(08-01-2020 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 03:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow, you claim that the comparison is "non-sensical" and "not appropriate" and then back it up with .... this weak sauce?

Three games versus four? OK, it's three games the ACC unilaterally canceled, not four. Point still stands.

The three games canceled were located at two neutral sites and one ACC stadium?

So what - the point is, the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC. That's the point, not the details about who loses what money or whatever. If the SEC had matched the ACC scheduling model, it would have been allowing the ACC to dictate which ACC/SEC games were canceled and which were not. It's the principle, not the details you mention. It would be allowing the ACC to decide that those three games were not important to the SEC teams involved.

You say the MSST - NCST cancellation is a "minor beef" the SEC has here. IMO, you have one minor point here - apparently the ACC unilaterally canceled three games, not four.

Why do you suggest or believe that the ACC cancelled Miss St playing at NC State? The media is reporting that the ACC cancelled out of conference games that would be played out of state...while the SEC cancelled all out of conference games. I would believe that the ACC would encourage NC State to play this scheduled game.

How do you know that “the ACC canceled these games *unilaterally* without working with the SEC”? I’ll concede that the ACC decision to not play OOC games out of State effectively cancelled the two neutral site games...but one (UVA v UGA) of the two games would have been cancelled under all scenarios that were being floated in the media. Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions with statements like unilaterally or without working with the SEC.

You’re also stating that financial ramifications have no bearing on what entity is harmed...an incredibly naive position. Just because the ACC announcement became public first, doesn’t mean that behind the scenes folks didn’t understood the direction of each conference.

If paragraph 2 & 3 is assumed then why are you whining? It would mean that the ACC knew that the rivalry week games would likely be cancelled as well and just chose to lay the blame of it off on the SEC rather than accept their part in it. They aren't gong to cooperate on 4 and not cooperate on the other 4. You are either pregnant or you aren't. So this assertion on your part is either fully correct or totally absurd.

I do know that at first the SEC was looking to have a full season. When the PAC and Big 10 moved to just 10 conference games that didn't impact us enough to alter our plans. When the ACC wanted to move to 10 that put us on alert, then the ACC waffled (likely due to ESPN) and then wanted the 11 game schedule. Well that one cut the SEC short. When neutral site games are scheduled both schools get perks to cover concession losses that occur by not playing at home and the networks make the games worthwhile to both involved for eschewing home venues to create an early season must watch high advertising dollar game for which the local chamber of commerce gives perks as if it were a kind of bowl game. Cancel them and both conferences lose as does the host city. Lose a home game and you lose TV inventory.

The Big 10 & PAC had it right. By playing 10 home games all in conference the total revenue is not impacted because all revenue stays in house. What the ACC was doing with its in state rule was merely fishing for what could be essentially an 11th game for payout. Nice try! It didn't work for high dollar games with the SEC. Notre Dame will keep Navy. Good for them. That doen't help the SEC which by playing 2 more games each against other SEC schools actually enhances the value of its package. And there's your answer.

This is why Quo could say LOL at the thought the SEC was somehow losing out and should care about the ACC games. Our games between our schools are worth more to us than games with OOC opponents with minor exceptions. It is certainly worth more than Georgia's game with Tech, or Kentucky's game with Louisville, and possibly more than Florida's game with a depleted F.S.U.. And when South Carolina calms down and realizes that they will earn more totally by not playing Clemson this year (a year where fan donation for tickets will be irrelevant) then perhaps some of this furor will die down.

The 10 game all in conference plan is solid for revenue protection. That's the beginning and end of the matter.

And yes it makes total sense for the Big 12 to do the same and make B.Y.U. that 10th game. If the ACC can squeeze in 1 buy game good for them. But the issue with "Buy Games" this year is that the ACC would have no control over the COVID protocols for those schools agreeing to play in an ACC venue which were not ACC schools. The ACC can control their own protocols for their own schools, and their own venues, but they can't control the protocols that govern the frequency and kind of testing done by the visiting team in a buy game. And that's a risk the Big 10, PAC and now SEC will not accept.

Not at all whining. Both the ACC and SEC positions can be justified business decisions given the risks from this pandemic. I’m pleasantly surprised that the ACC innovated with a +1 out of conference game.

I was merely pointing out that there is a difference with rivalry games. The ACC tried to continue the college tradition.

I don't see so much honorable intention. The ACC crafted a rule that said all OOC games must be played in the ACC team's state. So "sure, we'll play you in an out of conference game but you have to come to our state, we won't come to yours".

That's a purely self-serving rule for the ACC.

It’s was most likely done purely at the behest of the four schools with OOC rivals and Notre Dame, who is likely trying to get Navy go South Bend. It’s not like preserving NC State/Miss St was a priority