It's amazing that you know all the details of any potential talks with Notre Dame already.

Good luck as an independent. I'll pack for you.

(08-17-2012 09:44 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  I'd prefer to struggle as an independent than allow this conference to kill off our football program by continually making basketball centric decisions in a football centric world.

The saddest thing is the fact that so many of you are having wet dreams at night about the idea of Notre Dame being a partial member when the facts are in men's hoops, the secondary by a large margin money sport, they are essentially Clemson with a much better hype machine, and they are a complete non-factor in the ACC's third money sport by an even larger margin than hoops to football...baseball.

So let's review here:

1. Football provides 80% of ACC television revenue...and as a partial member the very best they are going to bring to the table is 3 games a year that will contribute towards that payout. That's in the very best case scenario....a 6 game a year slate, which anybody with half a brain knows we have a better chance of Duke contending for the last two BCS titles and getting the 1 seed in the first two playoffs. So now we are looking at a one or two game a year scenario. Exactly how much money do you think we are going to make off of that?

2. In basketball, 20% of the ACC television revenue, they are pretty much Clemson. They'll annually be in a death struggle for the 4th/5th/6th slot in the good years, and the rest be fighting to stay above 12th/13th. How much money do you think THAT is going to bring to the plate? There is a reason that Notre Dame is an independent in football and a member of a conference in everything else.

3. The only sports they will bring something to the table simply do not matter.

4. If we allow them to join as a partial member then we throw away the only GD thing this conference has ever got right.....every member shares the same level of commitment to the conference as a whole. Hybrid conferences are destined to fail because they are a house built upon a foundation of sand. If we go the hybrid route we will be like the Big East before this horrendous TV contract runs it's course....we will be fractured, we will be weakened, and we will be picked apart like the $5 DVD bin at Walmart.

Stand firm and stay the course. Full membership or else enjoy the new Big East.

I extend my olive branch and agree with CD on this one... cannot allow ND to anal us like they did the BE. It is part of the reason we left that butt-hole conference.

(08-17-2012 09:44 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  I'd prefer to struggle as an independent than allow this conference to kill off our football program by continually making basketball centric decisions in a football centric world.

The saddest thing is the fact that so many of you are having wet dreams at night about the idea of Notre Dame being a partial member when the facts are in men's hoops, the secondary by a large margin money sport, they are essentially Clemson with a much better hype machine, and they are a complete non-factor in the ACC's third money sport by an even larger margin than hoops to football...baseball.

So let's review here:

1. Football provides 80% of ACC television revenue...and as a partial member the very best they are going to bring to the table is 3 games a year that will contribute towards that payout. That's in the very best case scenario....a 6 game a year slate, which anybody with half a brain knows we have a better chance of Duke contending for the last two BCS titles and getting the 1 seed in the first two playoffs. So now we are looking at a one or two game a year scenario. Exactly how much money do you think we are going to make off of that?

2. In basketball, 20% of the ACC television revenue, they are pretty much Clemson. They'll annually be in a death struggle for the 4th/5th/6th slot in the good years, and the rest be fighting to stay above 12th/13th. How much money do you think THAT is going to bring to the plate? There is a reason that Notre Dame is an independent in football and a member of a conference in everything else.

3. The only sports they will bring something to the table simply do not matter.

4. If we allow them to join as a partial member then we throw away the only GD thing this conference has ever got right.....every member shares the same level of commitment to the conference as a whole. Hybrid conferences are destined to fail because they are a house built upon a foundation of sand. If we go the hybrid route we will be like the Big East before this horrendous TV contract runs it's course....we will be fractured, we will be weakened, and we will be picked apart like the $5 DVD bin at Walmart.

Stand firm and stay the course. Full membership or else enjoy the new Big East.

1: I have 0 idea what kind've payout ND would receive. It could just be a scheduling agreement for football which means ND would receive 0 TV other than its home games, and full basketball revenue.

2: I do agree that ND doesn't bring much to the plate in hoops but they do bring a very good overall sports program. But you're right in terms of money non rev sports are exactly what they are called... non rev

3: Agree

4: Totally agree, I'm with you on the all or nothing stance. The BE failed because leadership sided with one branch of the tree and didn't care about the rest. Leadership was poor in the promotion of the league. The BE won 4 BCS Bowls since 2006 and did nothing to capitalize on that fact and allowed the media to run over the league w/ poor reports. Not saying that the BE is/was the SEC either.

Honestly, I just don't see ND/ACC coming to an agreement. ND seems firm w/ the BE right now. Personally its all or nothing for me as well.

Those who advocate partial membership for Notre Dame primarily seem to base that position on two premises: (1) that the ACC is desperate for more TV income, and (2) that a scheduling agreement + partial membership for N.D. is the best way to get more revenue. Personally, I think both premises are false.

Those who question whether the football schools could get by as partial members fail to consider one very important possibility - for argument's sake let's assume that Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, Wake Forest, Virginia Tech, Maryland and Pitt all went partial member route, and then they formed their own football-only conference - you don't think those 8 teams could make a go of it? Maybe they invite ECU and Louisville to join their little football league (maybe 2 more to get to 12?). What would NBC pay for those TV rights?

To be clear, this should NOT be taken as a threat - I prefer VT to remain in the ACC. I actually like playing all of the football teams, and the other sports are superior. But make no mistake - it is possible to destroy this league from within if certain stupid decisions are made (the original ESPN deal was one such stupid decision; the ACC can't afford to make a whole series of mistakes)

That's just my 2 cents...

Clemson was 16-15 last year in basketball. Notre Dame was 22-12.

Clemson was 22-12 in basketball in 2010-11. Notre Dame was 27-7.

Clemson was 21-11 in basketball in 2009-10. Notre Dame was 23-12.

I think that Notre Dame has been a better basketball program than Clemson.

In baseball, ND had 14 40 win seasons in a row and went to the 2002 College World Series under Paul Mainieri.

After he left for LSU in 2006, ND struggled under his successor (fired after 3 seasons) and has gotten better under Mik Aoki.

Clemson has the better baseball program, no doubt. But, ND has been very successful in baseball in the past and can be again. They would not be a "complete non-factor" in ACC baseball.

I just wanted to address some sweeping comments in your post. I agree with you that the partial membership deal doesn't work....for either side. I do not think that it will happen.

(08-17-2012 10:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Clemson was 16-15 last year in basketball. Notre Dame was 22-12.

Clemson was 22-12 in basketball in 2010-11. Notre Dame was 27-7.

Clemson was 21-11 in basketball in 2009-10. Notre Dame was 23-12.

I think that Notre Dame has been a better basketball program than Clemson.

In baseball, ND had 14 40 win seasons in a row and went to the 2002 College World Series under Paul Mainieri.

After he left for LSU in 2006, ND struggled under his successor (fired after 3 seasons) and has gotten better under Mik Aoki.

Clemson has the better baseball program, no doubt. But, ND has been very successful in baseball in the past and can be again. They would not be a "complete non-factor" in ACC baseball.

I just wanted to address some sweeping comments in your post. I agree with you that the partial membership deal doesn't work....for either side. I do not think that it will happen.

I often don't agree with the resident anti ACC pro Big12/SEC/Clemson poster that you are rebutting.... so let me say if the Irish want to join the ACC in ALL sports, "then come on down". However, I do agree with him that it must be all or nothing or at least a concrete date for future entry…

(08-17-2012 09:44 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  I'd prefer to struggle as an independent than allow this conference to kill off our football program by continually making basketball centric decisions in a football centric world.

The saddest thing is the fact that so many of you are having wet dreams at night about the idea of Notre Dame being a partial member when the facts are in men's hoops, the secondary by a large margin money sport, they are essentially Clemson with a much better hype machine, and they are a complete non-factor in the ACC's third money sport by an even larger margin than hoops to football...baseball.

So let's review here:

1. Football provides 80% of ACC television revenue...and as a partial member the very best they are going to bring to the table is 3 games a year that will contribute towards that payout. That's in the very best case scenario....a 6 game a year slate, which anybody with half a brain knows we have a better chance of Duke contending for the last two BCS titles and getting the 1 seed in the first two playoffs. So now we are looking at a one or two game a year scenario. Exactly how much money do you think we are going to make off of that?

2. In basketball, 20% of the ACC television revenue, they are pretty much Clemson. They'll annually be in a death struggle for the 4th/5th/6th slot in the good years, and the rest be fighting to stay above 12th/13th. How much money do you think THAT is going to bring to the plate? There is a reason that Notre Dame is an independent in football and a member of a conference in everything else.

3. The only sports they will bring something to the table simply do not matter.

4. If we allow them to join as a partial member then we throw away the only GD thing this conference has ever got right.....every member shares the same level of commitment to the conference as a whole. Hybrid conferences are destined to fail because they are a house built upon a foundation of sand. If we go the hybrid route we will be like the Big East before this horrendous TV contract runs it's course....we will be fractured, we will be weakened, and we will be picked apart like the $5 DVD bin at Walmart.

Stand firm and stay the course. Full membership or else enjoy the new Big East.

Very good points. And a very nice post, overall, although I disagree with point #2. ND is a very good bb program, and will continue to be so as long as they have their coach. ND has had some very good seasons in the BE and getting thru the gauntlet of Syracuse, Uconn, Louisville, Pitt, Georgetown, Villanova etc.... Being able to get between 20-27 wins a season after going thru all that is quite impressive. No other league has had a top 8 as deep and as varied as the BE has had.

(08-17-2012 10:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Clemson was 16-15 last year in basketball. Notre Dame was 22-12.

Clemson was 22-12 in basketball in 2010-11. Notre Dame was 27-7.

Clemson was 21-11 in basketball in 2009-10. Notre Dame was 23-12.

I think that Notre Dame has been a better basketball program than Clemson.

In baseball, ND had 14 40 win seasons in a row and went to the 2002 College World Series under Paul Mainieri.

After he left for LSU in 2006, ND struggled under his successor (fired after 3 seasons) and has gotten better under Mik Aoki.

Clemson has the better baseball program, no doubt. But, ND has been very successful in baseball in the past and can be again. They would not be a "complete non-factor" in ACC baseball.

I just wanted to address some sweeping comments in your post. I agree with you that the partial membership deal doesn't work....for either side. I do not think that it will happen.

In the past 20 years Notre Dame, despite the constant fluffing of everything Irish by the media, has 2 more NCAA tournament appearances than Clemson and we don't care about basketball. Notre Dame basketball isn't going to be a money maker for the ACC or anybody else, because if it were then the Irish would be independent in that too.

Winning 40 baseball games a year in the Big East is nothing. We went to 21 straight NCAA Tournaments prior to 2008, the 3rd longest streak ever. The two longest streaks are also ACC teams...Miami and FSU.

(08-18-2012 06:40 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(08-17-2012 10:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Clemson was 16-15 last year in basketball. Notre Dame was 22-12.

Clemson was 22-12 in basketball in 2010-11. Notre Dame was 27-7.

Clemson was 21-11 in basketball in 2009-10. Notre Dame was 23-12.

I think that Notre Dame has been a better basketball program than Clemson.

In baseball, ND had 14 40 win seasons in a row and went to the 2002 College World Series under Paul Mainieri.

After he left for LSU in 2006, ND struggled under his successor (fired after 3 seasons) and has gotten better under Mik Aoki.

Clemson has the better baseball program, no doubt. But, ND has been very successful in baseball in the past and can be again. They would not be a "complete non-factor" in ACC baseball.

I just wanted to address some sweeping comments in your post. I agree with you that the partial membership deal doesn't work....for either side. I do not think that it will happen.

In the past 20 years Notre Dame, despite the constant fluffing of everything Irish by the media, has 2 more NCAA tournament appearances than Clemson and we don't care about basketball. Notre Dame basketball isn't going to be a money maker for the ACC or anybody else, because if it were then the Irish would be independent in that too.

Winning 40 baseball games a year in the Big East is nothing. We went to 21 straight NCAA Tournaments prior to 2008, the 3rd longest streak ever. The two longest streaks are also ACC teams...Miami and FSU.

As much as I hate to agree with anything CD says TerryD.....he's got you.
Notre Dame adds nothing to ACC sports other than football. And that football addition is based on reputation, and because of a large non-alumni (and for the most part a non-college educated) fan base.

Did you guys miss the part of my post that says I agree that partial membership in the ACC doesn't work....for ND or for the ACC?

I don't want ND to commit six games a year to the ACC into the future. He just made some sweeping generalizations of ND basketball and baseball that I disagreed with.

I think the two sides should shake hands, say no deal, and go their separate ways.

(08-17-2012 09:44 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  I'd prefer to struggle as an independent than allow this conference to kill off our football program by continually making basketball centric decisions in a football centric world.

The saddest thing is the fact that so many of you are having wet dreams at night about the idea of Notre Dame being a partial member when the facts are in men's hoops, the secondary by a large margin money sport, they are essentially Clemson with a much better hype machine, and they are a complete non-factor in the ACC's third money sport by an even larger margin than hoops to football...baseball.

So let's review here:

1. Football provides 80% of ACC television revenue...and as a partial member the very best they are going to bring to the table is 3 games a year that will contribute towards that payout. That's in the very best case scenario....a 6 game a year slate, which anybody with half a brain knows we have a better chance of Duke contending for the last two BCS titles and getting the 1 seed in the first two playoffs. So now we are looking at a one or two game a year scenario. Exactly how much money do you think we are going to make off of that?

2. In basketball, 20% of the ACC television revenue, they are pretty much Clemson. They'll annually be in a death struggle for the 4th/5th/6th slot in the good years, and the rest be fighting to stay above 12th/13th. How much money do you think THAT is going to bring to the plate? There is a reason that Notre Dame is an independent in football and a member of a conference in everything else.

3. The only sports they will bring something to the table simply do not matter.

4. If we allow them to join as a partial member then we throw away the only GD thing this conference has ever got right.....every member shares the same level of commitment to the conference as a whole. Hybrid conferences are destined to fail because they are a house built upon a foundation of sand. If we go the hybrid route we will be like the Big East before this horrendous TV contract runs it's course....we will be fractured, we will be weakened, and we will be picked apart like the $5 DVD bin at Walmart.

Stand firm and stay the course. Full membership or else enjoy the new Big East.

The idea is that 6 football games with the Irish will allow us to renegotiate our TV deal and make more $ per school which would make ADs and presidents in the ACC very happy. Who cares about the basketball? I'd be after UConn and Louisville if I was concerned about that and would have not been focused on the Irish.

If 6 ND football games and their other sports didn't bring enough value to the ACC to expand then there wouldn't be any ongoing talks. ESPN must have already let the ACC know what kind of added value ND would bring to the TV contract and the ACC has already decided that it is enough. Keep in mind that ESPN has more at stake than getting 3 away games a year versus the ACC. It would also take ND's other sports away from NBC who is rumored to be starting a ND network if they get the BE for all sports. There is added value for ESPN to keep content away from NBC more than just the added value of 3 away games. So all this talk about what value ND brings is irrelevant because whatever it is, it was enough to start negotiating.

If ND joins as a partial member, I have no doubt that at least Miami and FSU will have the same agreement as soon as possible. That's why I predicted a grant of rights until the end of the TV deal. It doesn't have to be a grant of rights though. An agreement that no one will leave the ACC until the end of the TV deal would work just as well.

For the record, I'm not in favor of ND as a partial member because of what I just stated it would do to the conference but, based on the way events are breaking down, I think that if it's ever going to happen, it will happen now, while the ACC is negotiating from a position of weakness. If the ACC recovers and makes it to the end of this TV deal, then it will be all or nothing for ND.

The conference is already a hybrid conference as are most if not all of them since not everyone plays every sport. Of course I'd like to see them have a transition period but if they won't then just give them a reduced share(20% + 5%x per FB game or 7.5% per road game vs. ACC opponent) until they come in as a full member. Something that that would end any required games talk since around $850,000-$1,250,000 per game(based on the $17 mil average) will be up for grabs if ND wants it or not. Of course the conference could put in a poison pill clause where ND has to play X number of ACC teams in Y years(ex. 15 games in 3 years) or else ND gives half of their FB TV money to the conference every year which is something the BE was too stupid to do, in exchange ND would have unfettered access to the ACC bowls outside the Orange just so they get something for the poison pill clause.

Both sides have something to gain if NBC is balking to give ND the $15+ million they want and the ACC will see gains in their revenue as well at least by 2017.

20%+ ACC revenue will be substantially higher than the 30% the BE can offer. It'll just come down to what the final numbers are in the BE and ND TV deals to see whether or not it could work.

(08-18-2012 09:30 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  The conference is already a hybrid conference as are most if not all of them since not everyone plays every sport. Of course I'd like to see them have a transition period but if they won't then just give them a reduced share(20% + 5%x per FB game or 7.5% per road game vs. ACC opponent) until they come in as a full member. Something that that would end any required games talk since around $850,000-$1,250,000 per game(based on the $17 mil average) will be up for grabs if ND wants it or not. Of course the conference could put in a poison pill clause where ND has to play X number of ACC teams in Y years(ex. 15 games in 3 years) or else ND gives half of their FB TV money to the conference every year which is something the BE was too stupid to do, in exchange ND would have unfettered access to the ACC bowls outside the Orange just so they get something for the poison pill clause.

Both sides have something to gain if NBC is balking to give ND the $15+ million they want and the ACC will see gains in their revenue as well at least by 2017.

20%+ ACC revenue will be substantially higher than the 30% the BE can offer. It'll just come down to what the final numbers are in the BE and ND TV deals to see whether or not it could work.

I think that is the sticking point right now. ND is obligated to wait for the BE deal to see whether or not 30% of BE TV money is greater than 20% of ACC TV money. So I don't expect any change until after the BE takes there rights to the open market and NBC can bid on them. Really this is working to the advantage of the BE because NBC may overbid just to keep ND.

(08-18-2012 09:30 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  The conference is already a hybrid conference as are most if not all of them since not everyone plays every sport. Of course I'd like to see them have a transition period but if they won't then just give them a reduced share(20% + 5%x per FB game or 7.5% per road game vs. ACC opponent) until they come in as a full member. Something that that would end any required games talk since around $850,000-$1,250,000 per game(based on the $17 mil average) will be up for grabs if ND wants it or not. Of course the conference could put in a poison pill clause where ND has to play X number of ACC teams in Y years(ex. 15 games in 3 years) or else ND gives half of their FB TV money to the conference every year which is something the BE was too stupid to do, in exchange ND would have unfettered access to the ACC bowls outside the Orange just so they get something for the poison pill clause.

Both sides have something to gain if NBC is balking to give ND the $15+ million they want and the ACC will see gains in their revenue as well at least by 2017.

20%+ ACC revenue will be substantially higher than the 30% the BE can offer. It'll just come down to what the final numbers are in the BE and ND TV deals to see whether or not it could work.

ND is not going to agree to "poison pills" or any such thing.

NBC is not "balking" at resigning with the Irish. Show me one article, comment or blog (or anything other than your imagination) that says anything of this nature, at all.

I just don't think that the odds are very high that the ACC and ND are going to come close to reaching an agreement.

(08-18-2012 05:56 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-18-2012 09:30 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  The conference is already a hybrid conference as are most if not all of them since not everyone plays every sport. Of course I'd like to see them have a transition period but if they won't then just give them a reduced share(20% + 5%x per FB game or 7.5% per road game vs. ACC opponent) until they come in as a full member. Something that that would end any required games talk since around $850,000-$1,250,000 per game(based on the $17 mil average) will be up for grabs if ND wants it or not. Of course the conference could put in a poison pill clause where ND has to play X number of ACC teams in Y years(ex. 15 games in 3 years) or else ND gives half of their FB TV money to the conference every year which is something the BE was too stupid to do, in exchange ND would have unfettered access to the ACC bowls outside the Orange just so they get something for the poison pill clause.

Both sides have something to gain if NBC is balking to give ND the $15+ million they want and the ACC will see gains in their revenue as well at least by 2017.

20%+ ACC revenue will be substantially higher than the 30% the BE can offer. It'll just come down to what the final numbers are in the BE and ND TV deals to see whether or not it could work.

ND is not going to agree to "poison pills" or any such thing.

NBC is not "balking" at resigning with the Irish. Show me one article, comment or blog (or anything other than your imagination) that says anything of this nature, at all.

I just don't think that the odds are very high that the ACC and ND are going to come close to reaching an agreement.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-...w-nbc-deal

""We've had a series of meetings, we've exchanged information, and I think we will have a decision to make probably within the next 30 days about all of that," Swarbrick said in a phone interview Wednesday. "That's probably the range we're in ... Don't hold me to 30 (days), but it's in that window.""

http://espn.go.com/blog/notre-dame-footb...-swarbrick

""A couple of times I've indicated that we were focused on using the summer to conclude that process," Swarbrick said. "There's no fixed deadline, but I do think as we head into football season we'll probably get ourselves in a position where we've at least concluded those discussions for a while. Not predicting the outcome, we'll meet again in the coming weeks. But the discussion has been great, and it's really focused on things like this: How might we define the relationship in the future to take fuller advantage of the assets that NBC/Comcast now has?"

Not necessarily balking but there is a delay from having a deal done especially after making statements about renewing the deal to the public when such things weren't necessary. There's usually something behind making such things public.
If they are satisfied, could you explain why they would make such a thing public?

(08-18-2012 11:43 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(08-18-2012 05:56 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-18-2012 09:30 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  The conference is already a hybrid conference as are most if not all of them since not everyone plays every sport. Of course I'd like to see them have a transition period but if they won't then just give them a reduced share(20% + 5%x per FB game or 7.5% per road game vs. ACC opponent) until they come in as a full member. Something that that would end any required games talk since around $850,000-$1,250,000 per game(based on the $17 mil average) will be up for grabs if ND wants it or not. Of course the conference could put in a poison pill clause where ND has to play X number of ACC teams in Y years(ex. 15 games in 3 years) or else ND gives half of their FB TV money to the conference every year which is something the BE was too stupid to do, in exchange ND would have unfettered access to the ACC bowls outside the Orange just so they get something for the poison pill clause.

Both sides have something to gain if NBC is balking to give ND the $15+ million they want and the ACC will see gains in their revenue as well at least by 2017.

20%+ ACC revenue will be substantially higher than the 30% the BE can offer. It'll just come down to what the final numbers are in the BE and ND TV deals to see whether or not it could work.

ND is not going to agree to "poison pills" or any such thing.

NBC is not "balking" at resigning with the Irish. Show me one article, comment or blog (or anything other than your imagination) that says anything of this nature, at all.

I just don't think that the odds are very high that the ACC and ND are going to come close to reaching an agreement.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-...w-nbc-deal

""We've had a series of meetings, we've exchanged information, and I think we will have a decision to make probably within the next 30 days about all of that," Swarbrick said in a phone interview Wednesday. "That's probably the range we're in ... Don't hold me to 30 (days), but it's in that window.""

http://espn.go.com/blog/notre-dame-footb...-swarbrick

""A couple of times I've indicated that we were focused on using the summer to conclude that process," Swarbrick said. "There's no fixed deadline, but I do think as we head into football season we'll probably get ourselves in a position where we've at least concluded those discussions for a while. Not predicting the outcome, we'll meet again in the coming weeks. But the discussion has been great, and it's really focused on things like this: How might we define the relationship in the future to take fuller advantage of the assets that NBC/Comcast now has?"

Not necessarily balking but there is a delay from having a deal done especially after making statements about renewing the deal to the public when such things weren't necessary. There's usually something behind making such things public.
If they are satisfied, could you explain why they would make such a thing public?

You left out the rest of his August 1st quote:

The most newsworthy item to come from the session centered around the status of Notre Dame's television deal with NBC, which runs through 2015. Swarbrick has said that Notre Dame has every intention of eventually renewing the contract, and he went into further detail about the Irish's TV relationship during Tuesday's hangout.


"A couple of times I've indicated that we were focused on using the summer to conclude that process," Swarbrick said. "There's no fixed deadline, but I do think as we head into football season we'll probably get ourselves in a position where we've at least concluded those discussions for a while. Not predicting the outcome, we'll meet again in the coming weeks.

But the discussion has been great, and it's really focused on things like this: How might we define the relationship in the future to take fuller advantage of the assets that NBC/Comcast now has?

"And so they've been helping us think about some new applications, some new technology, that will really allow us to take our core asset — which is the game of course — do more shoulder programming around it, enhance the game experience when you're watching it with additional elements that I think we'll be able to add, and just allowing us to take our content and distribute it in so many more ways. That's our future, and that's what we want to focus on with them.

"They're a great partner and I wouldn't read too much one away or another into the contract discussions. The relationship is a long-term relationship, and at point in times we stop and take a look at where we are but there's no magic to that."


I guess that you likewise believe that the Big 12 is not going to extend its GOR and their TV deals since they haven't announced it officially yet?

The bolded quotes indicate no fixed deadline. The NBC deal ends after the 2015 season. It is not like there is a pending date any time soon.

I recall Jack Swarbrick talking about the proposed length of the renewal. ND wanted a shorter period, NBC wanted a longer one.

The devil is in the details. Maybe the pending NBC/BE discussions are related to the announcement of the NBC/ND deal?

I stand by my prediction that NBC will renew the deal in the neighborhood of $20-25 million per year.