(06-06-2015 10:03 PM)nole Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 08:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also think that the ACC should drop almost all recruiting/academic limitations to the NCAA minimum.* SU and BC should be allowed to participate in camps in Maryland and New Jersey, Pitt and UL should be allowed to participate in camps in Ohio, and Clemson should be allowed to participate in camps in Louisiana (I know LA was a recruiting target of their several years ago).

Finally, the ACC needs to start defending schools from the NCAA (this point should resonate with Clemson fans). SEC schools almost overtly pay players and PSU almost literally got away with murder, but SU gets annihilated over about $4,000-$5,000 and an isolated instance of a secretary writing a paper for a kid (who got benched almost immediately thereafter).

*I can understand a restriction against participating in a non-home state that's a home state of another ACC member school, but a blanket restriction is too strong.

I agree with you.

The fact the bold even needs to be said illustrates decades of dysfunction in the ACC. The same people are running things.

Yeah, you know what this conference needs? More Cheating!!!

(06-07-2015 12:46 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 10:03 PM)nole Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 08:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also think that the ACC should drop almost all recruiting/academic limitations to the NCAA minimum.* SU and BC should be allowed to participate in camps in Maryland and New Jersey, Pitt and UL should be allowed to participate in camps in Ohio, and Clemson should be allowed to participate in camps in Louisiana (I know Clemson was targeting LA several years ago).

Finally, the ACC needs to start defending schools from the NCAA (this point should resonate with Clemson fans). SEC schools almost overtly pay players and PSU almost literally got away with murder, but SU gets annihilated over about $4,000-$5,000 and an isolated instance of a secretary writing a paper for a kid (who got benched almost immediately thereafter).

*I can understand a restriction against participating in a non-home state that's a home state of another ACC member school, but a blanket restriction is too strong.

I agree with you.

The fact the bold even needs to be said illustrates decades of dysfunction in the ACC. The same people are running things.

Yeah, you know what this conference needs? More Cheating!!!

No. We just need punishments that are in line with everyone else's.

(06-07-2015 02:03 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 12:46 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 10:03 PM)nole Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 08:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also think that the ACC should drop almost all recruiting/academic limitations to the NCAA minimum.* SU and BC should be allowed to participate in camps in Maryland and New Jersey, Pitt and UL should be allowed to participate in camps in Ohio, and Clemson should be allowed to participate in camps in Louisiana (I know Clemson was targeting LA several years ago).

Finally, the ACC needs to start defending schools from the NCAA (this point should resonate with Clemson fans). SEC schools almost overtly pay players and PSU almost literally got away with murder, but SU gets annihilated over about $4,000-$5,000 and an isolated instance of a secretary writing a paper for a kid (who got benched almost immediately thereafter).

*I can understand a restriction against participating in a non-home state that's a home state of another ACC member school, but a blanket restriction is too strong.

I agree with you.

The fact the bold even needs to be said illustrates decades of dysfunction in the ACC. The same people are running things.

Yeah, you know what this conference needs? More Cheating!!!

No. We just need punishments that are in line with everyone else's.

Exactly.

Look, the last school that stood on high and demanded more integrity by punishing a school beyond what the NCAA did, just got hammered with the worst academic infraction in NCAA history.

I can't stand cheating.....but when you look at things in the real world, and over time, and outside of idealism......you understand things are more complicated.


For one.....the way to fix things is not to watch the NCAA ignore SEC cheating while going after light weights and believe this will have a positive impact on cheating....it won't. It has only made the SEC more powerful and cheating more ingrained.

IF you are truly concerned about cheating, the ONLY answer is for comprehensive NCAA reform.....NOT pushing for a single conference to be tougher on it's own than other conferences are.


Finally, it isn't exactly ethical for a school to pretend they are beyond reproach in one breath and in the next count the $$$$$$ their conference partners earned competing and living in the real world. Don't believe for a second that first school is free of conscience....they arent'.

(06-06-2015 07:44 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Or maybe FSU needs to improve basketbal AND the acc STILL needs to reward the schools that are actually bringing in the revenue...

FSU just renovated the interior of the arena. It's already well into the planning stage to completely reinvent the basketball arena "area". That includes more than doubling the practice facility size, building academic buildings on the adjacent property, as well as a hotel, conference center, and potentially mixed use dorm/retail on site as well.

Our current AD has been anything but impressive, but it was said he was brought on board to help with the basketball program. If he can just get the program to a point where it's ranked at some point in the season the majority of the time, I'd consider his tenure fairly successful. Hopefully that translates to higher attendance and increased basketball sales and contributions.

We just signed a top 5ish class and look to land another highly ranked class in 2016, something we were unable to do the last few years despite making 4 straight ncaat and a sweet sixteen.

With basketball, we kind if find ourselves with a coach who isn't a good x and o's guy but is a pretty solid recruiter and built the program back up to respectability after current unc assistant Steve Robinson literally cratered the program. It's not a stretch to say we were the 9th best (aka the worst) team in the conference during the late 90s/early 00s before her took over. He's kind of too good to fire, given our history, but too bad to really energize the fan base. I can only hope we hire some hot shot young coach in a few years once Hamilton eventually retires and see if we can catch lightning in a bottle. And yes, FSU must have competitive facilities and offer a competitive salary in order to hire a quality going coach liked that. Hopefully that's what we're doing, getting things on place for that future hire.

Again, FSU knows it can and must improve from within, and it's making the attempt and investment. And I have never said the acc needs to improve school specific factors like basketball, ticket sales and booster contributions. But my question is what is the acc doing to improve itself and remain competitive and viable into the future?

Thanks for the updates on what FSU is doing in terms of basketball.

You're bolded statement is a good question. Will we even know what the ACC conference office is doing though until something is accomplished?

Is the incentive program actually being considered? Is the league waiting for the change in the rules prior to using either a 9-game conference schedule or a 3-5-5 scheduling model as a carrot to ESPN to try and get the ACCN up and running? Is Texas with an ND-type deal still being pursued behind the scenes? What else is or can be done?

And even if all of the above is at least being pursued, will the league get the required votes to pass these things within the conference or get the outside support needed (ESPN, Texas) to bring about those things not entirely within the conference's ability to bring about?

Cheers,
Neil

(06-06-2015 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  It will be interesting to see how Texas shakes out. I don't think that their minimum payments from the LHN are inflation-adjusted. That means there will come a day where their profits from the network will primarily/heavily float with the network's success. When that day comes, scheduling flexibility in football, membership in a conference with strong Olympic sports, and increased TV inventory will be at a premium. Those factors, along with the ACC's academic reputation, east coast exposure, and excellence in pretty much everything but football will make a ND-type deal with Texas extremely attractive. As such, Texas and the ACC will be in a position where UTex either takes the deal and both parties benefit, or UTex uses the credible threat of jumping to the ACC as leverage in the Big XII (the more likely outcome), and Texas benefits and the B1G XII takes a major hit (indirectly benefiting the ACC vis-a-vis the Big XII).

Solely from an ESPN perspective, I think they keep paying on the LHN even if it is losing $$$ for them precisely because of the potential for an ND-type deal for the Longhorns with the ACC.

If that ever were to come about, then the LHN morphs into the equivalent of ND's NBC deal in terms of home football games being on ABC/ESPN and the olympic sports stuff goes to an ACCN.

If ESPN were solely interested in profit from the LHN, it would have gone belly up by now, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

We've heard about 9-game talks and ACCN "talks" prior to them happening. Though one was reversed (because of ND) before it ever actually occurred and the other has been "in talks" for years" with no apparent signs of progress.

I don't think anyone believes an incentive program is even being discussed. And a 9-game schedule is NOT what the biggest football schools want. You can change the scheduling to create more quality matchups without having to add a 9th game.

Incentives, scheduling changes and a network can be done. But the first seems DOA. The second, if changes were to be made, would appear to be the WRONG changes (ie, adding a 9th game instead of reorganizing "divisions"/pods). And the third is a big cluster at this point, as far as I can tell.

Will the ACC have the votes to improve itself on these matters? That we even have to ask that question tells you all you need to know about the answer to my question that you bolded earlier.

(06-07-2015 10:08 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  We've heard about 9-game talks and ACCN "talks" prior to them happening. Though one was reversed (because of ND) before it ever actually occurred and the other has been "in talks" for years" with no apparent signs of progress.

I don't think anyone believes an incentive program is even being discussed. And a 9-game schedule is NOT what the biggest football schools want. You can change the scheduling to create more quality matchups without having to add a 9th game.

Incentives, scheduling changes and a network can be done. But the first seems DOA. The second, if changes were to be made, would appear to be the WRONG changes (ie, adding a 9th game instead of reorganizing "divisions"/pods). And the third is a big cluster at this point, as far as I can tell.

Will the ACC have the votes to improve itself on these matters? That we even have to ask that question tells you all you need to know about the answer to my question that you bolded earlier.

Not disagreeing with anything you have said. But as Hokie Mark showed in his post, if the things needed to get done are so obvious, why aren't the votes there? It seems to me it's got to be more than the Tobacco Road crowd, even if one assumes they are voting as a bloc, which past ACC votes would seem to suggest is not always even the case.

Anyway, I think we are in a wait and see mode until the rule change is made or actual progress on the ACCN is made or perhaps both if they are indeed tied together.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-07-2015 10:04 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  It will be interesting to see how Texas shakes out. I don't think that their minimum payments from the LHN are inflation-adjusted. That means there will come a day where their profits from the network will primarily/heavily float with the network's success. When that day comes, scheduling flexibility in football, membership in a conference with strong Olympic sports, and increased TV inventory will be at a premium. Those factors, along with the ACC's academic reputation, east coast exposure, and excellence in pretty much everything but football will make a ND-type deal with Texas extremely attractive. As such, Texas and the ACC will be in a position where UTex either takes the deal and both parties benefit, or UTex uses the credible threat of jumping to the ACC as leverage in the Big XII (the more likely outcome), and Texas benefits and the B1G XII takes a major hit (indirectly benefiting the ACC vis-a-vis the Big XII).

Solely from an ESPN perspective, I think they keep paying on the LHN even if it is losing $$$ for them precisely because of the potential for an ND-type deal for the Longhorns with the ACC.

If that ever were to come about, then the LHN morphs into the equivalent of ND's NBC deal in terms of home football games being on ABC/ESPN and the olympic sports stuff goes to an ACCN.

If ESPN were solely interested in profit from the LHN, it would have gone belly up by now, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

It may be cheaper to lose a little money each year that take a massive bath in a contract buyout. I really don't know the specifics, but I think that convincing UTexas to jump conferences is a bold move. It could happen, but the Big XII would likely bend over backwards to stop it, and the Big XII inherently offers Texas a ton of in-state games (Baylor, TCU, and TTech), and regional games (OU an OSU). Pushed to the wall, I can see the Big XII offering Texas a ND deal where they play OU every year and TTech + TCU + KSU + WVU one year and OSU + Baylor + ISU + KU the next. That offer would be very hard for the ACC to beat, especially given that Texas basketball would keep those 5 Texas/Oklahoma games as H&H's on their schedule and get yearly H&H's with KU and KSU (with ISU and WVU being very solid odd teams out of the bunch). However, bending that much to Texas would hammer *all* the other Big XII teams not named OU (they would likely get an extra large cut of league's revenue, given their bargaining power would be through the roof).

(06-07-2015 10:20 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 10:04 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  It will be interesting to see how Texas shakes out. I don't think that their minimum payments from the LHN are inflation-adjusted. That means there will come a day where their profits from the network will primarily/heavily float with the network's success. When that day comes, scheduling flexibility in football, membership in a conference with strong Olympic sports, and increased TV inventory will be at a premium. Those factors, along with the ACC's academic reputation, east coast exposure, and excellence in pretty much everything but football will make a ND-type deal with Texas extremely attractive. As such, Texas and the ACC will be in a position where UTex either takes the deal and both parties benefit, or UTex uses the credible threat of jumping to the ACC as leverage in the Big XII (the more likely outcome), and Texas benefits and the B1G XII takes a major hit (indirectly benefiting the ACC vis-a-vis the Big XII).

Solely from an ESPN perspective, I think they keep paying on the LHN even if it is losing $$$ for them precisely because of the potential for an ND-type deal for the Longhorns with the ACC.

If that ever were to come about, then the LHN morphs into the equivalent of ND's NBC deal in terms of home football games being on ABC/ESPN and the olympic sports stuff goes to an ACCN.

If ESPN were solely interested in profit from the LHN, it would have gone belly up by now, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

It may be cheaper to lose a little money each year that take a massive bath in a contract buyout. I really don't know the specifics, but I think that convincing UTexas to jump conferences is a bold move. It could happen, but the Big XII would likely bend over backwards to stop it, and the Big XII inherently offers Texas a ton of in-state games (Baylor, TCU, and TTech), and regional games (OU an OSU). Pushed to the wall, I can see the Big XII offering Texas a ND deal where they play OU every year and TTech + TCU + KSU + WVU one year and OSU + Baylor + ISU + KU the next. That offer would be very hard for the ACC to beat, especially given that Texas basketball would keep those 5 Texas/Oklahoma games as H&H's on their schedule and get yearly H&H's with KU and KSU (with ISU and WVU being very solid odd teams out of the bunch). However, bending that much to Texas would hammer *all* the other Big XII teams not named OU (they would likely get an extra large cut of league's revenue, given their bargaining power would be through the roof).

That could indeed happen as well, if OU is willing to swallow its pride. I don't think they could, which is probably why I never thought of it myself. Doesn't change my main point though, which is that the LHN is likely here to stay since ESPN wants to stay on Texas' good side.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-07-2015 10:37 AM)omniorange Wrote:  That could indeed happen as well, if OU is willing to swallow its pride. I don't think they could, which is probably why I never thought of it myself. Doesn't change my main point though, which is that the LHN is likely here to stay since ESPN wants to stay on Texas' good side.

Cheers,
Neil

You may know something that I don't, but I'd be willing to bet that ESPN, Texas, and the LHN signed a contract where, in a nutshell, Texas would contribute TV inventory and the LHN would pay Texas $x mm/yr plus 50% of the profits after $2x mm. I'd also be willing to bet that ESPN guaranteed that debt. As such, ESPN could be looking at a situation where they either close up shop and pay Texas something like $50 million now, or keep it going and lose $5 million/yr for the next 10 years, with the chance of the LHN taking off. Out of the two, keeping the channel running is clearly the better option, even though it is "costing them money" on paper. Economically, it is making them a ton compared to the opportunity cost because they get to enjoy the benefits of the time value of money on their money, and they get to hold out for the possibility of the network taking off.

You may be right about OU, though. However, if they get crazy concessions, too (i.e. very unequal revenue sharing), I can see a world where they swallow their pride and resent UTexas even more.

(06-07-2015 10:37 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 10:20 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 10:04 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  It will be interesting to see how Texas shakes out. I don't think that their minimum payments from the LHN are inflation-adjusted. That means there will come a day where their profits from the network will primarily/heavily float with the network's success. When that day comes, scheduling flexibility in football, membership in a conference with strong Olympic sports, and increased TV inventory will be at a premium. Those factors, along with the ACC's academic reputation, east coast exposure, and excellence in pretty much everything but football will make a ND-type deal with Texas extremely attractive. As such, Texas and the ACC will be in a position where UTex either takes the deal and both parties benefit, or UTex uses the credible threat of jumping to the ACC as leverage in the Big XII (the more likely outcome), and Texas benefits and the B1G XII takes a major hit (indirectly benefiting the ACC vis-a-vis the Big XII).

Solely from an ESPN perspective, I think they keep paying on the LHN even if it is losing $$$ for them precisely because of the potential for an ND-type deal for the Longhorns with the ACC.

If that ever were to come about, then the LHN morphs into the equivalent of ND's NBC deal in terms of home football games being on ABC/ESPN and the olympic sports stuff goes to an ACCN.

If ESPN were solely interested in profit from the LHN, it would have gone belly up by now, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

It may be cheaper to lose a little money each year that take a massive bath in a contract buyout. I really don't know the specifics, but I think that convincing UTexas to jump conferences is a bold move. It could happen, but the Big XII would likely bend over backwards to stop it, and the Big XII inherently offers Texas a ton of in-state games (Baylor, TCU, and TTech), and regional games (OU an OSU). Pushed to the wall, I can see the Big XII offering Texas a ND deal where they play OU every year and TTech + TCU + KSU + WVU one year and OSU + Baylor + ISU + KU the next. That offer would be very hard for the ACC to beat, especially given that Texas basketball would keep those 5 Texas/Oklahoma games as H&H's on their schedule and get yearly H&H's with KU and KSU (with ISU and WVU being very solid odd teams out of the bunch). However, bending that much to Texas would hammer *all* the other Big XII teams not named OU (they would likely get an extra large cut of league's revenue, given their bargaining power would be through the roof).

That could indeed happen as well, if OU is willing to swallow its pride. I don't think they could, which is probably why I never thought of it myself. Doesn't change my main point though, which is that the LHN is likely here to stay since ESPN wants to stay on Texas' good side.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas is one of the few schools that could actually move into any of the P5 conferences.
I'm sure that the PAC, B1G and SEC would love to add Texas to their conference roster. A move to the ACC, even though there is some institutional compatibility (discounting student population) would insure Texas' availability to ESPN for a long time.
BTW Texas and Carolina just renewed their basketball series for the coming year.

SEC is the only fit for TX. Maybe PAC as a distant second beating the Big by a nose. Just don't see TX playing football up in the far Northeast. The travel is ugly and there's just no commonality with the culture. Not saying the SEC thing ever happens for several reasons.

(06-08-2015 09:59 AM)RedGrad Wrote:  SEC is the only fit for TX. Maybe PAC as a distant second beating the Big by a nose. Just don't see TX playing football up in the far Northeast. The travel is ugly and there's just no commonality with the culture. Not saying the SEC thing ever happens for several reasons.

I don't see 1 trip to the northeast every other year as a problem for Texas.

(06-08-2015 09:59 AM)RedGrad Wrote:  SEC is the only fit for TX. Maybe PAC as a distant second beating the Big by a nose. Just don't see TX playing football up in the far Northeast. The travel is ugly and there's just no commonality with the culture. Not saying the SEC thing ever happens for several reasons.

I don't see Texas following A & M to the SEC, Texas will not want to be viewed as a follower of anything A&M does.

(06-09-2015 12:40 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 09:59 AM)RedGrad Wrote:  SEC is the only fit for TX. Maybe PAC as a distant second beating the Big by a nose. Just don't see TX playing football up in the far Northeast. The travel is ugly and there's just no commonality with the culture. Not saying the SEC thing ever happens for several reasons.

Couldn't you easily look at it as Texas spreading its brand to the northeast also?

That might be appealing to the administration but Texas fans would hate that more than FSU and Clemson fans do.

I had deleted my comment because I decided I didn't care enough to discuss it. I dislike playing BOTH Cuse and BC every year while playing GT once every six years. That's the issue. Let's not twist what FSU fans are complaining about.

And Texas wouldn't just join the ACC without some of their own crew, so it's not a big deal. And if they were to join as an ND, they would rarely/never be playing all of the northern teams in the same year. So it's not an actual issue. Another strawman that this board is so great/terrible at.

So I guess now I'm done discussing Texas and the northeast.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ey-revenue




From the link:

Quote:“The one thing that we would never take to the bank on any rights deal we do is how things will pan out competitively. That’s out of everyone’s control,” Magnus said. “It’s been interesting that there’s been a fair amount of transition at the university [two new revenue-sport head coaches, new athletic director, new president], but when we got into this, we got comfortable with a very long term approach. Channel deals tend to be of that ilk; you don’t make a three- or five-year deal.

“The reason we were so comfortable with Texas and remain so is that regardless of the last four years of performance on the field, their track record speaks for itself over decades. We don’t worry about that because if we did, that’s all we would worry about, whether it was Texas or the SEC or the NFL or the NBA.

now we are good.

(06-09-2015 05:26 PM)Dasville Wrote:  http://seattlesunpost.com/2015/06/the-lo...chool-did/


From the link:

Quote:“The one thing that we would never take to the bank on any rights deal we do is how things will pan out competitively. That’s out of everyone’s control,” Magnus said. “It’s been interesting that there’s been a fair amount of transition at the university [two new revenue-sport head coaches, new athletic director, new president], but when we got into this, we got comfortable with a very long term approach. Channel deals tend to be of that ilk; you don’t make a three- or five-year deal.

“The reason we were so comfortable with Texas and remain so is that regardless of the last four years of performance on the field, their track record speaks for itself over decades. We don’t worry about that because if we did, that’s all we would worry about, whether it was Texas or the SEC or the NFL or the NBA.

Good for Texas. But ouch for the ACC.

Makes one wonder if Miami, VT, GT, Pitt, and SU got "back on track", if ESPN would even care. Apparently there are track records and then there are track records.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-09-2015 12:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I had deleted my comment because I decided I didn't care enough to discuss it. I dislike playing BOTH Cuse and BC every year while playing GT once every six years. That's the issue. Let's not twist what FSU fans are complaining about.

And Texas wouldn't just join the ACC without some of their own crew, so it's not a big deal. And if they were to join as an ND, they would rarely/never be playing all of the northern teams in the same year. So it's not an actual issue. Another strawman that this board is so great/terrible at.

So I guess now I'm done discussing Texas and the northeast.

And I, myself, see that as a reasonable statement to make. I dislike FSU and Clemson every year while only getting Miami, VT, and GT once every six years.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-09-2015 05:46 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 12:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I had deleted my comment because I decided I didn't care enough to discuss it. I dislike playing BOTH Cuse and BC every year while playing GT once every six years. That's the issue. Let's not twist what FSU fans are complaining about.

And Texas wouldn't just join the ACC without some of their own crew, so it's not a big deal. And if they were to join as an ND, they would rarely/never be playing all of the northern teams in the same year. So it's not an actual issue. Another strawman that this board is so great/terrible at.

So I guess now I'm done discussing Texas and the northeast.

And I, myself, see that as a reasonable statement to make. I dislike FSU and Clemson every year while only getting Miami, VT, and GT once every six years.

Cheers,
Neil

'Tis shity leadership and scheduling. Plain and simple.