RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
(05-06-2012 08:48 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:
(05-06-2012 11:38 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: Ok I am the guest here so I promise to be on my best behavior guys.
I just wanted to add in one thought that I havn't seen said in response to the talk about teams leaving the Big 12 because of big bad Texas.
When an Institution has decided that it is time to pick up roots and leave traditions behind that is a very tough thing to try and tell the alumni and fans about. I imagine it would be a very stressful position to be in. What makes that position easier is if you can point to a scape goat.
Now I would never go so far as to say Texas isn't a pain in the ass to deal with. Obviously they can be.
Colorado has a better pipeline to the West these days. Doesn't seem they can pull from Texas anymore. Colorado folks generally fit in better culturally with those to the West. Colorado moved to the PAC because it is the best fit for them. They now have yearly big games in California, that is huge for them. I don't even think the Buffs are pointing a finger at Texas, they just jumped at their dream position.
Nebraska most definitely was annoyed with Texas for basically taking the life out of the OU/NU match up in the eyes of OU fans. At this point much of the tradition that held Nebraska to the Big 12 just wasn't there anymore. They knew Missouri would jump immediately to any invite given to them by the Big Ten so they worked to get that position instead. The Big Ten is about big names and Nebraska is a bigger name in football, they got the spot. It was a money move and once again another cultural move. Dropping Texas in the equation is once again just the blame game to cover ass with Nebraska boosters and alumni who may not have wanted to leave.
Missouri has been trying to get out for awhile. They have been wanting to be in the Big Ten. When you know one of your conference mates wants to leave how are you going to feel towards them? It is not really a recipe for good relations between Missouri and the southern programs. They were destined to leave the moment they started looking to leave. Nebraska beat them out for the spot they really coveted. I bet behind closed doors Missouri is more angry at the Cornhuskers than they are the Bevo's.
As far as Texas A&M goes. I think enough has been said about them wanting to be in the SEC. Were there issues between them and the Longhorns? I would be an equivalent poster of WoadBlue if I said there werent serious issues. That is an internal issue within the state of Texas, I do not see how that is something FSU and Clemson should be taking to heart. The hatred I see towards UNC is pretty close if not equal to the hatred aggies espouse towards the horns and that is not even in state hatred.
What FSU and Clemson would have to do if they want to join the Big 12 is to get as much as they want as possible in those negotiations. Bring friends and have a voting bloc early on in the Big 12. It will become a much more polar Big 12 that way.
That turned out to be longer than I had intended. Not tryin to stir trouble, just feel there are other reasons for those moves besides an entirely emotional move based on Horn Hate.
Quick notes:
1) Arkansas left the SWC for the SEC, partially due to Texas.
2) TAMU wanted away from UT and to join the SEC when Arkansas left. UT used politics (aligned with Baylor and the then Gov., a Baylor grad) to force TAMU to the Big 12.
3) This was all PRIOR to the big TV money.
4) Nebraska has hated UT since the formation of the Big 12
5) None of the hatred of UT came as a result of the current money issues, but rather the way UT runs the Big 12 - read: The Big 12 has a front office and commissioner which is nothing more than a mouthpiece for UT
I live in Texas. You have read others who live in Texas. Nobody in Texas fails to understand that UT runs the show.
TCU, Houston and SMU were dumped to form the Big 12.
Texas was willing to dump everyone else to get into the B1G or Pac 12.
Arkansas was the odd man out in the SWC. Yeah they were a very strong odd man out but they were that none the less. Did they not like how strong Texas was over the conference? I will take your word on that but once again I give these types of schools more credit than to hire extremely emotional persons to run their schools as Presidents. I am sure there were other reasons for Arkansas leaving other than to run away from Texas.
I have never denied how strong Texas might be on the political side but I do give the Presidents of the departing Universities more credit than what is given when someone fully believes the cover story.
RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
(05-06-2012 04:20 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:
(05-06-2012 01:29 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: FAIL on the following four(4) schools:
East Carolina
Louisville
Houston
South Florida
Tulane will join the ACC before any of those four.
I hope to see the day that folks stop looking strictly at 'on-the-field' football performance when thinking about ACC membership. It's 60/40 academics/athletics, AND the "OVERALL" athletic profile better be strong.
That's why Syracuse is in, that's why Pitt is in.
First off, FSU and Clemson ARE NOT leaving for a conference that has the following three members -- Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State.
For basketball alone, Kansas would oppose FSU's Big Texas XII membership.
So, let me repeat -- FSU and Clemson ARE NOT leaving for a conference that has the following three members -- Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State.
However, if they are dumb enough to do that, while complaining about game day attendance and ease of getting into a playoff, so be it.
I absolutely LOVE (love, love, loooove) these other schools telling FSU what we are going to do. It'd be one thing if you were saying you doubt, or you wouldn't expect FSU to leave. It's another thing entirely to say ARE NOT, NEVER and the like. However, we appreciate your assistance. We really do. But f off.
As far as adding a Tulane over a Louisville? That's all anyone needs to know about Tobacco Roaders. That would do even less for the ACC than having Wake Forest in the conference.
FSU won the ACC's precious basketball tournament this past year. Did you forget? We have the 3rd most ACC wins over the last 7 seasons, behind only Duke and UNC. Again, piss off.
FSU would be dumb for heading to a conference that provides more financial security? Hmm, ok. I wish you NC folks would simply admit you're terrified of the possibility of FSU and Clemson leaving.
I bolded the part that I find most humorous in your last post. I could appreciate you being irritated by people who are making firm predictions about what FSU will or will not do. But you know as well as anyone else here that any "guarantee" is really an opinion of what a poster thinks will or will not happen.
BTW, want to know what irritates the **** out of me? It's when people make statements that imply that the poster actually has a say in what their school does. You have no power in any of this, so why word your statements in such a way to imply that you are a decision maker in any of this?
Do you want to know what else irritates the **** out of me? It's when posters fail to distinguish between statements made by fans of schools vs statements made by the schools themselves. Any opinion or statement that you read on here are from school fans/alumni. The statements are NOT coming from the actual schools.
Finally, I get highly irritated when posters come on here and make statements that if school A does not get into a better athletic conference or makes more athletic dollars, the school president/chancellor will be fired. I read this very recently in one of the FSU/Clemson rumor threads, and I think it was you who made it (apologies if I'm wrong). But it irritates me to no end when people on here are dumb enough to believe that the performance of a university president hinges on the health of the athletic department. To anyone on here that believes this: don't be so stupid to think this is true. The athletic budgets at most universities are quite small compared to the overall university budgets.
If there ever was a hypothetical scenario where the president of FSU had to make a choice between FSU being invited to join the AAU or FSU fielding a perrenial top 5 football team, your university president would choose the AAU and it isn't even close. Of course, I'm not affiliated with FSU, so I suppose I should F off because I made such a presumptuous statement. Of course, I'm 100% correct, but don't pay any attention to that...
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2012 10:10 PM by miko33.)
RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
(05-06-2012 10:08 PM)miko33 Wrote: I bolded the part that I find most humorous in your last post. I could appreciate you being irritated by people who are making firm predictions about what FSU will or will not do. But you know as well as anyone else here that any "guarantee" is really an opinion of what a poster thinks will or will not happen. Not sure what guarantee you're talking about. I try to word my posts intentionally so idiot posters realize I'm not stating things definitively and that they are just my opinions/desires/thoughts.
BTW, want to know what irritates the **** out of me? Your IBS? It's when people make statements that imply that the poster actually has a say in what their school does. Marvelous. You have no power in any of this I didn't realize, so why word your statements in such a way to imply that you are a decision maker in any of this? What, that 2nd part you bolded? It's called sarcasm. If you didn't get it that's ok. Not everyone does.
Do you want to know what else irritates the **** out of me? Still no. It's when posters fail to distinguish between statements made by fans of schools vs statements made by the schools themselves. Any opinion or statement that you read on here are from school fans/alumni. The statements are NOT coming from the actual schools. Like, whoa. Enlightening, man.
Finally, I get highly irritated when posters come on here and make statements that if school A does not get into a better athletic conference or makes more athletic dollars, the school president/chancellor will be fired. I read this very recently in one of the FSU/Clemson rumor threads, and I think it was you who made it (apologies if I'm wrong). Mmm, could you provide a link? It was on THIS site? I don't recall ever mentioning Dr. Barron (FSU's President) or Ret. Col. Spetman (FSU's AD). I have discussed Swofford (ACC's Commissioner) but don't recall saying if X, Y, Z doesn't occur he should be fired. I have said he sucks at his job, however. But it irritates me to no end when people on here are dumb enough to believe that the performance of a university president hinges on the health of the athletic department. To anyone on here that believes this: don't be so stupid to think this is true. The athletic budgets at most universities are quite small compared to the overall university budgets. Not sure who has stated such but don't kid yourself into thinking some of this stuff won't reflect back on the school president and that they won't take some heat for it.
If there ever was a hypothetical scenario where the president of FSU had to make a choice between FSU being invited to join the AAU or FSU fielding a perrenial top 5 football team, your university president would choose the AAU and it isn't even close. Wonderful. First of all, if any school were doing well enough to receive an invitation to the AAU, they wouldn't NEED AAU membership to extol themselves. Not being in the AAU wouldn't make you any less of a research power. But if we could be a perennial top 6 football school AND be in the AAU, that's alright with me. Still ample opportunity to win national titles. But good sir, you spelled "perrenial" wrong. Of course, I'm not affiliated with FSU, so I suppose I should F off Actually, you probably should. because I made such a presumptuous statement. Of course, I'm 100% correct, but don't pay any attention to that... But, but, but, you just made a "guarantee" and you said any guarantee "is really an opinion of what a poster thinks."
RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
(05-06-2012 04:20 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:
(05-06-2012 01:29 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: FAIL on the following four(4) schools:
East Carolina
Louisville
Houston
South Florida
Tulane will join the ACC before any of those four.
I hope to see the day that folks stop looking strictly at 'on-the-field' football performance when thinking about ACC membership. It's 60/40 academics/athletics, AND the "OVERALL" athletic profile better be strong.
That's why Syracuse is in, that's why Pitt is in.
First off, FSU and Clemson ARE NOT leaving for a conference that has the following three members -- Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State.
For basketball alone, Kansas would oppose FSU's Big Texas XII membership.
So, let me repeat -- FSU and Clemson ARE NOT leaving for a conference that has the following three members -- Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State.
However, if they are dumb enough to do that, while complaining about game day attendance and ease of getting into a playoff, so be it.
I absolutely LOVE (love, love, loooove) these other schools telling FSU what we are going to do. It'd be one thing if you were saying you doubt, or you wouldn't expect FSU to leave. It's another thing entirely to say ARE NOT, NEVER and the like. However, we appreciate your assistance. We really do. But f off.
As far as adding a Tulane over a Louisville? That's all anyone needs to know about Tobacco Roaders. That would do even less for the ACC than having Wake Forest in the conference.
FSU won the ACC's precious basketball tournament this past year. Did you forget? We have the 3rd most ACC wins over the last 7 seasons, behind only Duke and UNC. Again, piss off.
FSU would be dumb for heading to a conference that provides more financial security? Hmm, ok. I wish you NC folks would simply admit you're terrified of the possibility of FSU and Clemson leaving.
Terrified? Is that a joke?
It would be a welcome relief not to have to put up with the constant whining.
RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
I would be more upset if Clemson left than FSU. Terrified? Definitely not. I'm going to be nice because he is not like the other FSU posters who are pretty level headed.
RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
(05-07-2012 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: "[Former Big East commissioner John] Marinatto was asked to resign by the league's presidents Sunday, sources said." - CBSSports.com
That leaves just one conference commissioner who is an alumnus of a member school.
What's your point?
Are you saying that if Swofford left, the ACC shouldn't hire Delany if they had the chance?
RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
(05-06-2012 01:29 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: First off, FSU and Clemson ARE NOT leaving for a conference that has the following three members -- Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State.
In the proper context, it can be great fun to play Kansas. There weren't many GT fans there ... one of our lowest attendances of the year, in fact. But man we put on a triple option clinic.
Wanna see the NCAA record for YPC and 600+ rushing yards?
RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
I think 19-20 is what we have to have from a perception standpoint. In reality getting 18 million would probably put our conference payout about the same since the ACC tends to make more money from other sources than the other conferences do.
RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
(05-07-2012 04:29 PM)Hoquista Wrote: If the Big 12 gets $20 and the Pac 12 is getting $21 (?), what is the SEC going to get - $24?
Keeping that in mind, what do you think the ACC needs to get - at least $18 or higher?
For me, at least $20M. Even then I could reasonably see ACC schools losing $10M/year to the SEC (using your $24M figure that I know you made up for conversation's sake).
RE: Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
(05-07-2012 04:42 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: I think 19-20 is what we have to have from a perception standpoint. In reality getting 18 million would probably put our conference payout about the same since the ACC tends to make more money from other sources than the other conferences do.
Can you provide some further information on this. I know the ACC usually does better than most in the NCAAT but with UK back at an elite level the SEC will be able to close the gap some. I'm not sure what other sources there are outside of bowl payouts, which the ACC trails the SEC. And yea, I know I'm comparing ACC vs SEC and there are other major conferences but that's what most FSU fans compare the ACC to revenue-wise.
/
Well it looks like Swofford better get the biggest deal possible
