(06-08-2013 09:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 08:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 01:54 PM)Ragu Wrote:  The entire ACC wanted Miami/FSU in separate divisions. It wasn't something driven by FSU. Considering your team hasn't even joined the conference yet, your insights may be off.

I am quickly learning that the newcomers think they know more about how this conference works than the people who have been a part of it for all or the majority of their lives.

Maybe what these Syracuse knowitalls need to do is perhaps wait until they actually have some dealings with our "benevolent brethren" from North Carolina and Charlottesville before they make claims about how this conference has always been run.

For the Syracuse fans who think the idea that Duke/UNC/and UVA have always ran the conference I issue you a challenge: Go to any CLemson message board and ask what the fans there think about how the ACC is run.

As for me, I think the biggest mistake Clemson ever made was double crossing South Carolina in 1970 and not withdrawing with them. Without Clemson in the 1980's there is no FSU in the 1990's and the ACC is Conference USA with better basketball. You probably have an all-sports Metro Conference from Virginia to New Orleans today and Clemson & FSU aren't having to worry about playing up north in front of 40k fans every other year.

An ACC without FSU means the Noles get the Eastern slot in the SEC instead of South Carolina and Clemson and USCe are either going back to the ACC cap in hand or joining the Big East or C-USA.

Cheers,
Neil

Had the Metro added football FSU doesn't join either the ACC or the SEC. They had everything they wanted in the Metro.

If the Metro had football GT never leaves.

(06-09-2013 05:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:44 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 12:32 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  The ACC Grant of Rights is the biggest legal piece of today's college sports. It will make the ACC the top conference in the country before long.

How? It apparently only guarantees the ACC of an addition $1M/year per school from ESPN.

18+ ?=20

its not 1 its 2 per year and that's only if the ACC network doesn't happen which it sounds like its going to happen around 2016 or 17 .I'm not saying the ACC will become the top conference anytime soon but we are solidly at the big boy table which is a good thing considering our poor showing in major bowl games recently. The ACC will be the top conference in basketball and lacrosse

There is a lot of public uncertainty about a network. It doesn't sound like it'll be ready in 3-4 years at all, since no one seems to know if one will even exist.

And it was raised to $17M with Cuse and Pitt, right? And rumored to be about $19M with ND, yea? ESPN guaranteed to pay $20M per team if there wasn't an ACC Network in the next few years.

20-19=1?

Either way, that's hardly a significant amount of money.

latest article had the money going to 18mil per year after the notre dame addition

(06-07-2013 12:46 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 12:20 PM)Ragu Wrote:  That is exactly how conferences should work. Still looking for the ACC to give something to FSU.

Well, I certainly don't know the entire history of the conference but I do know when they came up with divisions, FSU and Miami wanted to be in separate divisions although UNC and UVa thought they should be in the same division and play early in the season so that the one that lost the FSU-Miami match-up would have time to climb back up the polls. FSU and Miami got what they wanted and there has yet to be an FSU/Miami match-up in the championship game.

FSU and Miami wanted the championship game in Florida. They got that at first.

FSU and Miami along with MD wanted the NC schools separated. They got that.

And if the rumors are true UNC and Duke wanted UConn but FSU and Clemson wanted Louisville.

So it's not as though the Noles haven't gotten their way in ALL aspects.

Can you list the specific things FSU has requested and didn't get? I know FSU fans and GT fans have said they want to play each other but have either administrations come out and said they requested this and were denied?

Cheers,
Neil

It's a shame that Carolina and UVa don't run the ACC.

(06-08-2013 09:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 08:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 01:54 PM)Ragu Wrote:  The entire ACC wanted Miami/FSU in separate divisions. It wasn't something driven by FSU. Considering your team hasn't even joined the conference yet, your insights may be off.

I am quickly learning that the newcomers think they know more about how this conference works than the people who have been a part of it for all or the majority of their lives.

Maybe what these Syracuse knowitalls need to do is perhaps wait until they actually have some dealings with our "benevolent brethren" from North Carolina and Charlottesville before they make claims about how this conference has always been run.

For the Syracuse fans who think the idea that Duke/UNC/and UVA have always ran the conference I issue you a challenge: Go to any CLemson message board and ask what the fans there think about how the ACC is run.

As for me, I think the biggest mistake Clemson ever made was double crossing South Carolina in 1970 and not withdrawing with them. Without Clemson in the 1980's there is no FSU in the 1990's and the ACC is Conference USA with better basketball. You probably have an all-sports Metro Conference from Virginia to New Orleans today and Clemson & FSU aren't having to worry about playing up north in front of 40k fans every other year.

An ACC without FSU means the Noles get the Eastern slot in the SEC instead of South Carolina and Clemson and USCe are either going back to the ACC cap in hand or joining the Big East or C-USA.

Cheers,
Neil

South Carolina has already tried to re-join the ACC at least once. The deal was scuttled because South Carolina was not going to receive a full share of ACC basketball tournament tickets for several years.

(06-09-2013 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  South Carolina has already tried to re-join the ACC at least once. The deal was scuttled because South Carolina was not going to receive a full share of ACC basketball tournament tickets for several years.

in retrospect, that seems like a mistake. Could've isolated GA & UF as the only East Coast teams in the SEC... maybe an aggressive ACC could've even grabbed UF when the ACC's payouts were still more than SEC's? Just a thought...

(06-09-2013 07:34 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:44 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 12:32 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  The ACC Grant of Rights is the biggest legal piece of today's college sports. It will make the ACC the top conference in the country before long.

How? It apparently only guarantees the ACC of an addition $1M/year per school from ESPN.

18+ ?=20

its not 1 its 2 per year and that's only if the ACC network doesn't happen which it sounds like its going to happen around 2016 or 17 .I'm not saying the ACC will become the top conference anytime soon but we are solidly at the big boy table which is a good thing considering our poor showing in major bowl games recently. The ACC will be the top conference in basketball and lacrosse

There is a lot of public uncertainty about a network. It doesn't sound like it'll be ready in 3-4 years at all, since no one seems to know if one will even exist.

And it was raised to $17M with Cuse and Pitt, right? And rumored to be about $19M with ND, yea? ESPN guaranteed to pay $20M per team if there wasn't an ACC Network in the next few years.

20-19=1?

Either way, that's hardly a significant amount of money.

latest article had the money going to 18mil per year after the notre dame addition

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Because either way an extra $1-2M is not much tv/network money compared to what the Big Ten and SEC will be making 5 years from now.

(06-09-2013 08:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  South Carolina has already tried to re-join the ACC at least once. The deal was scuttled because South Carolina was not going to receive a full share of ACC basketball tournament tickets for several years.

in retrospect, that seems like a mistake. Could've isolated GA & UF as the only East Coast teams in the SEC... maybe an aggressive ACC could've even grabbed UF when the ACC's payouts were still more than SEC's? Just a thought...

Except that was likely decades ago before they joined the SEC. There is no way in hell they leave the SEC for the ACC.

(06-09-2013 08:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:34 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:44 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How? It apparently only guarantees the ACC of an addition $1M/year per school from ESPN.

18+ ?=20

its not 1 its 2 per year and that's only if the ACC network doesn't happen which it sounds like its going to happen around 2016 or 17 .I'm not saying the ACC will become the top conference anytime soon but we are solidly at the big boy table which is a good thing considering our poor showing in major bowl games recently. The ACC will be the top conference in basketball and lacrosse

There is a lot of public uncertainty about a network. It doesn't sound like it'll be ready in 3-4 years at all, since no one seems to know if one will even exist.

And it was raised to $17M with Cuse and Pitt, right? And rumored to be about $19M with ND, yea? ESPN guaranteed to pay $20M per team if there wasn't an ACC Network in the next few years.

20-19=1?

Either way, that's hardly a significant amount of money.

latest article had the money going to 18mil per year after the notre dame addition

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Because either way an extra $1-2M is not much tv/network money compared to what the Big Ten and SEC will be making 5 years from now.

You are absolutely correct, it dosen't matter, because like it or not the teams in the ACC now are bound together for quite a while.

(06-09-2013 08:47 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  South Carolina has already tried to re-join the ACC at least once. The deal was scuttled because South Carolina was not going to receive a full share of ACC basketball tournament tickets for several years.

in retrospect, that seems like a mistake. Could've isolated GA & UF as the only East Coast teams in the SEC... maybe an aggressive ACC could've even grabbed UF when the ACC's payouts were still more than SEC's? Just a thought...

Except that was likely decades ago before they joined the SEC. There is no way in hell they leave the SEC for the ACC.

Of course it had to be several years before 'lil carolina joined the SEC, because Gamecocks and basketball no longer belong in the same sentence.

(06-09-2013 08:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:34 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:44 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How? It apparently only guarantees the ACC of an addition $1M/year per school from ESPN.

18+ ?=20

its not 1 its 2 per year and that's only if the ACC network doesn't happen which it sounds like its going to happen around 2016 or 17 .I'm not saying the ACC will become the top conference anytime soon but we are solidly at the big boy table which is a good thing considering our poor showing in major bowl games recently. The ACC will be the top conference in basketball and lacrosse

There is a lot of public uncertainty about a network. It doesn't sound like it'll be ready in 3-4 years at all, since no one seems to know if one will even exist.

And it was raised to $17M with Cuse and Pitt, right? And rumored to be about $19M with ND, yea? ESPN guaranteed to pay $20M per team if there wasn't an ACC Network in the next few years.

20-19=1?

Either way, that's hardly a significant amount of money.

latest article had the money going to 18mil per year after the notre dame addition

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Because either way an extra $1-2M is not much tv/network money compared to what the Big Ten and SEC will be making 5 years from now.

The acc only has it self to blame for the difference and we will be right with the big 12 and pac 12

(06-09-2013 09:19 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  The acc only has it self to blame for the difference and we will be right with the big 12 and pac 12

Once again, some of us aren't satisfied with competing in the second tier.


I bet the thinking about all of this would be different if the SEC and B1G were to put a higher priority in competing in a secondary sport like basketball.

(06-09-2013 09:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:19 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  The acc only has it self to blame for the difference and we will be right with the big 12 and pac 12

Once again, some of us aren't satisfied with competing in the second tier.


I bet the thinking about all of this would be different if the SEC and B1G were to put a higher priority in competing in a secondary sport like basketball.

The BiG already has which is why they lead in attendance and have the best collection of basketball coaches of any conference, top to bottom.

They found out the power of bb when they launched the BTN. It was the 100+ bb games that went to the network that first year that started the rush to drop cable and sign up with DirecTV during the winter that helped pushed it onto to cable companies in their states by August of the following year.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-09-2013 01:56 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  But how would incentivizing postseason success cause the ACC fail when it's clearly super duper stable and has an air tight grant of rights? Besides, who is going to complain about this change and what conference can they go to if they don't like it? Wake and BC aren't going anywhere. If UVA or GT or whomever doesn't like it, I suppose they can join the Big Ten, but at that point it'll be a mad dash out of the ACC and it won't matter anyways. I'd rather the top teams get more money for the next 15 years and jump to a better conference at the end of the contracts than give equal money to the best teams in the conference as the worst teams and giving equal distribution to schools that aren't even football or basketball postseason-eligible.

The majority of the conference would complain and vote against it. It's not just UVA, UNC and Duke. Even though it would probably benefit VT, I think they'd still vote for even revenue share because it might go against us some day and even revenue streams are easier to budget.

FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, VT, Pitt, and maybe UNC or N.C. State would probably be your yes votes. And everyone but FSU might vote against even so.

(06-09-2013 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  South Carolina has already tried to re-join the ACC at least once. The deal was scuttled because South Carolina was not going to receive a full share of ACC basketball tournament tickets for several years.

When was this? Was it before 1991?

Footnote: One of the best things to ever happen to the ACC was South Carolina leaving.

(06-09-2013 08:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:34 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:44 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  18+ ?=20

its not 1 its 2 per year and that's only if the ACC network doesn't happen which it sounds like its going to happen around 2016 or 17 .I'm not saying the ACC will become the top conference anytime soon but we are solidly at the big boy table which is a good thing considering our poor showing in major bowl games recently. The ACC will be the top conference in basketball and lacrosse

There is a lot of public uncertainty about a network. It doesn't sound like it'll be ready in 3-4 years at all, since no one seems to know if one will even exist.

And it was raised to $17M with Cuse and Pitt, right? And rumored to be about $19M with ND, yea? ESPN guaranteed to pay $20M per team if there wasn't an ACC Network in the next few years.

20-19=1?

Either way, that's hardly a significant amount of money.

latest article had the money going to 18mil per year after the notre dame addition

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Because either way an extra $1-2M is not much tv/network money compared to what the Big Ten and SEC will be making 5 years from now.

You are absolutely correct, it dosen't matter, because like it or not the teams in the ACC now are bound together for quite a while.

So do you agree or disagree it's not a significant boost compared to what the Big Ten and SEC are (likely to be) making in the next few years?

Because saying, "Too bad, you can't leave" isn't of much relevance.

(06-10-2013 01:09 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:56 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  But how would incentivizing postseason success cause the ACC fail when it's clearly super duper stable and has an air tight grant of rights? Besides, who is going to complain about this change and what conference can they go to if they don't like it? Wake and BC aren't going anywhere. If UVA or GT or whomever doesn't like it, I suppose they can join the Big Ten, but at that point it'll be a mad dash out of the ACC and it won't matter anyways. I'd rather the top teams get more money for the next 15 years and jump to a better conference at the end of the contracts than give equal money to the best teams in the conference as the worst teams and giving equal distribution to schools that aren't even football or basketball postseason-eligible.

The majority of the conference would complain and vote against it. It's not just UVA, UNC and Duke. Even though it would probably benefit VT, I think they'd still vote for even revenue share because it might go against us some day and even revenue streams are easier to budget.

FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, VT, Pitt, and maybe UNC or N.C. State would probably be your yes votes. And everyone but FSU might vote against even so.

If you say so.

(06-09-2013 09:19 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:34 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:44 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  18+ ?=20

its not 1 its 2 per year and that's only if the ACC network doesn't happen which it sounds like its going to happen around 2016 or 17 .I'm not saying the ACC will become the top conference anytime soon but we are solidly at the big boy table which is a good thing considering our poor showing in major bowl games recently. The ACC will be the top conference in basketball and lacrosse

There is a lot of public uncertainty about a network. It doesn't sound like it'll be ready in 3-4 years at all, since no one seems to know if one will even exist.

And it was raised to $17M with Cuse and Pitt, right? And rumored to be about $19M with ND, yea? ESPN guaranteed to pay $20M per team if there wasn't an ACC Network in the next few years.

20-19=1?

Either way, that's hardly a significant amount of money.

latest article had the money going to 18mil per year after the notre dame addition

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Because either way an extra $1-2M is not much tv/network money compared to what the Big Ten and SEC will be making 5 years from now.

we will be right with the big 12 and pac 12

That's a good thing?

This is about being competitive with the two best conferences and the two that share the ACC's footprint...