick up a couple more from Clemson and F.S.U. what the ACC should be insisting on is a bump in revenue for the year. Unusual scheduling should result in unusual payouts.
Plus it's a good test case for seeing what full inclusion of Notre Dame actually would do for the ACC and ESPN should pay it that way.
I understand your angle and don't disagree, but I see a potentially mutually beneficial angle as well.
As long as the ACC is $15-$20 million behind in revenue....there is no benefit.
Only adding ND will close that gap to any signficant degree. GIVING them this benefit makes that unnceccsary.
It makes zero sense in the big picture. I just don't get it. ACC just dying a Big East death.
(07-24-2020 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:49 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 12:54 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]Um, so would Comcast now add the ACCN? lol
I mean, how independent are they anymore? barely
Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
If Notre Dame played a 10 game schedule against ACC opponents it will raise the value of your contract and ad rates if only for the year.
The pertinent question here is if N.D. competes as if they were full conference members for this year do they only get a conference split of the Orange Bowl or CFP? If they are only keeping the normal conference share of bowl or playoff money then this arrangement clearly favors the ACC. If not it clearly favors N.D..
Rare time I disagree with you.
ND doesn't have a revenue issue. They have a one time schedule issue.
If they get games....they win.
Unless ACC gets a major reduction in the revenue gap.....they lose. Given ND a lifeboat for free is a loss.
It's a question of vantage point Nole. If you are looking at N.D. revenue vs ACC revenue yes it benefits them more to have a solid schedule vs what they would be looking at otherwise. But if you look at it from how much it could boost the viewership and therefore ad rates for the ACC as a whole to add that many higher profile games plus pick up a couple more from Clemson and F.S.U. what the ACC should be insisting on is a bump in revenue for the year. Unusual scheduling should result in unusual payouts.
Plus it's a good test case for seeing what full inclusion of Notre Dame actually would do for the ACC and ESPN should pay it that way.
I understand your angle and don't disagree, but I see a potentially mutually beneficial angle as well.
While I haven't heard anything about ESPN agreeing to pay more, that WOULD be the way to go. Why try to get $1 million out of ND when you can get $15M out of ESPN?
(so to speak - I have NO idea what the actual numbers are).
(07-24-2020 03:00 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:49 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
If Notre Dame played a 10 game schedule against ACC opponents it will raise the value of your contract and ad rates if only for the year.
The pertinent question here is if N.D. competes as if they were full conference members for this year do they only get a conference split of the Orange Bowl or CFP? If they are only keeping the normal conference share of bowl or playoff money then this arrangement clearly favors the ACC. If not it clearly favors N.D..
Rare time I disagree with you.
ND doesn't have a revenue issue. They have a one time schedule issue.
If they get games....they win.
Unless ACC gets a major reduction in the revenue gap.....they lose. Given ND a lifeboat for free is a loss.
It's a question of vantage point Nole. If you are looking at N.D. revenue vs ACC revenue yes it benefits them more to have a solid schedule vs what they would be looking at otherwise. But if you look at it from how much it could boost the viewership and therefore ad rates for the ACC as a whole to add that many higher profile games plus pick up a couple more from Clemson and F.S.U. what the ACC should be insisting on is a bump in revenue for the year. Unusual scheduling should result in unusual payouts.
Plus it's a good test case for seeing what full inclusion of Notre Dame actually would do for the ACC and ESPN should pay it that way.
I understand your angle and don't disagree, but I see a potentially mutually beneficial angle as well.
As long as the ACC is $15-$20 million behind in revenue....there is no benefit.
Only adding ND will close that gap to any signficant degree. GIVING them this benefit makes that unnceccsary.
It makes zero sense in the big picture. I just don't get it. ACC just dying a Big East death.
Here's how I see it. Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, N.C. State, North Carolina, Virginia, and frequently Georgia Tech are frequently not compelling games for Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Louisville, and Virginia Tech. So going to 10 games in conference gives ESPN maybe 2 more quality match ups that otherwise didn't exist between those last 5. But it does give them a lot more games against the other 9 which are not ratings bonanzas.
Put Notre Dame in there for 10 games and ESPN (depending upon the year) picks up 2 maybe 3 more Notre Dame games likely arranged against those 5 teams that drive ratings. Salvage the games against the SEC and the value of the 2020 ACC Football Schedule with 11 weeks instead of 12 is higher. Spread those 11 games over the same number of weeks as usual and the drop off in the # of T3 games to be streamed or run by the ACCN is insignificant to the quality of games they have to air.
It makes, just for 2020, everybody more money. N.D's 5 home game improve as well and they should try to get a bump up for those.
I fully agree that it dis-incentivizes them to join in full if they can wangle a sweetheart deal in the midst of a crisis. But if that arrangement allows everyone to make more money in what otherwise could be a disastrous year that's still a win win. Notre Dame has no intentions of joining in full anyway. And quite frankly Notre Dame if in full time could only close that gap about 3 to 3.5 million per school so not significantly enough and the Big 10 would still pay them a lot more.
(07-24-2020 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:49 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 12:54 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]Um, so would Comcast now add the ACCN? lol
I mean, how independent are they anymore? barely
Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
If Notre Dame played a 10 game schedule against ACC opponents it will raise the value of your contract and ad rates if only for the year.
The pertinent question here is if N.D. competes as if they were full conference members for this year do they only get a conference split of the Orange Bowl or CFP? If they are only keeping the normal conference share of bowl or playoff money then this arrangement clearly favors the ACC. If not it clearly favors N.D..
Rare time I disagree with you.
ND doesn't have a revenue issue. They have a one time schedule issue.
If they get games....they win.
Unless ACC gets a major reduction in the revenue gap.....they lose. Given ND a lifeboat for free is a loss.
It's a question of vantage point Nole. If you are looking at N.D. revenue vs ACC revenue yes it benefits them more to have a solid schedule vs what they would be looking at otherwise. But if you look at it from how much it could boost the viewership and therefore ad rates for the ACC as a whole to add that many higher profile games plus pick up a couple more from Clemson and F.S.U. what the ACC should be insisting on is a bump in revenue for the year. Unusual scheduling should result in unusual payouts.
Plus it's a good test case for seeing what full inclusion of Notre Dame actually would do for the ACC and ESPN should pay it that way.
I understand your angle and don't disagree, but I see a potentially mutually beneficial angle as well.
We can't. We signed away all rights to renegotiate our media deal until 2036. Increasing viewership and ad buys does the ACC absolutely no good, thus cowrowing to the parasites this year doesn't either. We should give them the five games they agreed to and tell them to find the rest themselves. They desire independence, then let them be independent.
(07-24-2020 03:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:49 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
If Notre Dame played a 10 game schedule against ACC opponents it will raise the value of your contract and ad rates if only for the year.
The pertinent question here is if N.D. competes as if they were full conference members for this year do they only get a conference split of the Orange Bowl or CFP? If they are only keeping the normal conference share of bowl or playoff money then this arrangement clearly favors the ACC. If not it clearly favors N.D..
Rare time I disagree with you.
ND doesn't have a revenue issue. They have a one time schedule issue.
If they get games....they win.
Unless ACC gets a major reduction in the revenue gap.....they lose. Given ND a lifeboat for free is a loss.
It's a question of vantage point Nole. If you are looking at N.D. revenue vs ACC revenue yes it benefits them more to have a solid schedule vs what they would be looking at otherwise. But if you look at it from how much it could boost the viewership and therefore ad rates for the ACC as a whole to add that many higher profile games plus pick up a couple more from Clemson and F.S.U. what the ACC should be insisting on is a bump in revenue for the year. Unusual scheduling should result in unusual payouts.
Plus it's a good test case for seeing what full inclusion of Notre Dame actually would do for the ACC and ESPN should pay it that way.
I understand your angle and don't disagree, but I see a potentially mutually beneficial angle as well.
We can't. We signed away all rights to renegotiate our media deal until 2036. Increasing viewership and ad buys does the ACC absolutely no good, thus cowrowing to the parasites this year doesn't either. We should give them the five games they agreed to and tell them to find the rest themselves. They desire independence, then let them be independent.
This. I never took issue with their desire. Now they want their cake and eat it too. Pass.
(07-24-2020 03:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:49 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 01:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]Hey now there's some outside the box thinking.
Notre Dame can compete in the ACC standings for the Orange Bowl this year and this year only if NBC/Comcast agrees to carriage of the ACCN.
If Notre Dame played a 10 game schedule against ACC opponents it will raise the value of your contract and ad rates if only for the year.
The pertinent question here is if N.D. competes as if they were full conference members for this year do they only get a conference split of the Orange Bowl or CFP? If they are only keeping the normal conference share of bowl or playoff money then this arrangement clearly favors the ACC. If not it clearly favors N.D..
Rare time I disagree with you.
ND doesn't have a revenue issue. They have a one time schedule issue.
If they get games....they win.
Unless ACC gets a major reduction in the revenue gap.....they lose. Given ND a lifeboat for free is a loss.
It's a question of vantage point Nole. If you are looking at N.D. revenue vs ACC revenue yes it benefits them more to have a solid schedule vs what they would be looking at otherwise. But if you look at it from how much it could boost the viewership and therefore ad rates for the ACC as a whole to add that many higher profile games plus pick up a couple more from Clemson and F.S.U. what the ACC should be insisting on is a bump in revenue for the year. Unusual scheduling should result in unusual payouts.
Plus it's a good test case for seeing what full inclusion of Notre Dame actually would do for the ACC and ESPN should pay it that way.
I understand your angle and don't disagree, but I see a potentially mutually beneficial angle as well.
We can't. We signed away all rights to renegotiate our media deal until 2036. Increasing viewership and ad buys does the ACC absolutely no good, thus cowrowing to the parasites this year doesn't either. We should give them the five games they agreed to and tell them to find the rest themselves. They desire independence, then let them be independent.
You are already beyond the original contract. You have 2 options. Try to negotiate a higher rate of pay for this makeshift schedule which is not the contracted one, or challenge the failure to comply to the original contract as a basis to challenge the GOR, especially if the efforts employed by the conference wind up not being followed uniformly. Hypothetical: The governor of New York prohibits play for New York State schools this fall and the rest of the ACC's states try to put on an abbreviated schedule. Clearly all schools face the same threat but one school in this case would be responding differently. That's different than a tornado taking out a campus and ending a football season for one school in that all faced the same threat but uniformity was not utilized to deal with it and that may constitute a breach of contract as the actions of the one damage the opportunities of the unit.
Besides the monetary difference these days has grown beyond the cost of litigation being a detriment.
Networks and Conference offices will try to gloss over much of this, but the nature of what is happening should have many schools, not just those of the ACC, considering their futures and how best to manage them. The SEC has given any athletes who don't want to play this year an opportunity to opt out without loss of scholarship. This was a smart move because it puts the decision to play on the back of the athlete and not on a school's administration. Ultimately the decisions to play or not play should be a matter decided by the taxpayers of the individual states and not that of structure like a conference or of the Federal Government. This may actually make some key people rethink the whole conference structure.
What we have now is a monkey see monkey do risk management strategy. The Governor of New York should make the call the call there. But that call should not impact the Governor of South Carolina, or Louisiana, or California. If Bureaucrats are in charge then when a big state bails, then the NCAA will bail and the conferences will bail and the local states wind up not having their own say. And while a pandemic offers the possibly the best example on behalf of top down control, it nonetheless sets a precedent which absolutely will be abused to take the power to make decisions on behalf of the states and entities within the states, away from them. And that too has to be acknowledged and the risk belongs to the state.
(07-24-2020 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020 11:10 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Not an anti ND guy.....but full benefits for football but not revenue sharing?
Dear god ACC......you couldn't have worse leadership.
"ACC’s top scheduling model is 10 league games plus 1 nonconference foe, sources told @Stadium. In this format if Notre Dame plays 10 ACC teams, results would count in ACC standings, sources said. Unknown if ND could earn ACC’s Orange Bowl bid. This needs ACC presidential approval"
What "revenue sharing" ??
ND makes around $30 million a year from TV and conference payouts.
ACC schools make......$30 million a year from TV and conference payouts.
green would say:
EVEN STEVEN
I love it ...
THE MORE THE MERRIER
Interesting quote:
As Duke coach David Cutcliffe said earlier this month when I asked him if Notre Dame should be included in the conference’s scheduling plans this season: “If they’re willing to share their [NBC] money, sure. You don’t get something for nothing. I would welcome them as a coach to be a part of ACC football.”
(07-24-2020 03:48 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting quote:
As Duke coach David Cutcliffe said earlier this month when I asked him if Notre Dame should be included in the conference’s scheduling plans this season: “If they’re willing to share their [NBC] money, sure. You don’t get something for nothing. I would welcome them as a coach to be a part of ACC football.”
There is nothing to share. When we host the game, we keep the money. When they host the game, they keep the money. It's pretty simple. This year there are three games.
The ACC gets the money from this years ND games at WF (Charlotte), GT, and Pitt.
Notre Dame needs to be at Miami to close the season. We get the money we both share the media. This replaces the Michigan State game.
Someone who needs their schedule boosted because they lost a good ooc game includes VT and Boston College. One of them needs to go to ND. It's really very simple.
What will more ACC games involving ND do in regards to the ACC Network? Reduce the numbers or add to the number of subscribers?