(03-16-2021 05:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

1.The ACC is only responsible for not inviting Penn State in the 1970's.

2 The Big East is responsible for not inviting them in the 1980's

3. Miami and Virginia Tech ALWAYS wanted to be in the ACC over the Big East - again not the ACC's fault.

4. The ACC made a deal with Notre Dame that included football and it is not the ACC's fault that the Big East could not do this.

The Big East's own failures are not a reason for the ACC to worry about BE hard feelings.

5. Rutgers and WVU would have remained in the Atlantic 10 so the ACC would have no responsibility for their football programs.

I would have liked this way more than the current setup. Rutgers and West Virginia would have never gotten full Big East membership in 1994. Who knows where they are now? I don't know about Miami being a FB affiliate back in 1991-1992? Virginia Tech was in the Atlantic 10 and was a full Big East member a short time before joining the Big East. Miami was an independent before joining the Big East as a full member when they started Big East football, the Big East made an exception to make them a full member while keeping Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Temple FB affiliates. Now if the Big East wasn't sponsoring football, maybe the ACC could have gotten away with only letting Miami in as a football member but maybe the SEC invites them all in? It's easier for the ACC to tell the other schools to be football only, especially the Big East schools like Syracuse who were more than happy with the Big East in men's basketball at the time. But Miami who had no conference at the time and was a dominant team in football in the 1980's had bargaining power.

(03-15-2021 08:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

1.The ACC is only responsible for not inviting Penn State in the 1970's.

2 The Big East is responsible for not inviting them in the 1980's

3. Miami and Virginia Tech ALWAYS wanted to be in the ACC over the Big East - again not the ACC's fault.

4. The ACC made a deal with Notre Dame that included football and it is not the ACC's fault that the Big East could not do this.

The Big East's own failures are not a reason for the ACC to worry about BE hard feelings.

The Big East had a FB deal with Notre Dame
The ACC is paying for mistakes of both the BE and the old ACC today

An agreement that Notre Dame did not live up to and The Big East couldn't enforce. A lesson the ACC learned from the Big East's mistake.

There never was a "deal". There were discussions about ND playing "up to" three BE teams a year to try to help out the conference after the 2003 defections.

That "deal" was never fleshed out. ND tried to schedule Rutgers and UConn, but no mutually agreeable deal could be confected.

ND wanted to play its "away" games in NFL stadiums. UConn and Rutgers wanted home/home.

No meeting of the minds. No deal.

The BE football schools claimed that the "deal" was for ND to play all BE schools in football home/home.

ND said "Nobody agreed to that, we agreed to try to play more BE schools if possible."

So, there were talks, but never an agreement.

ND played Syracuse in 2003, but I believe that was scheduled before the ND/BE discussions.

ND played Pitt annually and BC fairly often, but that was outside any such proposed ND/BE "deal".

(03-16-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

1.The ACC is only responsible for not inviting Penn State in the 1970's.

2 The Big East is responsible for not inviting them in the 1980's

3. Miami and Virginia Tech ALWAYS wanted to be in the ACC over the Big East - again not the ACC's fault.

4. The ACC made a deal with Notre Dame that included football and it is not the ACC's fault that the Big East could not do this.

The Big East's own failures are not a reason for the ACC to worry about BE hard feelings.

The Big East had a FB deal with Notre Dame
The ACC is paying for mistakes of both the BE and the old ACC today

An agreement that Notre Dame did not live up to and The Big East couldn't enforce. A lesson the ACC learned from the Big East's mistake.

There never was a "deal". There were discussions about ND playing "up to" three BE teams a year to try to help out the conference after the 2003 defections.

That "deal" was never fleshed out. ND tried to schedule Rutgers and UConn, but no mutually agreeable deal could be confected.

ND wanted to play its "away" games in NFL stadiums. UConn and Rutgers wanted home/home.

No meeting of the minds. No deal.

The BE football schools claimed that the "deal" was for ND to play all BE schools in football home/home.

ND said "Nobody agreed to that, we agreed to try to play more BE schools if possible."

So, there were talks, but never an agreement.

ND played Syracuse in 2003, but I believe that was scheduled before the ND/BE discussions.

ND played Pitt annually and BC fairly often, but that was outside any such proposed ND/BE "deal".

Welcher
There is a reason the ACC spelled out exactly what Notre Dame's responsibilities were in their relationship with the ACC. The Irish's craftiness was well known.

(03-16-2021 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  1.The ACC is only responsible for not inviting Penn State in the 1970's.

2 The Big East is responsible for not inviting them in the 1980's

3. Miami and Virginia Tech ALWAYS wanted to be in the ACC over the Big East - again not the ACC's fault.

4. The ACC made a deal with Notre Dame that included football and it is not the ACC's fault that the Big East could not do this.

The Big East's own failures are not a reason for the ACC to worry about BE hard feelings.

The Big East had a FB deal with Notre Dame
The ACC is paying for mistakes of both the BE and the old ACC today

An agreement that Notre Dame did not live up to and The Big East couldn't enforce. A lesson the ACC learned from the Big East's mistake.

There never was a "deal". There were discussions about ND playing "up to" three BE teams a year to try to help out the conference after the 2003 defections.

That "deal" was never fleshed out. ND tried to schedule Rutgers and UConn, but no mutually agreeable deal could be confected.

ND wanted to play its "away" games in NFL stadiums. UConn and Rutgers wanted home/home.

No meeting of the minds. No deal.

The BE football schools claimed that the "deal" was for ND to play all BE schools in football home/home.

ND said "Nobody agreed to that, we agreed to try to play more BE schools if possible."

So, there were talks, but never an agreement.

ND played Syracuse in 2003, but I believe that was scheduled before the ND/BE discussions.

ND played Pitt annually and BC fairly often, but that was outside any such proposed ND/BE "deal".

Welcher
There is a reason the ACC spelled out exactly what Notre Dame's responsibilities were in their relationship with the ACC. The Irish's craftiness was well known.

"I promise to do what I can" is not a contract... it's not even much of a promise.

(03-16-2021 08:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  The Big East had a FB deal with Notre Dame
The ACC is paying for mistakes of both the BE and the old ACC today

An agreement that Notre Dame did not live up to and The Big East couldn't enforce. A lesson the ACC learned from the Big East's mistake.

There never was a "deal". There were discussions about ND playing "up to" three BE teams a year to try to help out the conference after the 2003 defections.

That "deal" was never fleshed out. ND tried to schedule Rutgers and UConn, but no mutually agreeable deal could be confected.

ND wanted to play its "away" games in NFL stadiums. UConn and Rutgers wanted home/home.

No meeting of the minds. No deal.

The BE football schools claimed that the "deal" was for ND to play all BE schools in football home/home.

ND said "Nobody agreed to that, we agreed to try to play more BE schools if possible."

So, there were talks, but never an agreement.

ND played Syracuse in 2003, but I believe that was scheduled before the ND/BE discussions.

ND played Pitt annually and BC fairly often, but that was outside any such proposed ND/BE "deal".

Welcher
There is a reason the ACC spelled out exactly what Notre Dame's responsibilities were in their relationship with the ACC. The Irish's craftiness was well known.

"I promise to do what I can" is not a contract... it's not even much of a promise.

Everyone knows you can't have a contract with an entity which is guaranteed absolution!

(03-16-2021 06:13 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 05:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

1.The ACC is only responsible for not inviting Penn State in the 1970's.

2 The Big East is responsible for not inviting them in the 1980's

3. Miami and Virginia Tech ALWAYS wanted to be in the ACC over the Big East - again not the ACC's fault.

4. The ACC made a deal with Notre Dame that included football and it is not the ACC's fault that the Big East could not do this.

The Big East's own failures are not a reason for the ACC to worry about BE hard feelings.

5. Rutgers and WVU would have remained in the Atlantic 10 so the ACC would have no responsibility for their football programs.

I would have liked this way more than the current setup. Rutgers and West Virginia would have never gotten full Big East membership in 1994. Who knows where they are now? I don't know about Miami being a FB affiliate back in 1991-1992? Virginia Tech was in the Atlantic 10 and was a full Big East member a short time before joining the Big East. Miami was an independent before joining the Big East as a full member when they started Big East football, the Big East made an exception to make them a full member while keeping Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Temple FB affiliates. Now if the Big East wasn't sponsoring football, maybe the ACC could have gotten away with only letting Miami in as a football member but maybe the SEC invites them all in? It's easier for the ACC to tell the other schools to be football only, especially the Big East schools like Syracuse who were more than happy with the Big East in men's basketball at the time. But Miami who had no conference at the time and was a dominant team in football in the 1980's had bargaining power.

VaTech was in the Metro and subsequently left out of the Metro/Great Midwest merger (C-USA) before they joined the Atlantic 10.

Miami would have absolutely been a full member. That was a stipulation for them joining the Big East; they were searching for a home for their basketball program.

FSU and Miami are added as full members.

The ACC adds the Big East's BC, Pitt, and Syracuse as football affiliates. This move requires the ACC to add one more affiliate. Most likely Virginia Tech or West Virginia. Or does UConn commit to move their football program up as the last affiliate?

I'm assuming the Big 10 still drags their feet trying to secure Notre Dame, but maybe they add Rutgers or Missouri in the 90's to keep up with the ACC and SEC.

This leaves most likely West Virginia and Temple to create a merger between the A-10, the Metro, and the Great Midwest. Depending on the UConn and Big Ten situations, Virginia Tech and Rutgers might be available too. UMass football now has a home and moves up in 1995 when they originally wanted to.

I'm going to assume UConn (or Villanova for that matter) does not commit to 1-A football and Mizzou gets the Big Ten invite because they were the better program and it made for cleaner divisions.

So we end up with:

C-USA
UMass
Rutgers
Temple
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
S. Miss
Tulane
Houston

It's anyone's guess how they fill out this conference, but I'm going to say UAB is definitely involved. Maybe ECU as an affiliate for a football championship when UAB moves up.

Virginia Tech joins the A10 and ACC as a football affiliate.

BYU takes Missouri's place in the Big XII.

Rice, SMU, and TCU end up in the WAC.

I think that's everything.

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

IMO, Miami and VT were always better fits for the ACC than the Big East. The Hurricanes and Hookies would prefer the closer geography and/or football rivalries...and football was the major need of the ACC. These schools should have been prioritized the minute that the ACC decided that they wanted/needed more media payouts (and therefore needed a Conference Championship Game).

After Miami & VT got the ACC to 11 full-members, then your suggestion of partial football-only members may have worked. Unfortunately, the ACC presidents were against "partial" deals (I believe that Notre Dame may have proposed some partial arrangement in 2004/2005...maybe similar to what ND-ACC negotiated in 2013). It's a traditionalist conference and partial members may have had a connotation of weakness.

Taking BC, Syracuse and Pitt as football-only in 2005 would have been innovative. Rutgers, West Virginia and UConn would have been pissed...and probably another reason why that arrangement didn't materialize.

Esayem— I like how you played things out if, between 1990-1994, the ACC reached an affiliate deal with the 3 BE fb schools. VT is probably the 14th and if only permitted as an affiliate, parks Olympic sports in the A-10 or CAA.

WVU, Rutgers, and Temple all end up fb affiliates of C-USA when it forms:

Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
Tulane
USM
Houston
DePaul x
Marquette x
St Louis x
UAB x
Charlotte x
USF x

WVU y
Temple y
Rutgers y

x = non-fb, y = fb only

That’s 9 football schools to start out with and then UAB and USF in the upgrade process. Army as a fb affiliate makes 12.

If they still add TCU and ECU when they did, the result for football divisions is:

East: Army*, Rutgers*, Temple*, WVU*, Cincinnati, ECU, USF
West: Louisville, Memphis, UAB, USM, Tulane, Houston, TCU

If that line up cements by around 2001. I think that line up is what you have until about 2012 and most of that group probably is still intact today.

Marshall and UCF stay in the MAC. Tulsa, SMU, Rice, and UTEP in the WAC.

If Army decides this group is too tough, UCF takes their spot.

UConn and UMass don’t even think about upgrading because there’s no where to go for a northeastern school.

Somewhere in the 2010’s there’s probably pressure to make the ACC fb affiliates full members, which has minimal cascade impact as it only hits the non-fb side.

(03-16-2021 01:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Esayem— I like how you played things out if, between 1990-1994, the ACC reached an affiliate deal with the 3 BE fb schools. VT is probably the 14th and if only permitted as an affiliate, parks Olympic sports in the A-10 or CAA.

WVU, Rutgers, and Temple all end up fb affiliates of C-USA when it forms:

Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
Tulane
USM
Houston
DePaul x
Marquette x
St Louis x
UAB x
Charlotte x
USF x

WVU y
Temple y
Rutgers y

x = non-fb, y = fb only

That’s 9 football schools to start out with and then UAB and USF in the upgrade process. Army as a fb affiliate makes 12.

If they still add TCU and ECU when they did, the result for football divisions is:

East: Army*, Rutgers*, Temple*, WVU*, Cincinnati, ECU, USF
West: Louisville, Memphis, UAB, USM, Tulane, Houston, TCU

If that line up cements by around 2001. I think that line up is what you have until about 2012 and most of that group probably is still intact today.

Marshall and UCF stay in the MAC. Tulsa, SMU, Rice, and UTEP in the WAC.

If Army decides this group is too tough, UCF takes their spot.

UConn and UMass don’t even think about upgrading because there’s no where to go for a northeastern school.

Somewhere in the 2010’s there’s probably pressure to make the ACC fb affiliates full members, which has minimal cascade impact as it only hits the non-fb side.

I have an old Blue Ribbon college basketball yearbook that talks about a proposed merger between the A10 and the Great Midwest, but it didn't involve all the schools. Here is some further info:

A-10, Great Midwest talk of merger without St. Bona

Temple and five other Atlantic 10 basketball teams have begun preliminary discussions with the six-team Great Midwest Conference that eventually could result in a merger, according to a report in the Philadelphia Daily News.

Representatives from Temple, Massachusetts, George Washington, West Virginia, Rutgers and Rhode Island have met to discuss formation of a 12-team, two-divisional conference that also would include Cincinnati, Memphis State, St. Louis, De Paul, Marquette and Alabama-Birmingham.

Atlantic 10 schools St. Joseph's and St. Bonaventure would not be included.

The report said the merger could collapse if Dayton, a member of the Midwest Collegiate Conference, joins the Great Midwest at the end of the upcoming season as rumored.

https://buffalonews.com/news/sports-toda...25785.html

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/174776654/

Had something like this happened, then UMass would have absolutely moved up. There was even talk of them moving into C-USA during its formation with interest coming from C-USA, but UMass was focused eastward. You add Rutgers, Temple, and WVU in the mix and they're a shoe-in:

If the University of Massachusetts is going to step up its football program to Division 1-A, it had better move quickly. The window of opportunity for joining a new "super conference," which will begin playing basketball next season and football in 1996, is rapidly closing. The Minutemen, who play basketball in the Atlantic 10 but compete on the Division 1-AA level in football in the Yankee Conference, have a stated mission of upgrading their football program. Although some UMass officials leaned toward joining established conferences such as the Big East or even the Atlantic Coast Conference, those leagues are not likely to expand, and even if they did, officials from both have said the Minutemen are not high on their priority lists.

Which leaves the new "super conference" - called, for want of an official name, the Great Big Conference - consisting of 10-12 teams in basketball and 6-8 teams in football. The league has lined up nine teams ' in basketball: Houston, Tulane, Louisville, Southern Mississippi, Cincinnati, Memphis, Marquette, St. Louis and Alabama-Birmingham. Being considered are DePaul, North Carolina-Charlotte and South Florida. The configuration in football stands as Houston, Tulane, Louisville, Southern Miss., Cincinnati and Memphis. UAB is currently at the 1-AA level but has announced plans to go to 1-A.

When UMass was mentioned as a possible 11th or 12th member in basketball and seventh or eighth member in football, one source close to the league's negotiations said, "That would make a good fit. I think there is interest in them, if they said they want to be a part of it. But if UMass wants to do something, they had better get things together. We're pretty far along in the process of putting things together."

UMass athletic director Bob Marcum, who is here at the NCAA convention, said his focus remains the East. "If you look at that league, it goes from Houston to Cincinnati," said Marcum. "I'm not sure if that makes sense for us financially."

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/440676696/

A lot of people don't know this, but Kraft promised Foxboro to UMass in '94.

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/440676696/

(03-15-2021 08:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

1.The ACC is only responsible for not inviting Penn State in the 1970's.

2 The Big East is responsible for not inviting them in the 1980's

3. Miami and Virginia Tech ALWAYS wanted to be in the ACC over the Big East - again not the ACC's fault.

4. The ACC made a deal with Notre Dame that included football and it is not the ACC's fault that the Big East could not do this.

The Big East's own failures are not a reason for the ACC to worry about BE hard feelings.

The Big East had a FB deal with Notre Dame
The ACC is paying for mistakes of both the BE and the old ACC today

An agreement that Notre Dame did not live up to and The Big East couldn't enforce. A lesson the ACC learned from the Big East's mistake.

(03-16-2021 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  1.The ACC is only responsible for not inviting Penn State in the 1970's.

2 The Big East is responsible for not inviting them in the 1980's

3. Miami and Virginia Tech ALWAYS wanted to be in the ACC over the Big East - again not the ACC's fault.

4. The ACC made a deal with Notre Dame that included football and it is not the ACC's fault that the Big East could not do this.

The Big East's own failures are not a reason for the ACC to worry about BE hard feelings.

The Big East had a FB deal with Notre Dame
The ACC is paying for mistakes of both the BE and the old ACC today

An agreement that Notre Dame did not live up to and The Big East couldn't enforce. A lesson the ACC learned from the Big East's mistake.

There never was a "deal". There were discussions about ND playing "up to" three BE teams a year to try to help out the conference after the 2003 defections.

That "deal" was never fleshed out. ND tried to schedule Rutgers and UConn, but no mutually agreeable deal could be confected.

ND wanted to play its "away" games in NFL stadiums. UConn and Rutgers wanted home/home.

No meeting of the minds. No deal.

The BE football schools claimed that the "deal" was for ND to play all BE schools in football home/home.

ND said "Nobody agreed to that, we agreed to try to play more BE schools if possible."

So, there were talks, but never an agreement.

ND played Syracuse in 2003, but I believe that was scheduled before the ND/BE discussions.

ND played Pitt annually and BC fairly often, but that was outside any such proposed ND/BE "deal".

Welcher
There is a reason the ACC spelled out exactly what Notre Dame's responsibilities were in their relationship with the ACC. The Irish's craftiness was well known.

Horseshit. There was no promise, no deal and no ND "responsibilities" towards Big East football. None.

There were just some talks that some BE schools twisted into a "verbal agreement to play a home and home deal with all schools".

The reason that there is a written ND/ACC contract is that both parties wanted it. Unlike 2003, ND wanted the arrangement spelled out in detail. So did the ACC.

Different time, different circumstances.

ND wanted the protection of a written deal and pushed for an ACC GOR as well, looking for some conference stability.

(03-16-2021 08:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 08:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  An agreement that Notre Dame did not live up to and The Big East couldn't enforce. A lesson the ACC learned from the Big East's mistake.

There never was a "deal". There were discussions about ND playing "up to" three BE teams a year to try to help out the conference after the 2003 defections.

That "deal" was never fleshed out. ND tried to schedule Rutgers and UConn, but no mutually agreeable deal could be confected.

ND wanted to play its "away" games in NFL stadiums. UConn and Rutgers wanted home/home.

No meeting of the minds. No deal.

The BE football schools claimed that the "deal" was for ND to play all BE schools in football home/home.

ND said "Nobody agreed to that, we agreed to try to play more BE schools if possible."

So, there were talks, but never an agreement.

ND played Syracuse in 2003, but I believe that was scheduled before the ND/BE discussions.

ND played Pitt annually and BC fairly often, but that was outside any such proposed ND/BE "deal".

Welcher
There is a reason the ACC spelled out exactly what Notre Dame's responsibilities were in their relationship with the ACC. The Irish's craftiness was well known.

"I promise to do what I can" is not a contract... it's not even much of a promise.

Everyone knows you can't have a contract with an entity which is guaranteed absolution!

That will come as a thirty year shock to NBC.

Navy says hello.

I guess that all of the ND/ACC contracts with the exit fee and partial GOR and pledge to join in football if it takes the plunge are out the door, then.

I hope that idea of yours gets ND out of the Under Armour contract.......

Happy Saint Patrick's Day.

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

But what about the ACCN? With so many affiliate members, do you think the ACC would be able to get its own network?

Also, even the original big east was dropping the hybrid model. The planned 14 full member only big east was:

BC Cuse Pitt Miami RU VT WVU UConn
ND NOVA Gtown Providence SJ Seton Hall

Not a bad lineup with zero affiliate members.

(03-17-2021 06:12 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

But what about the ACCN? With so many affiliate members, do you think the ACC would be able to get its own network?

Also, even the original big east was dropping the hybrid model. The planned 14 full member only big east was:

BC Cuse Pitt Miami RU VT WVU UConn
ND NOVA Gtown Providence SJ Seton Hall

Not a bad lineup with zero affiliate members.

That 2nd line of teams wouldn't be playing football... doesn't that make them all affiliate members in some way?

(03-17-2021 10:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

1.The ACC is only responsible for not inviting Penn State in the 1970's.

2 The Big East is responsible for not inviting them in the 1980's

3. Miami and Virginia Tech ALWAYS wanted to be in the ACC over the Big East - again not the ACC's fault.

4. The ACC made a deal with Notre Dame that included football and it is not the ACC's fault that the Big East could not do this.

The Big East's own failures are not a reason for the ACC to worry about BE hard feelings.

The Big East had a FB deal with Notre Dame
The ACC is paying for mistakes of both the BE and the old ACC today

An agreement that Notre Dame did not live up to and The Big East couldn't enforce. A lesson the ACC learned from the Big East's mistake.

(03-16-2021 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 07:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  The Big East had a FB deal with Notre Dame
The ACC is paying for mistakes of both the BE and the old ACC today

An agreement that Notre Dame did not live up to and The Big East couldn't enforce. A lesson the ACC learned from the Big East's mistake.

There never was a "deal". There were discussions about ND playing "up to" three BE teams a year to try to help out the conference after the 2003 defections.

That "deal" was never fleshed out. ND tried to schedule Rutgers and UConn, but no mutually agreeable deal could be confected.

ND wanted to play its "away" games in NFL stadiums. UConn and Rutgers wanted home/home.

No meeting of the minds. No deal.

The BE football schools claimed that the "deal" was for ND to play all BE schools in football home/home.

ND said "Nobody agreed to that, we agreed to try to play more BE schools if possible."

So, there were talks, but never an agreement.

ND played Syracuse in 2003, but I believe that was scheduled before the ND/BE discussions.

ND played Pitt annually and BC fairly often, but that was outside any such proposed ND/BE "deal".

Welcher
There is a reason the ACC spelled out exactly what Notre Dame's responsibilities were in their relationship with the ACC. The Irish's craftiness was well known.

Horseshit. There was no promise, no deal and no ND "responsibilities" towards Big East football. None.

There were just some talks that some BE schools twisted into a "verbal agreement to play a home and home deal with all schools".

The reason that there is a written ND/ACC contract is that both parties wanted it. Unlike 2003, ND wanted the arrangement spelled out in detail. So did the ACC.

Different time, different circumstances.

ND wanted the protection of a written deal and pushed for an ACC GOR as well, looking for some conference stability.

The Big East seemed to have a systemic problem when it came to contracts and memorializing negotiations. As I recall many Big East schools were never happy if they also had a football program. Perhaps this is the crux of the problem - one business contract model that is always in flux and is always being negotiated by parties looking to trade up and the model where a deal is a deal.

(03-18-2021 12:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-17-2021 06:12 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

But what about the ACCN? With so many affiliate members, do you think the ACC would be able to get its own network?

Also, even the original big east was dropping the hybrid model. The planned 14 full member only big east was:

BC Cuse Pitt Miami RU VT WVU UConn
ND NOVA Gtown Providence SJ Seton Hall

Not a bad lineup with zero affiliate members.

That 2nd line of teams wouldn't be playing football... doesn't that make them all affiliate members in some way?

No, they were full voting members, just like ND is a full voting member of the ACC.

Temple was never a full member, only a football affiliate. Loyola (MD) was an affiliate in women's lax.

(03-15-2021 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-14-2021 10:36 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  It is coming but not in a way that anybody mentioned. The game is changing in a big way and the value of content is going up, way up. I am a couple months late on this thread.
I suppose you would have to follow the Equity markets closely to realize the seismic changes coming in the streaming world. For those who do not follow the equity markets would miss out on the fact that the valuations of all of these streaming services Disney (ESPN/ABC), Paramount+ (CBS - symbol viac ), Comcast (NBC), Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon Prime etc. These companies are trading at really high valuations because they can make money directly to subscribers without the middleman cable networks in the way. The companies that are offering streaming services are on the hunt for content and it would not surprise me if they start throwing money around to get more content. I am not sure how it will play out but the more money there is available, the more chances there could be massive re-alignment.

Obviously, the ACC has no intentions of releasing the text of its contract with Disney/ABC/ESPN. I don't think Disney wants it out in public, either. That said, we'll eventually find out how smart/stupid the ACC was in answer to this question: does the current contract include all streaming rights, or can the ACC still sell to ESPN+?

I think it's worth noting that
1) so far no ACC home games in any sport (AFAIK) has been on ESPN+
2) the new SEC contract specifically includes the right to put games on ESPN+
3) the last Big XII contract included rights to stream on ESPN+

Another question: the ACC Network is always referred to as a linear cable network; would it require an amendment to the contract to allow ESPN to sell ACCN direct to customers?

If the ACC did, in fact, bundle streaming rights and this is all they're getting for it, this conference is in deep doo doo; OTOH, if they retained those rights, there's still hope for a decent bump...

I too wonder what the situation is with the ACC contract.
It has started as i expected with the streaming services (Amazon Prime) spending big money for content. In this case Amazon has just spent $1 billion for the Thursday night NFL package
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/18/nfl-medi...night.html
The price for Thursday night NFL package was previously owned by Fox for $660 million so the price went up a lot. It also shows that the streamers that i mentioned have a lot of money to spend on more content so depending on how the ACC TV deal was written, this may be something that the ACC could resell or perhaps if it is already included in the contract then Disney will want to add this content to Disney+ (their streaming service). There is so much money in streaming that i would not be surprised if CBS gets bought out by one of the other streamers.

(03-15-2021 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-14-2021 10:36 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  It is coming but not in a way that anybody mentioned. The game is changing in a big way and the value of content is going up, way up. I am a couple months late on this thread.
I suppose you would have to follow the Equity markets closely to realize the seismic changes coming in the streaming world. For those who do not follow the equity markets would miss out on the fact that the valuations of all of these streaming services Disney (ESPN/ABC), Paramount+ (CBS - symbol viac ), Comcast (NBC), Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon Prime etc. These companies are trading at really high valuations because they can make money directly to subscribers without the middleman cable networks in the way. The companies that are offering streaming services are on the hunt for content and it would not surprise me if they start throwing money around to get more content. I am not sure how it will play out but the more money there is available, the more chances there could be massive re-alignment.

Obviously, the ACC has no intentions of releasing the text of its contract with Disney/ABC/ESPN. I don't think Disney wants it out in public, either. That said, we'll eventually find out how smart/stupid the ACC was in answer to this question: does the current contract include all streaming rights, or can the ACC still sell to ESPN+?

I think it's worth noting that
1) so far no ACC home games in any sport (AFAIK) has been on ESPN+
2) the new SEC contract specifically includes the right to put games on ESPN+
3) the last Big XII contract included rights to stream on ESPN+

Another question: the ACC Network is always referred to as a linear cable network; would it require an amendment to the contract to allow ESPN to sell ACCN direct to customers?

If the ACC did, in fact, bundle streaming rights and this is all they're getting for it, this conference is in deep doo doo; OTOH, if they retained those rights, there's still hope for a decent bump...

A few things:

1. ESPN has utilized "change by mutual agreement" language in past contracts, specifically referring to the LHN. I don't think they are so shortsighted as an entity as to paint themselves into a corner but I do think "mutual agreement" both enforces aspects of a contract that either party may want in order to have some leverage, but also allows the freedom for both to abandon an aspect of a contract that is no longer in either's self interest.

2. If the SECN, ACCN, or any other linear channel is offered via streaming expect the carriage fees to remain the same for the conferences. This will be easily handled by Disney who will profit even more if they don't have to pay carriage fees to the cable companies for the subscriptions that switch from cord to OTA.

3. Disney isn't going to give a bump for anything unless their profits justify it. So I do think expansion with the right schools would open that window.

I don't know the details of the contract but the very fact that no league is currently on the streaming services indicates to me, that there may be some sort of negotiations required to put it on the streaming services. The money is huge in the streaming services because companies like Apple TV, Netflix, Disney+ (ABC/ESPN), Paramount+ (CBS), Comcast (NBC), Amazon don't pay anything to the cable companies and are charging $10 (plus or minus a few dollars) per month per subscriber. The stakes are huge and when there is this kind of money involved, who knows what will happen with re-alignment of conferences. With all of these streaming services, the need for content is growing and so are the dollars to pay for that content. If the ACC content is not currently allowed as per the contract on the streaming services then they will have to negotiate the dollars with the possible streaming services (not sure whether the ACC would have to sell to Disney+
or if they could sell to another streaming service). In this type of scenario where streaming has to be negotiated, then all bets are off on conference re-alignment or for example if it might be in Notre Dame's best interest to join a conference. The money is huge it is hard to say what may happen.

(03-21-2021 10:33 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-14-2021 10:36 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  It is coming but not in a way that anybody mentioned. The game is changing in a big way and the value of content is going up, way up. I am a couple months late on this thread.
I suppose you would have to follow the Equity markets closely to realize the seismic changes coming in the streaming world. For those who do not follow the equity markets would miss out on the fact that the valuations of all of these streaming services Disney (ESPN/ABC), Paramount+ (CBS - symbol viac ), Comcast (NBC), Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon Prime etc. These companies are trading at really high valuations because they can make money directly to subscribers without the middleman cable networks in the way. The companies that are offering streaming services are on the hunt for content and it would not surprise me if they start throwing money around to get more content. I am not sure how it will play out but the more money there is available, the more chances there could be massive re-alignment.

Obviously, the ACC has no intentions of releasing the text of its contract with Disney/ABC/ESPN. I don't think Disney wants it out in public, either. That said, we'll eventually find out how smart/stupid the ACC was in answer to this question: does the current contract include all streaming rights, or can the ACC still sell to ESPN+?

I think it's worth noting that
1) so far no ACC home games in any sport (AFAIK) has been on ESPN+
2) the new SEC contract specifically includes the right to put games on ESPN+
3) the last Big XII contract included rights to stream on ESPN+

Another question: the ACC Network is always referred to as a linear cable network; would it require an amendment to the contract to allow ESPN to sell ACCN direct to customers?

If the ACC did, in fact, bundle streaming rights and this is all they're getting for it, this conference is in deep doo doo; OTOH, if they retained those rights, there's still hope for a decent bump...

A few things:

1. ESPN has utilized "change by mutual agreement" language in past contracts, specifically referring to the LHN. I don't think they are so shortsighted as an entity as to paint themselves into a corner but I do think "mutual agreement" both enforces aspects of a contract that either party may want in order to have some leverage, but also allows the freedom for both to abandon an aspect of a contract that is no longer in either's self interest.

2. If the SECN, ACCN, or any other linear channel is offered via streaming expect the carriage fees to remain the same for the conferences. This will be easily handled by Disney who will profit even more if they don't have to pay carriage fees to the cable companies for the subscriptions that switch from cord to OTA.

3. Disney isn't going to give a bump for anything unless their profits justify it. So I do think expansion with the right schools would open that window.

I don't know the details of the contract but the very fact that no league is currently on the streaming services indicates to me, that there may be some sort of negotiations required to put it on the streaming services. The money is huge in the streaming services because companies like Apple TV, Netflix, Disney+ (ABC/ESPN), Paramount+ (CBS), Comcast (NBC), Amazon don't pay anything to the cable companies and are charging $10 (plus or minus a few dollars) per month per subscriber. The stakes are huge and when there is this kind of money involved, who knows what will happen with re-alignment of conferences. With all of these streaming services, the need for content is growing and so are the dollars to pay for that content. If the ACC content is not currently allowed as per the contract on the streaming services then they will have to negotiate the dollars with the possible streaming services (not sure whether the ACC would have to sell to Disney+
or if they could sell to another streaming service). In this type of scenario where streaming has to be negotiated, then all bets are off on conference re-alignment or for example if it might be in Notre Dame's best interest to join a conference. The money is huge it is hard to say what may happen.

OTA > Cable > Streaming.

Amazon is different because they're spending Prime money for that. Prime is way more than just streaming. Prime also cost way more than just streaming.

When a streamer buys an over-the-air then I'll believe the hype. It wouldn't surprise me if ESPN makes less money on ESPN+ than it does from cable even in today's degraded market.

The big losers right now are the crappy bundlers like Discovery. Viacom and Paramount are right at the edge of that precipice.

If stadium actually covers the entire country over the air and then starts bidding for real content I think they could give ESPN a run for their money. OTA sports is a juicy untapped market. OTA has quietly been in a renaissance. Even a bad antenna in my lower end Top 50 media market gets 40+ channels in higher quality than streaming or cable or satellite broadcast in.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-15-2021 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-14-2021 10:36 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  It is coming but not in a way that anybody mentioned. The game is changing in a big way and the value of content is going up, way up. I am a couple months late on this thread.
I suppose you would have to follow the Equity markets closely to realize the seismic changes coming in the streaming world. For those who do not follow the equity markets would miss out on the fact that the valuations of all of these streaming services Disney (ESPN/ABC), Paramount+ (CBS - symbol viac ), Comcast (NBC), Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon Prime etc. These companies are trading at really high valuations because they can make money directly to subscribers without the middleman cable networks in the way. The companies that are offering streaming services are on the hunt for content and it would not surprise me if they start throwing money around to get more content. I am not sure how it will play out but the more money there is available, the more chances there could be massive re-alignment.

Obviously, the ACC has no intentions of releasing the text of its contract with Disney/ABC/ESPN. I don't think Disney wants it out in public, either. That said, we'll eventually find out how smart/stupid the ACC was in answer to this question: does the current contract include all streaming rights, or can the ACC still sell to ESPN+?

I think it's worth noting that
1) so far no ACC home games in any sport (AFAIK) has been on ESPN+
2) the new SEC contract specifically includes the right to put games on ESPN+
3) the last Big XII contract included rights to stream on ESPN+

Another question: the ACC Network is always referred to as a linear cable network; would it require an amendment to the contract to allow ESPN to sell ACCN direct to customers?

If the ACC did, in fact, bundle streaming rights and this is all they're getting for it, this conference is in deep doo doo; OTOH, if they retained those rights, there's still hope for a decent bump...

Mark, the ACC has had a digital network for several years.
Even before all of the ACCN control rooms were built, the ACCDN was available as a subscription service for individual sports.
Carolina baseball, for instance was $99 for every home game. There were subscriptions for other non-revenue sports as well and access was through the University's athletic web site (GoHeels.com).

CHARLOTTE, NC – The Atlantic Coast Conference unveiled its latest media property today, the ACC Digital Network – a fully programmed video network designed, produced, and distributed exclusively for audiences watching on connected devices such as laptops and smartphones.Oct 17, 2011

This network is now referred to as the ACCX and is available through the WatchESPN app. Some of it's content requires ESPN+.

(03-17-2021 06:12 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 05:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t normally tread over into the ACC page but this was a fascinating 12-page read. From an outsider’s perspective, I think a lot of hard feelings could have been spared had the ACC folks been amenable to what the Big East folks wanted since the early 90’s:

Take the ACC’s 9 plus Pitt, Cuse, BC, and Miami as fb-affiliates and that gets you 13. VT could have come in as an additional fb affiliate or as a full ACC member to round out to 14.

The northeastern schools get to maintain their basketball culture in the Big East. The ACC gets football super conference status without the Yankee personalities that dominated BE Basketball.

After 1995, the calculus gets a little more complicated because WVU and Rutgers would also need fb affiliate status in the ACC. At that point you probably need a pod structure to make the ACC super conference work.

But what about the ACCN? With so many affiliate members, do you think the ACC would be able to get its own network?

Also, even the original big east was dropping the hybrid model. The planned 14 full member only big east was:

BC Cuse Pitt Miami RU VT WVU UConn
ND NOVA Gtown Providence SJ Seton Hall

Not a bad lineup with zero affiliate members.

The line up you have there is what the plan was for 2005, prior to the 2003 raid. Frankly, it would have been a pretty darn good arrangement but VT and Miami were always going favor ACC membership to BE membership.