From the article:

Q: Football drives the ratings and in many ways realignment. If a conference is that good in basketball, how much of an impact can that have in dollars from networks?

"I think what the ACC has created could in many ways redefine what's possible in college basketball in terms of fan interest. When you have the likes of Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame and Louisville joining Tobacco Road along with their other basketball brands, there are real possibilities there. We're going to move them into our franchise Big Monday slot with the Big 12 so they'll have early games on Monday nights.

"I think there will be so many meaningful games between those ACC teams that it will almost be a somewhat daily conversation for basketball fans. We all know football in many ways drives the enterprise. But college basketball, we continue to invest in it. It's a critical part of our program mix from November to the end of March. It's an innings eater. There's a lot of it on, but at the same time we could use more of it that really moves the meter in a meaningful way with college football-like numbers."

Q: What kinds of ratings could the new ACC draw and what are good numbers for college basketball?

"I think we could see 1.5 and 2.0 ratings regularly out of the ACC, which would be pretty spectacular. We average about a 1.1 for all of the (men's basketball) games we put on ESPN for the season. That number has been fairly stable over the last decade. Last year, the Big Ten averaged around a 1.5 and broke about a decade-long run of the ACC being the highest-ranked conference. The ACC was around a 1.3 and the SEC was about a 1.1." (ESPN's highest-rated college football game during the 2012 regular season was a 3.7 for South Carolina-LSU.)

Q: The SEC is joining the Pac-12 and Big Ten by creating a conference TV network. Are we reaching the point where to be considered a major conference, everyone is going to have one?

"I don't know. It may not seem this way, but it's difficult. You really have to have compelling content. We have it here with SEC football. The ACC is investigating the feasibility and we're doing that with them. The Big 12 is constructed in a different way at the moment, which isn't to say something can't change. It may change in the ACC. I think the answer is potentially, but there has to be an underlying power to the content. No one's going to do it to lose money. I think the jury is still out relative to some others."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...s_new.html

So, two thumbs up for ACC basketball which I wholeheartedly agree with. That is quite a line up.

Doesn't sound like he is nearly as enthusiastic about the prospect of an ACC Network though. Am I wrong in that assessment?

What's interesting is the interest in the economic value of basketball.

For all the "football drives realignment" talk, the real driver is dollars. Football has been driving realignment since the SEC expansion 20 years ago because people have found ways to generate new money streams from football. But as football stabilizes and the process moves along, there will be continuing efforts to find new money streams. The ACC is certainly in the best position to exploit the potential of this basketball aspect of the market.

(06-06-2013 09:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, two thumbs up for ACC basketball which I wholeheartedly agree with. That is quite a line up.

Doesn't sound like he is nearly as enthusiastic about the prospect of an ACC Network though. Am I wrong in that assessment?

It a process IMO on the ACC Network...it will get done JMO around 2016..

I look for a much stronger influence shown to Basketball in all power 6 conferences to go with Football. Monies are generated all year round in super conferences that way. Good Baseball would also be a plus.

(06-07-2013 06:12 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I look for a much stronger influence shown to Basketball in all power 6 conferences to go with Football. Monies are generated all year round in super conferences that way. Good Baseball would also be a plus.

One other sport to keep an eye on is LaCrosse...just a hunch but it could be the next big thing in college athletics...the B1G just added John Hopkins...they are building up that sport as well...Another live Spring Event for the BTN.

(06-07-2013 04:35 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 09:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, two thumbs up for ACC basketball which I wholeheartedly agree with. That is quite a line up.

Doesn't sound like he is nearly as enthusiastic about the prospect of an ACC Network though. Am I wrong in that assessment?

It a process IMO on the ACC Network...it will get done JMO around 2016..

Think folks have that much patience with Swofford? Guess it depends on when he told them it would happen when he promised them that it would happen.

(06-07-2013 07:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 04:35 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 09:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, two thumbs up for ACC basketball which I wholeheartedly agree with. That is quite a line up.

Doesn't sound like he is nearly as enthusiastic about the prospect of an ACC Network though. Am I wrong in that assessment?

It a process IMO on the ACC Network...it will get done JMO around 2016..

Think folks have that much patience with Swofford? Guess it depends on when he told them it would happen when he promised them that it would happen.

What did he promise? IIRC he promised either that they would get a network or that ESPN would pay the ACC a lot more money if they don't start a conference network.

As for hoops -- Magnus has a good point (whether for ESPN, or FS1, or the conference networks): It's "an innings eater". The networks have a lot of good hoops inventory and can fill a lot of prime-time space with it between the end of the CFB regular season and the start of the NCAA tournament. There is more live hoops on any conference network than live football, and plenty of room for hoops on ESPN 1/2/U and FS1.

That's one more reason for Fox to make a big play for the next Big Ten contract -- they can add Big Ten hoops to the FS1 inventory. They already have as much BE hoops as they want and about 2 Pac games a week.

(06-07-2013 07:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 07:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 04:35 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 09:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, two thumbs up for ACC basketball which I wholeheartedly agree with. That is quite a line up.

Doesn't sound like he is nearly as enthusiastic about the prospect of an ACC Network though. Am I wrong in that assessment?

It a process IMO on the ACC Network...it will get done JMO around 2016..

Think folks have that much patience with Swofford? Guess it depends on when he told them it would happen when he promised them that it would happen.

What did he promise? IIRC he promised either that they would get a network or that ESPN would pay the ACC a lot more money if they don't start a conference network.

As for hoops -- Magnus has a good point (whether for ESPN, or FS1, or the conference networks): It's "an innings eater". The networks have a lot of good hoops inventory and can fill a lot of prime-time space with it between the end of the CFB regular season and the start of the NCAA tournament. There is more live hoops on any conference network than live football, and plenty of room for hoops on ESPN 1/2/U and FS1.

That's one more reason for Fox to make a big play for the next Big Ten contract -- they can add Big Ten hoops to the FS1 inventory. They already have as much BE hoops as they want and about 2 Pac games a week.

Well I don't have a link handy but the Haggard guy from FSU spoke publically about Swofford coming to FSU to sell them on staying and what was coming. He seemed pretty clear that Swofford said that an ACC Network was in the works. Haggard did not mince words in that regard.

(06-07-2013 07:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well I don't have a link handy but the Haggard guy from FSU spoke publically about Swofford coming to FSU to sell them on staying and what was coming. He seemed pretty clear that Swofford said that an ACC Network was in the works. Haggard did not mince words in that regard.

Well, he wasn't as emphatic as you seem to recall.

Here's the article.

“I wanted to be assured of what was going to happen, and why we would do (a grant of rights),” Haggard said. “And what would happen if we didn’t do it and what the repercussions were and all of that. And (Swofford) really spelled it out. And he answered all of my questions.

“I went in cautious. And came out impressed. And really thinking highly of John Swofford.”

During the meeting, Swofford and Jordan told Haggard what the grant of rights could do for the league. There was talk about an ACC channel down the line and the revenue that could generate.

“The connection with the ACC and ESPN (won me over),” Haggard said. “The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that. And probably more than that.”


All emphasis above put in by me. But seems to me that Swofford gave him a realistic picture about the network.

Cheers,
Neil

And don't forget, Swofford is a master at downplaying something then in a few months, there's a press conference.

(06-07-2013 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 07:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well I don't have a link handy but the Haggard guy from FSU spoke publically about Swofford coming to FSU to sell them on staying and what was coming. He seemed pretty clear that Swofford said that an ACC Network was in the works. Haggard did not mince words in that regard.

Well, he wasn't as emphatic as you seem to recall.

Here's the article.

“I wanted to be assured of what was going to happen, and why we would do (a grant of rights),” Haggard said. “And what would happen if we didn’t do it and what the repercussions were and all of that. And (Swofford) really spelled it out. And he answered all of my questions.

“I went in cautious. And came out impressed. And really thinking highly of John Swofford.”

During the meeting, Swofford and Jordan told Haggard what the grant of rights could do for the league. There was talk about an ACC channel down the line and the revenue that could generate.

“The connection with the ACC and ESPN (won me over),” Haggard said. “The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that. And probably more than that.”


All emphasis above put in by me. But seems to me that Swofford gave him a realistic picture about the network.

Cheers,
Neil

Im not sure why you failed to embolden the words "(won me over)" Clearly he is emphasizing the possible television channel that could come out of the connection between the ACC and ESPN.

How do you not see that?

(06-07-2013 08:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 07:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well I don't have a link handy but the Haggard guy from FSU spoke publically about Swofford coming to FSU to sell them on staying and what was coming. He seemed pretty clear that Swofford said that an ACC Network was in the works. Haggard did not mince words in that regard.

Well, he wasn't as emphatic as you seem to recall.

Here's the article.

“I wanted to be assured of what was going to happen, and why we would do (a grant of rights),” Haggard said. “And what would happen if we didn’t do it and what the repercussions were and all of that. And (Swofford) really spelled it out. And he answered all of my questions.

“I went in cautious. And came out impressed. And really thinking highly of John Swofford.”

During the meeting, Swofford and Jordan told Haggard what the grant of rights could do for the league. There was talk about an ACC channel down the line and the revenue that could generate.

“The connection with the ACC and ESPN (won me over),” Haggard said. “The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that. And probably more than that.”


All emphasis above put in by me. But seems to me that Swofford gave him a realistic picture about the network.

Cheers,
Neil

Im not sure why you failed to embolden the words "(won me over)" Clearly he is emphasizing the possible television channel that could come out of the connection between the ACC and ESPN.

How do you not see that?

Again, he clearly states possible television channel.

He had no problem recommending to the BOT (which I believe he is no longer chair of but remains a member) that FSU sign the GOR through 2026-27. Considering how vocal this guy was against staying in the ACC, this just doesn't shriek of a "done deal" as you want to make it out to be.

As a poster over on the syracusefan.com board said, this Game of Thrones mentality that is driving realignment talk is starting to get out of hand.

But I do have to wonder if taking Rutgers and Maryland will be for Big Ten the equivalent of the Red Wedding for the Starks.

The last statement said with tongue firmly planted in cheek, in case any one isn't aware of my view on just how powerful an influence the BTN and a possible 4 team playoff or Plus One game would impact college athletics back in June of 2007 before the BiG hinted at upcoming expansion.

Cheers,
Neil

I wouldn't go overboard on the value of ACC BB. Basically, this is what Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and ND are looking at:

1) They lose UConn, Cincinnati, Georgetown, and Marquette.
2) They gain UNC and Duke (the rest of the ACC is meh).

We'll see if the new ACC is better than the old Big East.

(06-07-2013 10:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I wouldn't go overboard on the value of ACC BB. Basically, this is what Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and ND are looking at:

1) They lose UConn, Cincinnati, Georgetown, and Marquette.
2) They gain UNC and Duke (the rest of the ACC is meh).

We'll see if the new ACC is better than the old Big East.

Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and ND still get to play each other in conference. Plus they get to play UNC and Duke in conference. As a Syracuse fan, losing Uconn and Georgetown as conference games hurts. But I dont think Im out of line in saying that Uconn, Georgetown, Marquette and Cinci will miss Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt and ND more than the other way around. Regarding basketball, I dont see the New Acc eclipsing the BE though. Maybe in championships, even though thats really all that matters. But as far as earning tourney credits I will still give the edge to the old BE until proven otherwise. To me, a league with Louisville, Uconn Syracuse, ND, Pitt, Marquette, Georgetown, Nova, Cinci, WV is slightly deeper than a league with Syracuse, Duke, Louisville, UNC, Pitt, ND, NC State, Georgia Tech and FSU.

(06-07-2013 10:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I wouldn't go overboard on the value of ACC BB. Basically, this is what Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and ND are looking at:

1) They lose UConn, Cincinnati, Georgetown, and Marquette.
2) They gain UNC and Duke (the rest of the ACC is meh).

We'll see if the new ACC is better than the old Big East.

Agreed to an extent.

Duke, UNC, Louisville, and Syracuse >>> Louisville, UConn, Syracuse and Georgetown

Pitt and ND = Pitt and ND

Who will the ACC have to match Marquette, Nova, Cincy and WVU?

I think it will take at least three years after adding Louisville, SU, Pitt, and ND to Duke and UNC before the cumulative synergy effect will bring at least 4 from the group of NC State, BC, Wake, GT, UVa, FSU, and Miami up to the level of Marquette, Nova, Cincy and WVU.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-07-2013 09:04 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 07:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well I don't have a link handy but the Haggard guy from FSU spoke publically about Swofford coming to FSU to sell them on staying and what was coming. He seemed pretty clear that Swofford said that an ACC Network was in the works. Haggard did not mince words in that regard.

Well, he wasn't as emphatic as you seem to recall.

Here's the article.

“I wanted to be assured of what was going to happen, and why we would do (a grant of rights),” Haggard said. “And what would happen if we didn’t do it and what the repercussions were and all of that. And (Swofford) really spelled it out. And he answered all of my questions.

“I went in cautious. And came out impressed. And really thinking highly of John Swofford.”

During the meeting, Swofford and Jordan told Haggard what the grant of rights could do for the league. There was talk about an ACC channel down the line and the revenue that could generate.

“The connection with the ACC and ESPN (won me over),” Haggard said. “The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that. And probably more than that.”


All emphasis above put in by me. But seems to me that Swofford gave him a realistic picture about the network.

Cheers,
Neil

Im not sure why you failed to embolden the words "(won me over)" Clearly he is emphasizing the possible television channel that could come out of the connection between the ACC and ESPN.

How do you not see that?

Again, he clearly states possible television channel.

He had no problem recommending to the BOT (which I believe he is no longer chair of but remains a member) that FSU sign the GOR through 2026-27. Considering how vocal this guy was against staying in the ACC, this just doesn't shriek of a "done deal" as you want to make it out to be.

As a poster over on the syracusefan.com board said, this Game of Thrones mentality that is driving realignment talk is starting to get out of hand.

But I do have to wonder if taking Rutgers and Maryland will be for Big Ten the equivalent of the Red Wedding for the Starks.

The last statement said with tongue firmly planted in cheek, in case any one isn't aware of my view on just how powerful an influence the BTN and a possible 4 team playoff or Plus One game would impact college athletics back in June of 2007 before the BiG hinted at upcoming expansion.

Cheers,
Neil

What is with you guys? We are merely discussing his wording and you have to go and bring out yet another character attack? This isn't out of hand, it is pointing out that to Haggard, the idea of an ACC Network was what won him over. Somehow that is going too far? You want to disagree then fine but cut the **** with personal judgements about people.

Here is a personal judgement, you ACC guys get WAY too defensive still. Rephuckinlax for christ sake.

The only Game of Throne's mentality here is yours and your fellow ACC folks that have to take everything so personal.

(06-08-2013 01:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 09:04 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 07:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well I don't have a link handy but the Haggard guy from FSU spoke publically about Swofford coming to FSU to sell them on staying and what was coming. He seemed pretty clear that Swofford said that an ACC Network was in the works. Haggard did not mince words in that regard.

Well, he wasn't as emphatic as you seem to recall.

Here's the article.

“I wanted to be assured of what was going to happen, and why we would do (a grant of rights),” Haggard said. “And what would happen if we didn’t do it and what the repercussions were and all of that. And (Swofford) really spelled it out. And he answered all of my questions.

“I went in cautious. And came out impressed. And really thinking highly of John Swofford.”

During the meeting, Swofford and Jordan told Haggard what the grant of rights could do for the league. There was talk about an ACC channel down the line and the revenue that could generate.

“The connection with the ACC and ESPN (won me over),” Haggard said. “The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that. And probably more than that.”


All emphasis above put in by me. But seems to me that Swofford gave him a realistic picture about the network.

Cheers,
Neil

Im not sure why you failed to embolden the words "(won me over)" Clearly he is emphasizing the possible television channel that could come out of the connection between the ACC and ESPN.

How do you not see that?

Again, he clearly states possible television channel.

He had no problem recommending to the BOT (which I believe he is no longer chair of but remains a member) that FSU sign the GOR through 2026-27. Considering how vocal this guy was against staying in the ACC, this just doesn't shriek of a "done deal" as you want to make it out to be.

As a poster over on the syracusefan.com board said, this Game of Thrones mentality that is driving realignment talk is starting to get out of hand.

But I do have to wonder if taking Rutgers and Maryland will be for Big Ten the equivalent of the Red Wedding for the Starks.

The last statement said with tongue firmly planted in cheek, in case any one isn't aware of my view on just how powerful an influence the BTN and a possible 4 team playoff or Plus One game would impact college athletics back in June of 2007 before the BiG hinted at upcoming expansion.

Cheers,
Neil

What is with you guys? We are merely discussing his wording and you have to go and bring out yet another character attack? This isn't out of hand, it is pointing out that to Haggard, the idea of an ACC Network was what won him over. Somehow that is going too far? You want to disagree then fine but cut the **** with personal judgements about people.

Here is a personal judgement, you ACC guys get WAY too defensive still. Rephuckinlax for christ sake.

The only Game of Throne's mentality here is yours and your fellow ACC folks that have to take everything so personal.

What a bizarre response. There was no personal attack on you in my post that I can see, but I apologize if you thought there was.

You began earlier in the thread by stating, "He seemed pretty clear that Swofford said that an ACC Network was in the works. Haggard did not mince words in that regard.

I pointed out that his actual words "talk of a network down the line" and "the idea of a possible network" doesn't add up to "not mincing words". It just doesn't.

Then I made a comment about this "Game of Thrones" mentality, which I stole from a great poster over on the syracusefan.com in general. The comment has to do with overanalyzing every single word or tweet to an nth degree for some hidden meaning.

I apologize if you thought it was directed solely at you. It wasn't meant in that context but directed at "realignment talk", which I don't think applies only you, but all of us, including myself, since I talk about realignment as much as next poster on this board. Guess I should have made that clearer though.

Peace,
Neil

(06-08-2013 02:08 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 01:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 09:04 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:27 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Well, he wasn't as emphatic as you seem to recall.

Here's the article.

“I wanted to be assured of what was going to happen, and why we would do (a grant of rights),” Haggard said. “And what would happen if we didn’t do it and what the repercussions were and all of that. And (Swofford) really spelled it out. And he answered all of my questions.

“I went in cautious. And came out impressed. And really thinking highly of John Swofford.”

During the meeting, Swofford and Jordan told Haggard what the grant of rights could do for the league. There was talk about an ACC channel down the line and the revenue that could generate.

“The connection with the ACC and ESPN (won me over),” Haggard said. “The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that. And probably more than that.”


All emphasis above put in by me. But seems to me that Swofford gave him a realistic picture about the network.

Cheers,
Neil

Im not sure why you failed to embolden the words "(won me over)" Clearly he is emphasizing the possible television channel that could come out of the connection between the ACC and ESPN.

How do you not see that?

Again, he clearly states possible television channel.

He had no problem recommending to the BOT (which I believe he is no longer chair of but remains a member) that FSU sign the GOR through 2026-27. Considering how vocal this guy was against staying in the ACC, this just doesn't shriek of a "done deal" as you want to make it out to be.

As a poster over on the syracusefan.com board said, this Game of Thrones mentality that is driving realignment talk is starting to get out of hand.

But I do have to wonder if taking Rutgers and Maryland will be for Big Ten the equivalent of the Red Wedding for the Starks.

The last statement said with tongue firmly planted in cheek, in case any one isn't aware of my view on just how powerful an influence the BTN and a possible 4 team playoff or Plus One game would impact college athletics back in June of 2007 before the BiG hinted at upcoming expansion.

Cheers,
Neil

What is with you guys? We are merely discussing his wording and you have to go and bring out yet another character attack? This isn't out of hand, it is pointing out that to Haggard, the idea of an ACC Network was what won him over. Somehow that is going too far? You want to disagree then fine but cut the **** with personal judgements about people.

Here is a personal judgement, you ACC guys get WAY too defensive still. Rephuckinlax for christ sake.

The only Game of Throne's mentality here is yours and your fellow ACC folks that have to take everything so personal.

What a bizarre response. There was no personal attack on you in my post that I can see, but I apologize if you thought there was.

You began earlier in the thread by stating, "He seemed pretty clear that Swofford said that an ACC Network was in the works. Haggard did not mince words in that regard.

I pointed out that his actual words "talk of a network down the line" and "the idea of a possible network" doesn't add up to "not mincing words". It just doesn't.

Then I made a comment about this "Game of Thrones" mentality, which I stole from a great poster over on the syracusefan.com in general. The comment has to do with overanalyzing every single word or tweet to an nth degree for some hidden meaning.

I apologize if you thought it was directed solely at you. It wasn't meant in that context but directed at "realignment talk", which I don't think applies only you, but all of us, including myself, since I talk about realignment as much as next poster on this board. Guess I should have made that clearer though.

Peace,
Neil

Yeah, sorry...rough day. I know you are not that kind of poster omni and you know I dont apologize much.

(06-08-2013 09:04 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 02:08 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 01:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 09:04 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Im not sure why you failed to embolden the words "(won me over)" Clearly he is emphasizing the possible television channel that could come out of the connection between the ACC and ESPN.

How do you not see that?

Again, he clearly states possible television channel.

He had no problem recommending to the BOT (which I believe he is no longer chair of but remains a member) that FSU sign the GOR through 2026-27. Considering how vocal this guy was against staying in the ACC, this just doesn't shriek of a "done deal" as you want to make it out to be.

As a poster over on the syracusefan.com board said, this Game of Thrones mentality that is driving realignment talk is starting to get out of hand.

But I do have to wonder if taking Rutgers and Maryland will be for Big Ten the equivalent of the Red Wedding for the Starks.

The last statement said with tongue firmly planted in cheek, in case any one isn't aware of my view on just how powerful an influence the BTN and a possible 4 team playoff or Plus One game would impact college athletics back in June of 2007 before the BiG hinted at upcoming expansion.

What is with you guys? We are merely discussing his wording and you have to go and bring out yet another character attack? This isn't out of hand, it is pointing out that to Haggard, the idea of an ACC Network was what won him over. Somehow that is going too far? You want to disagree then fine but cut the **** with personal judgements about people.

Here is a personal judgement, you ACC guys get WAY too defensive still. Rephuckinlax for christ sake.

The only Game of Throne's mentality here is yours and your fellow ACC folks that have to take everything so personal.

What a bizarre response. There was no personal attack on you in my post that I can see, but I apologize if you thought there was.

You began earlier in the thread by stating, "He seemed pretty clear that Swofford said that an ACC Network was in the works. Haggard did not mince words in that regard.

I pointed out that his actual words "talk of a network down the line" and "the idea of a possible network" doesn't add up to "not mincing words". It just doesn't.

Then I made a comment about this "Game of Thrones" mentality, which I stole from a great poster over on the syracusefan.com in general. The comment has to do with overanalyzing every single word or tweet to an nth degree for some hidden meaning.

I apologize if you thought it was directed solely at you. It wasn't meant in that context but directed at "realignment talk", which I don't think applies only you, but all of us, including myself, since I talk about realignment as much as next poster on this board. Guess I should have made that clearer though.

Yeah, sorry...rough day. I know you are not that kind of poster omni and you know I dont apologize much.

Besides, the Red Wedding was when UC, USF, and UConn got relegated to the Go5, instead of being in a power conference like they used to be. Rutgers and Maryland are still very much alive, and sitting pretty in a power conference. The B1G doesn't look to be in any kind of danger to speak of, and I seriously doubt it ever will...