(04-20-2016 07:52 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  No you can't have Tom....

I am really dumb at this, but it seems as though the ACC needs to either amp-up big-time the ESPN/ABC/Disney contract immediately or face the likely possibility of losing 2 to 4 of their members to the Big Ten within 2 academic years. Irrespective of GOR implications.

The ACC can try to expand west & bring in more brands with larger fan bases & national appeal to strengthen their position in negotiations or stay eastern & hope that the status quo doesn't change. Maybe even bring in a couple more eastern programs with regional brands should the ACC survive the next round of realignment but continue to struggle financially versus the big 2. The only available programs out there that would bring additional strength to the ACC are Notre Dame, Texas & Oklahoma.

A big reason why ACC presidents support Swofford, and are happy to have him as their Commissioner, is that he is much smarter than his critics. One way he demonstrates that is by remaining focused on helping those presidents achieve their institutional goals through athletics, rather than allowing athletic superiority to become a goal in itself. Those presidents are smart people themselves, and often have to find a balance between the disparate interests of their bosses, the Trustees of their institutions, and those of their major (and vocal) athletics boosters.

That balance can be a mine field, especially in those schools where football success on a national level is one of the highest priorities for many of those same Trustees and their alumni. Swofford, more than most Commissioners, has to negotiate that same mine field 15 times over. The ACC probably has the least amount of homogeneity in its membership of all of the P5 conferences. But despite that, the ACC has arguably improved its relative position in the national athletics hierarchy more than any other conference. Who is to say that Jim Delaney could have done a better job than Swofford has done if he had been the Commissioner of the ACC instead of the B1G?

I think that everyone is over-reacting to the the Sports Journal article. Nothing has officially been announced yet, and even if the article is accurate, the rest is speculation.

I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

The ACC bet wrong on an initial contract that turned out to be bad. However, at the time, it was seen as a great contract, even with the nepotism. That's hopefully a one-time mistake that can't really be changed.

The ACC negotiated a terrible OB deal from a position of weakness. The quality of the conference is much better and hopefully that won't be repeated. Regardless, there's nothing that can be done about it now.

I guess that's the long way of saying "sure, there have been mistakes, but what specifically do you want to commissioner to do to fix them at this time? How will your solutions help? And finally, in what way are they actionable?"

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

(04-21-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

Well, what about any number of ACC schools going to the B1G? Seems possible.

(04-21-2016 12:37 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

Well, what about any number of ACC schools going to the B1G? Seems possible.

The only ACC schools that would really WANT to be in the Big Ten (maybe) are Boston College, Syracuse and Pittsburgh, and I'm not 100% sure about those. I am sure that the rest of the ACC would MUCH rather stay in the ACC -or- join the SEC rather than go to the B1G.

(04-21-2016 01:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 12:37 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

Well, what about any number of ACC schools going to the B1G? Seems possible.

The only ACC schools that would really WANT to be in the Big Ten (maybe) are Boston College, Syracuse and Pittsburgh, and I'm not 100% sure about those. I am sure that the rest of the ACC would MUCH rather stay in the ACC -or- join the SEC rather than go to the B1G.

And those schools are likely not the schools that the BIG would target.

"I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave. "


Simple as this. Putting will put their head in the sand on this reality....but it is still reality.

(04-21-2016 06:30 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think Notre Dame's value is its football program.. The ACC does not have it! We should really consider adding two more teams that play both football and basketball in the ACC. Notre Dame must decide sooner or later, if wants to remain in the ACC!

We have decided.... Heck even signed a nice lengthy contract...
We're content.

(04-21-2016 01:49 PM)nole Wrote:  "I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave. "


Simple as this. Putting will put their head in the sand on this reality....but it is still reality.

FSU is the team just waiting for the SEC to ask them, my opinion.v

(04-20-2016 03:27 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  Delaney was a visionary when it came to rights models. He even negotiated this recent deal without a consultant.

Fox’s 12-year, $500 million Big East deal mandates that every men’s basketball game gets carried nationally on Fox or FS1.

Using a standard “average viewership per game” metric, this year’s Big East games on Fox and FS1 rate lower than mid-major conferences such as the Missouri Valley, Horizon and American Athletic.
-- sportsbusiness daily

what you fail to see can hurt ...
overpayment for fewer eyeballs ...

THE GIFT OF SIGHT

(04-21-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

The disparity is the 100K seat football stadium versus the 50K seat football stadium. No amount of TV contract money makes up for that.

The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door and remember, TAMU, Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzo, and MD all left their conference becuase of pushes as well as pulls. TAMU and Nebraska hated Texas. Colorado and Mizzou feared Texas. MD's system president did not like UNC, nor Duke.

SC left the ACC because of the 800 SAT rule, and hatred of Duke and UNC. GT left the SEC because of hatred of Alabama.

It's not all about making more money, especially when the price of more money is having to spend even more money.

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

The disparity is the 100K seat football stadium versus the 50K seat football stadium. No amount of TV contract money makes up for that.

The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door and remember, TAMU, Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzo, and MD all left their conference becuase of pushes as well as pulls. TAMU and Nebraska hated Texas. Colorado and Mizzou feared Texas. MD's system president did not like UNC, nor Duke.

SC left the ACC because of the 800 SAT rule, and hatred of Duke and UNC. GT left the SEC because of hatred of Alabama.

It's not all about making more money, especially when the price of more money is having to spend even more money.

Those things cannot be changed, like I said. We won't ever be even, but you can't be negative $20 mill per year just from TV. Then you add those other factors and it becomes even worse.

(04-21-2016 06:43 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

The disparity is the 100K seat football stadium versus the 50K seat football stadium. No amount of TV contract money makes up for that.

The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door and remember, TAMU, Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzo, and MD all left their conference becuase of pushes as well as pulls. TAMU and Nebraska hated Texas. Colorado and Mizzou feared Texas. MD's system president did not like UNC, nor Duke.

SC left the ACC because of the 800 SAT rule, and hatred of Duke and UNC. GT left the SEC because of hatred of Alabama.

It's not all about making more money, especially when the price of more money is having to spend even more money.

Those things cannot be changed, like I said. We won't ever be even, but you can't be negative $20 mill per year just from TV. Then you add those other factors and it becomes even worse.

Of course you can. You have been doing it for decades already.

In a sense you are demanding a level of revenue YOU DO NOT DESERVE and HAVE NOT EARNED.

The B10 revenue stream is based on Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. How big are those schools? They average a student body in excess of 45K. How large is their alumni base? They average 400K. How large are their football stadiums? These six average 95K. There are nearly 4.3 million living B10 alumni. They have 600K students in school now.

ACC schools on average are half the size of B10 schools, the alumni base is half or less. The average stadium size is half. Based on size alone, what makes you think the ACC is getting some sort of raw or unfair deal?

Only suckers make deals based on the revenue stream without examining the costs/expenses.

Pay to grow your total enrollment to near 50K a year, and add to your football stadium enough seats to get to 95K and then you will have room to complain about a TV money disparity.

(04-21-2016 02:50 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 10:34 PM)texasorange Wrote:  If Swofford is a problem isn't he also a solver? The ACC was suppose to die, but it didn't. The long term tv contract he negotiated is bad, but at the time it wasn't. I'm not saying he isn't without faults. But I agree with the previous poster who said that Swofford is an agent of the university presidents. That being said; this is a very conservative part of the country; much more so that Texas. I do think new blood is needed & no, I no longer want Jurich. His last hires says he is getting stale. We need a bold thinker & doer. But would that be accepted by the ACC membership? Perhaps now yes, since the ACC has undergone such a massive transformation. I hope so for the conference's sake.

The presidents surely make the final decisions, but they can approve or disapprove only what the Commissioner presents to them. JS brought them his proposals and recommendations based on his "diligent study" of the sports media landscape. Let's face it, JS probably got input from two sources, ESPN and Chad Swofford. He was starstruck by the World-wide Leader and placed the conference in their hands. They ate his lunch. The presidents were counting on him to find the best possible course to follow. I think they were all complacent, if not lazy. Meanwhile Delany was blazing new trails and continues to play the media companies like a fiddle.
By now, these same presidents must know that their confidence in Mr. Swofford was misplaced. If they haven't retained IMG by now, then they simply aren't trying.

(04-21-2016 07:29 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 07:52 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  No you can't have Tom....

I was thinking the same thing, but honestly, he's the best in the business. He might be exactly what the ACC needs.

(04-21-2016 07:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  Re: Swofford
The ACC is still here and appears like they will be one of the four survivors even though the ACC was not in a very strong position. The Big 12 on the other hand probably won't live out their GOR.

What else do you need to know?

When you have two like companies and consolidation is the only path to survival for both, the Ceo with the most moxie survives. In this case the ACC is screwed.

I see a consolidated ACC/XII in the end. Swofford managing the cast offs.

(04-21-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

Blow the whole damn ACC thing up.

Blow the XII up.

TAKE 7 - 8 from the remains on each side. Start a new conference and negotiate from strength (meaning no Swofford).

East. FSU, UM, GT, CLEM, VT, VILLE, WVU (if going to 8, UNC)
West. UT, TT, OU, OKST, KU, KSU, ISU (if going to 8, ?)

13/15 State schools, 1 private.

Blockbuster deal with NBC.

(04-21-2016 11:22 PM)Bigtexnole Wrote:  I see a consolidated ACC/XII in the end. Swofford managing the cast offs.

No consolidation, it's going to be outright replacement.

(04-21-2016 11:40 PM)Bigtexnole Wrote:  Blow the whole damn ACC thing up.

Blow the XII up.

TAKE 7 - 8 from the remains on each side. Start a new conference and negotiate from strength (meaning no Swofford).

East. FSU, UM, GT, CLEM, VT, VILLE, WVU (if going to 8, UNC)
West. UT, TT, OU, OKST, KU, KSU, ISU (if going to 8, ?)

13/15 State schools, 1 private.

Blockbuster deal with NBC.

SHHHHHH!

It's not going to be all of the teams you listed either, and there's a good possibility you are going to see a couple of G5 schools get a slot as well. You are going to see 10-12, 14 at the absolute most, schools with the same goals in mind band together and let the schools that don't have the same priorities do whatever they want. I imagine the programs not invited to the new conference may band together but the schools who are looking to leave want absolutely nothing to do with the leadership of either conference.