Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ACC Potential
Author Message
fsugrad99 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 202
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 31
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #61
RE: ACC Potential
Neither UConn or Rutgers bring enough to the table to justify their inclusion. If, in 50 years, ND were to join, one would be fine as #16, but that's the only scenario I'd be ok with adding them for.
03-01-2012 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tj_2009 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,326
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #62
RE: ACC Potential
(03-01-2012 10:02 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Just a reminder to those pondering the B1G's views, you should recall that not everyone can be a winner. You can only support approximately 25% of your conference as tier I, while the bulk, about 50% as tier II and the bottom feeders in Tier III. These are approximates but generally how things are distributed.

In the B1G you have several great names, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and Penn State (tier I). Note that only two or three will be great (tier I) in any season with one or two dropping (tier II). Wisconsin, Michigan St., Purdue, North Western, Minnesota, Iowa rise and fall (tier II) at least 1 or 2 will drop to tier III in any given year. Illinois, Indiana, are perennial losers (tier III), they will rise on rare occasions, but not often. This demonstrates that someone has to lose to enable someone else to win. Obviously, this does not factor directly into OOC records.

Applying this to Notre Dame, you get the elite team (tier I), would want two good teams (tier II) and would need a sacrificial lamb (tier III). If not, you will merely force one of the existing tier II teams down to tier III. (From their tier II point of view, they will not generally like this and would be reluctant to risk themselves being forced down, providing one tier III team would enable them to vote the package without risk to the individual school) Alternatively, if you bring in four tier I teams (Ex. ND, FSU, Alabama, LSU) you force several teams to drop below their current status which they are reluctant to do. This leaves the B1G in the quandry of which teams will benefit teh B1G and meet the overall needs.

There was much discussion over Syracuse and Pitt - and Mizzou, with most sources saying there was good support, but not sufficient to bring them to the B1G. Less so for UConn and Rutgers - and Kansas. All of this was with ND being one of the four teams. Voting for one elite was not an issue (as evidenced by Nebraska being added) but the middle and lower teams were harder to settle on as individual schools were voting their own destinies at that point. PSU, OSU, Michigan had no worries. The bulk in the middle wanted to ensure nobody was better than them and the lowest teams wanted a chance to rise to the middle.

This can be applied to the ACC. Though the ACC believed they needed to expand, the teams selected were chosen based on what they brought to the table (tier II) with an eye on a tier I (ND). There is no need to rush in an bring another tier II or pick the tier III team, there are always a few around.

Taking UConn and Rutgers would be a mistake. Neither has favorable history, long term fan loyalty, established markets, etc. They will be around for a while.

Perhaps, taking UConn and Rutgers would be a stretch at this time but I should remind everyone that the other conferences: B1G, Pac-12, SEC and Big XII all make a lot more $$$ than the ACC from TV. This is only going to get larger over the next few years due to that terrible contract the ACC is in (I think 2022 is when the ACC contract is up) which means that the ACC will be vulnerable to being raided by any of the other conferences.
The one thing that B1G has over the ACC is a cable TV network which means more people who subscribe to the B1G network, the more money they make. Granted Rutgers and UConn are down right now and have never been up but how can the ACC be sure that they will not be raided and need to find teams to join. Its not like the ACC will have a lot of schools to pick from if the $$$ differential is so great between B1G, Pac-12, Big XII and SEC.
03-05-2012 01:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #63
RE: ACC Potential
(03-05-2012 01:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  ...the other conferences: B1G, Pac-12, SEC and Big XII all make a lot more $$$ than the ACC from TV. This is only going to get larger over the next few years due to that terrible contract the ACC is in (I think 2022 is when the ACC contract is up) which means that the ACC will be vulnerable to being raided by any of the other conferences...

I'm not picking on anyone, I've seen this kind of post over & over about how the bad ESPN contract is going to bring down the ACC (or some such). The problem with this logic is it assumes ESPN would rather take ACC teams which are under contract to them and drive them away to another conference that may not be under contract (or at least, not as good for ESPN) all for a short-term gain. I don't think ESPN has worked that way in the past and I don't see why they would start now. More likely they will renegotiate (like they did with the Big-12 when it looked like it was going to fold).

Plus, keep in mind that the ACC/ESPN contract has an "adjust for inflation" clause which can be settled by binding arbitration. ESPN would rather give the ACC a raise than to let an arbitrator determine how much they'd have to pay, IMO.
03-05-2012 08:04 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #64
RE: ACC Potential
(03-05-2012 08:04 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-05-2012 01:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  ...the other conferences: B1G, Pac-12, SEC and Big XII all make a lot more $$$ than the ACC from TV. This is only going to get larger over the next few years due to that terrible contract the ACC is in (I think 2022 is when the ACC contract is up) which means that the ACC will be vulnerable to being raided by any of the other conferences...

I'm not picking on anyone, I've seen this kind of post over & over about how the bad ESPN contract is going to bring down the ACC (or some such). The problem with this logic is it assumes ESPN would rather take ACC teams which are under contract to them and drive them away to another conference that may not be under contract (or at least, not as good for ESPN) all for a short-term gain. I don't think ESPN has worked that way in the past and I don't see why they would start now. More likely they will renegotiate (like they did with the Big-12 when it looked like it was going to fold).

Plus, keep in mind that the ACC/ESPN contract has an "adjust for inflation" clause which can be settled by binding arbitration. ESPN would rather give the ACC a raise than to let an arbitrator determine how much they'd have to pay, IMO.

I didnt know anything about an adjust for inflation clause. But that would be fantastic if true.
03-05-2012 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #65
RE: ACC Potential
(03-05-2012 08:40 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  I didnt know anything about an adjust for inflation clause. But that would be fantastic if true.
That's what was reported - that the ACC can renegotiate any time the makeup of the conference changes, and that ESPN agreed to adjust it for inflation. I have never seen the entire text of the contract (if anyone knows how to get it, please share!). Also, I'd like to know if the huge money the Pac-12 got would be considered "inflation" (especially in view of the fact that the ACC kicked that West Coast tail in the Neilson Ratings).
03-05-2012 12:11 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4x4hokies Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,972
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 164
I Root For: VT
Location:
Post: #66
RE: ACC Potential
(03-05-2012 12:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-05-2012 08:40 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  I didnt know anything about an adjust for inflation clause. But that would be fantastic if true.
That's what was reported - that the ACC can renegotiate any time the makeup of the conference changes, and that ESPN agreed to adjust it for inflation. I have never seen the entire text of the contract (if anyone knows how to get it, please share!). Also, I'd like to know if the huge money the Pac-12 got would be considered "inflation" (especially in view of the fact that the ACC kicked that West Coast tail in the Neilson Ratings).

Usually clauses like that are tied to an index like the CPI that is reported by the government. They are to ensure you are getting the same value you signed the contract at taking into account inflation...they aren't to increase your contract to match your competitors.
03-05-2012 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #67
RE: ACC Potential
(03-05-2012 12:31 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(03-05-2012 12:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-05-2012 08:40 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  I didnt know anything about an adjust for inflation clause. But that would be fantastic if true.
That's what was reported - that the ACC can renegotiate any time the makeup of the conference changes, and that ESPN agreed to adjust it for inflation. I have never seen the entire text of the contract (if anyone knows how to get it, please share!). Also, I'd like to know if the huge money the Pac-12 got would be considered "inflation" (especially in view of the fact that the ACC kicked that West Coast tail in the Neilson Ratings).

Usually clauses like that are tied to an index like the CPI that is reported by the government. They are to ensure you are getting the same value you signed the contract at taking into account inflation...they aren't to increase your contract to match your competitors.

Assuming that is the case the inflation clause means little... it's the threat of binding arbitration that gives the ACC leverage, IMO.
03-05-2012 01:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tj_2009 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,326
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #68
RE: ACC Potential
(03-05-2012 08:04 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-05-2012 01:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  ...the other conferences: B1G, Pac-12, SEC and Big XII all make a lot more $$$ than the ACC from TV. This is only going to get larger over the next few years due to that terrible contract the ACC is in (I think 2022 is when the ACC contract is up) which means that the ACC will be vulnerable to being raided by any of the other conferences...

I'm not picking on anyone, I've seen this kind of post over & over about how the bad ESPN contract is going to bring down the ACC (or some such). The problem with this logic is it assumes ESPN would rather take ACC teams which are under contract to them and drive them away to another conference that may not be under contract (or at least, not as good for ESPN) all for a short-term gain. I don't think ESPN has worked that way in the past and I don't see why they would start now. More likely they will renegotiate (like they did with the Big-12 when it looked like it was going to fold).

Plus, keep in mind that the ACC/ESPN contract has an "adjust for inflation" clause which can be settled by binding arbitration. ESPN would rather give the ACC a raise than to let an arbitrator determine how much they'd have to pay, IMO.

Good point about ESPN. I forgot that they have contracts with other conferences too. It is in their best interest to not let a conference implode or get weakened too much that their investment is diminished.
On the other hand, they probably do not want to pay out extra money unless it is absolutely necessary.
They did step up to save the Big XII (of course it was in their own self interest).
03-07-2012 01:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.