(12-11-2014 11:35 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 05:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:36 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  One thing just KEEPS bugging me though... the ACC didn't need to split the Orange Bowl money to get the best available team! I mean, if the ACC had kept $40M like the other P5's, they still could have paid out $15M, which is more than twice what the playoff pays (and kills any other bowl payout). So there must have been something more than just negotiation here - nobody is THAT BAD at negotiating. (No, not even John Swofford).

Disagree. He appears to have panicked here. The BiG and SEC were not going to turn down $15 million for an extra team in a NY6 bowl.

He wanted a contract bowl deal to help keep the football schools from getting roving eyes and gave away too much. He did much better negotiating with ND then he did here.

Cheers,
Neil

If the ACC had not agreed to the split, then the B10 and SEC would not have allowed their second teams to participate in the Orange Bowl - they had the leverage because they have the large traveling crowds and large fan bases outside Texas and OU.

I think some are forgetting that the ACC had no other conference champ in which to match the ACC champ for the Orange Bowl. The Rose contract is for B10 and P12 champs. The Sugar is for SEC and B12 champs. The Orange is for the ACC champ and an at large who will NEVER be the B10, P12, SEC, or B12 champ.

That's the reason for the difference in the value of the three contracts $80 million versus $55 million.

Reality is not "panic". Moreover with Miami mired in the mud who can the Orange Bowl expect to have when FSU makes the playoff? They will pray for Clemson, GT, or Louisville, but history has shown they could get Duke, Wake Forest, or BC, all of whom if they brought the entire student body, would not fill one of the endzones.

Why wouldn't the BiG or SEC want their second or third ranked non-champion going to the Orange for $15 million? As others have pointed out they only get $6 million in an event bowl their only other option.

He panicked on this point. I've complimented him in other areas, but in reality here he dropped the ball.

Cheers,
Neil

The ACC took one for the team so as to increase value of the access bowls:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-agreement

We are all well aware of the fact thatr the ACC took one for the team. We took one for the SEC/B1G. We took one for ESPN. We took one for the Big XII/Pac 12. The question is why?

I say "screw them. I want to get paid. Let *them* take one for *my* team." Why am I wrong?

(12-11-2014 06:08 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 02:00 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 05:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:36 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Disagree. He appears to have panicked here. The BiG and SEC were not going to turn down $15 million for an extra team in a NY6 bowl.

He wanted a contract bowl deal to help keep the football schools from getting roving eyes and gave away too much. He did much better negotiating with ND then he did here.

Cheers,
Neil

If the ACC had not agreed to the split, then the B10 and SEC would not have allowed their second teams to participate in the Orange Bowl - they had the leverage because they have the large traveling crowds and large fan bases outside Texas and OU.

I think some are forgetting that the ACC had no other conference champ in which to match the ACC champ for the Orange Bowl. The Rose contract is for B10 and P12 champs. The Sugar is for SEC and B12 champs. The Orange is for the ACC champ and an at large who will NEVER be the B10, P12, SEC, or B12 champ.

That's the reason for the difference in the value of the three contracts $80 million versus $55 million.

Reality is not "panic". Moreover with Miami mired in the mud who can the Orange Bowl expect to have when FSU makes the playoff? They will pray for Clemson, GT, or Louisville, but history has shown they could get Duke, Wake Forest, or BC, all of whom if they brought the entire student body, would not fill one of the endzones.

Why wouldn't the BiG or SEC want their second or third ranked non-champion going to the Orange for $15 million? As others have pointed out they only get $6 million in an event bowl their only other option.

He panicked on this point. I've complimented him in other areas, but in reality here he dropped the ball.

Cheers,
Neil

The nc state "insider" you're talking to isn't even addressing your point, my point, and the point others have made: that these other conferences still would have agreed to the Orange bowl because it was the best available and highest paying option.

Instead they focus on the total bowl payout and why it wasn't as high as the others, even though that's already been acknowledged by everyone and is beside the entire point.

I do find that maddening. It seems like we should have settled for much less than an even split with the B1G and SEC.

Either Swofford got jumpy and offered too much, OR the B1G and SEC played hardball because we really had no other option. That's possible. Would they have been happy with $15m? I'm sure. But that doesn't mean that they didn't go for more. We had no leverage really, what we going to do otherwise?

It did land a bowl which should be pretty good (payout aside) in terms of value and ratings. Landing an SEC/B1G team in there was the right move, versus potentially ending up with a G5 opponent or something. Most years, to the average viewer the Orange isn't going to stick out as a blatantly second rate game (if the ACC holds up their end), which is rather amazing considering the position it looked like we were in.

But yeah, I'm still mad about that even split. Just doesn't seem right at all. Hard to believe that's what it took to get it done.

The other possibility is that it was payback from some concession that the ACC got from the SEC and/or B1G that we will never know about.

If you remember, back when this was being set up, there was a lot of speculation about making payouts based on historical BCS appearances, or a rolling appearance metric like the NCAA tournament, both which would have been very bad for the ACC based on history.

I remember being relatively shocked that there wasn't some kind of payout more strongly correlated to appearances. Part of me wonders (although I've never heard any intimation of this at all) if this Orange Bowl deal was part of the horse trading for the general playoff pot to be shared equally among all conferences. We'll never know if it was.

"OR the B1G and SEC played hardball because we really had no other option."

We did, though. We could have gone to the Big XII and the Pac 12. One of them is bound to have a good 2nd team. We didn't need to narrow it down to the SEC/B1G. We could have played the field. And, if everyone else wanted to screw us, we could have help back on the championship game deregulation. The Big XII needs it more than we do. They would have caved.

(12-11-2014 06:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 06:08 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 02:00 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 05:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If the ACC had not agreed to the split, then the B10 and SEC would not have allowed their second teams to participate in the Orange Bowl - they had the leverage because they have the large traveling crowds and large fan bases outside Texas and OU.

I think some are forgetting that the ACC had no other conference champ in which to match the ACC champ for the Orange Bowl. The Rose contract is for B10 and P12 champs. The Sugar is for SEC and B12 champs. The Orange is for the ACC champ and an at large who will NEVER be the B10, P12, SEC, or B12 champ.

That's the reason for the difference in the value of the three contracts $80 million versus $55 million.

Reality is not "panic". Moreover with Miami mired in the mud who can the Orange Bowl expect to have when FSU makes the playoff? They will pray for Clemson, GT, or Louisville, but history has shown they could get Duke, Wake Forest, or BC, all of whom if they brought the entire student body, would not fill one of the endzones.

Why wouldn't the BiG or SEC want their second or third ranked non-champion going to the Orange for $15 million? As others have pointed out they only get $6 million in an event bowl their only other option.

He panicked on this point. I've complimented him in other areas, but in reality here he dropped the ball.

Cheers,
Neil

The nc state "insider" you're talking to isn't even addressing your point, my point, and the point others have made: that these other conferences still would have agreed to the Orange bowl because it was the best available and highest paying option.

Instead they focus on the total bowl payout and why it wasn't as high as the others, even though that's already been acknowledged by everyone and is beside the entire point.

I do find that maddening. It seems like we should have settled for much less than an even split with the B1G and SEC.

Either Swofford got jumpy and offered too much, OR the B1G and SEC played hardball because we really had no other option. That's possible. Would they have been happy with $15m? I'm sure. But that doesn't mean that they didn't go for more. We had no leverage really, what we going to do otherwise?

It did land a bowl which should be pretty good (payout aside) in terms of value and ratings. Landing an SEC/B1G team in there was the right move, versus potentially ending up with a G5 opponent or something. Most years, to the average viewer the Orange isn't going to stick out as a blatantly second rate game (if the ACC holds up their end), which is rather amazing considering the position it looked like we were in.

But yeah, I'm still mad about that even split. Just doesn't seem right at all. Hard to believe that's what it took to get it done.

The other possibility is that it was payback from some concession that the ACC got from the SEC and/or B1G that we will never know about.

If you remember, back when this was being set up, there was a lot of speculation about making payouts based on historical BCS appearances, or a rolling appearance metric like the NCAA tournament, both which would have been very bad for the ACC based on history.

I remember being relatively shocked that there wasn't some kind of payout more strongly correlated to appearances. Part of me wonders (although I've never heard any intimation of this at all) if this Orange Bowl deal was part of the horse trading for the general playoff pot to be shared equally among all conferences. We'll never know if it was.

"OR the B1G and SEC played hardball because we really had no other option."

We did, though. We could have gone to the Big XII and the Pac 12. One of them is bound to have a good 2nd team. We didn't need to narrow it down to the SEC/B1G. We could have played the field. And, if everyone else wanted to screw us, we could have help back on the championship game deregulation. The Big XII needs it more than we do. They would have caved.

Now don't be silly. Have you even seen PAC 12 and Big 12 ratings? I have no doubt that it had to be B1G or SEC as a condition of ESPN even paying the $55M for the Orange. No way they're taking a chance on Duke vs. Arizona or BC vs. Kansas State.

The ACC is already a dicey proposition for a ratings draw, especially if FSU makes the playoffs. They're not going to want another conference that could easily field a no-name as their third qualifier. Playoff, Rose/Sugar, then the Orange would go next. The third place SEC or B1G is a lot more of a ratings sure thing than the third place in the PAC or the B12.

That part is no mystery, I'm sure B1G/SEC/ND was a condition of the $55M. The question is why we had to give the B1G/SEC an even split. That seemed to be an overpayment.

Isn't there an NCAA requirement that both teams in a bowl get the same payout? I know there used to be. If that is still in effect, then that might be why there is an even split for the Orange bowl

(12-15-2014 04:38 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  Isn't there an NCAA requirement that both teams in a bowl get the same payout? I know there used to be. If that is still in effect, then that might be why there is an even split for the Orange bowl

Never has been any such rule to my knowledge. In fact the Peach Bowl paid the ACC more than the SEC until last year.

This was what the Orange has the last 8 or so years:

2007 - Louisville/Wake Forest
2008 - Kansas/VT
2009 - VT/Cincy
2010 - Iowa/GT
2011 - Stanford/VT
2012 - WVa/Clemson
2013 - FSU/Northern Illinois

2014 - Clemson/Ohio State

For seven years between 2007 and 2013, the Orange Bowl matchup sucked from a TV rating standpoint, and an attendance problems most of those years. The ACC was put in a position that without a champion partner from the SEC, B10, or B12 that something had to be given up in order to maintain a game with enough stature to matter. The ACC also knew from past experience that small alumni and fan base schools could win the ACC and get the Orange Bowl bid. Wake Forest proved that, and BC threatened that a couple of times. WF, Duke, and BC could bring their entire university population and not fill an end zone.

VT proved that if the same team was sent to NYD bowl enough times in a row, bowl fatigue would set in.

The two largest schools in the ACC are FSU and NC State - NC State's last big game was against ND in the Gator Bowl in 2003. UNC and UVa have large fan bases (UNC's larger), but UVa has done nothing since the Sugar Bowl in 1990, and UNC has done nothing major in football since Mack Brown's last two years in 97 and 98.

Because of their location in the cold rust belt, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State will take a ton of folks to sunny Florida. Because of their proximity, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, SC, and the two Mississippi's will take a lot of people.

The ACC didn't have a great bargaining position.

(12-15-2014 12:23 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 06:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 06:08 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 02:00 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Why wouldn't the BiG or SEC want their second or third ranked non-champion going to the Orange for $15 million? As others have pointed out they only get $6 million in an event bowl their only other option.

He panicked on this point. I've complimented him in other areas, but in reality here he dropped the ball.

Cheers,
Neil

The nc state "insider" you're talking to isn't even addressing your point, my point, and the point others have made: that these other conferences still would have agreed to the Orange bowl because it was the best available and highest paying option.

Instead they focus on the total bowl payout and why it wasn't as high as the others, even though that's already been acknowledged by everyone and is beside the entire point.

I do find that maddening. It seems like we should have settled for much less than an even split with the B1G and SEC.

Either Swofford got jumpy and offered too much, OR the B1G and SEC played hardball because we really had no other option. That's possible. Would they have been happy with $15m? I'm sure. But that doesn't mean that they didn't go for more. We had no leverage really, what we going to do otherwise?

It did land a bowl which should be pretty good (payout aside) in terms of value and ratings. Landing an SEC/B1G team in there was the right move, versus potentially ending up with a G5 opponent or something. Most years, to the average viewer the Orange isn't going to stick out as a blatantly second rate game (if the ACC holds up their end), which is rather amazing considering the position it looked like we were in.

But yeah, I'm still mad about that even split. Just doesn't seem right at all. Hard to believe that's what it took to get it done.

The other possibility is that it was payback from some concession that the ACC got from the SEC and/or B1G that we will never know about.

If you remember, back when this was being set up, there was a lot of speculation about making payouts based on historical BCS appearances, or a rolling appearance metric like the NCAA tournament, both which would have been very bad for the ACC based on history.

I remember being relatively shocked that there wasn't some kind of payout more strongly correlated to appearances. Part of me wonders (although I've never heard any intimation of this at all) if this Orange Bowl deal was part of the horse trading for the general playoff pot to be shared equally among all conferences. We'll never know if it was.

"OR the B1G and SEC played hardball because we really had no other option."

We did, though. We could have gone to the Big XII and the Pac 12. One of them is bound to have a good 2nd team. We didn't need to narrow it down to the SEC/B1G. We could have played the field. And, if everyone else wanted to screw us, we could have help back on the championship game deregulation. The Big XII needs it more than we do. They would have caved.

Now don't be silly. Have you even seen PAC 12 and Big 12 ratings? I have no doubt that it had to be B1G or SEC as a condition of ESPN even paying the $55M for the Orange. No way they're taking a chance on Duke vs. Arizona or BC vs. Kansas State.

The ACC is already a dicey proposition for a ratings draw, especially if FSU makes the playoffs. They're not going to want another conference that could easily field a no-name as their third qualifier. Playoff, Rose/Sugar, then the Orange would go next. The third place SEC or B1G is a lot more of a ratings sure thing than the third place in the PAC or the B12.

That part is no mystery, I'm sure B1G/SEC/ND was a condition of the $55M. The question is why we had to give the B1G/SEC an even split. That seemed to be an overpayment.

The Pac plays in the left coast time zone. If they played in games with times that were convenient to east coast fans, their ratings would be 1,000x better. Anyway, we aren't talking about average ratings, we're talking about the 2nd best team in the conference in a given year. The odds of Oregon, USC, Texas, OU, or ND being available in a given year are pretty good. That's a credible threat when negotiating with the B1G/SEC.

(12-15-2014 06:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  This was what the Orange has the last 8 or so years:

2007 - Louisville/Wake Forest
2008 - Kansas/VT
2009 - VT/Cincy
2010 - Iowa/GT
2011 - Stanford/VT
2012 - WVa/Clemson
2013 - FSU/Northern Illinois

2014 - Clemson/Ohio State

For seven years between 2007 and 2013, the Orange Bowl matchup sucked from a TV rating standpoint, and an attendance problems most of those years. The ACC was put in a position that without a champion partner from the SEC, B10, or B12 that something had to be given up in order to maintain a game with enough stature to matter. The ACC also knew from past experience that small alumni and fan base schools could win the ACC and get the Orange Bowl bid. Wake Forest proved that, and BC threatened that a couple of times. WF, Duke, and BC could bring their entire university population and not fill an end zone.

VT proved that if the same team was sent to NYD bowl enough times in a row, bowl fatigue would set in.

The two largest schools in the ACC are FSU and NC State - NC State's last big game was against ND in the Gator Bowl in 2003. UNC and UVa have large fan bases (UNC's larger), but UVa has done nothing since the Sugar Bowl in 1990, and UNC has done nothing major in football since Mack Brown's last two years in 97 and 98.

Because of their location in the cold rust belt, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State will take a ton of folks to sunny Florida. Because of their proximity, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, SC, and the two Mississippi's will take a lot of people.

The ACC didn't have a great bargaining position.

The Orange Bowl handed over the rights to the game to the ACC, how in the hell could we not have a great bargaining position?

The SEC and B1G may have tried to play hardball but all it would have took to break that is the instant we floated the rumor that the Big XII was interested in renewing the historic tie-in many of their teams enjoyed as members of the Big 8. Or that the Pac 12 was interested in getting some east coast exposure during the bowl season. About five minutes after that rumor hit Twitter the phones in Greensboro would have been ringing off the hook with 205 and 847 area codes showing up on caller ID.

(12-15-2014 06:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  This was what the Orange has the last 8 or so years:

2007 - Louisville/Wake Forest
2008 - Kansas/VT
2009 - VT/Cincy
2010 - Iowa/GT
2011 - Stanford/VT
2012 - WVa/Clemson
2013 - FSU/Northern Illinois

2014 - Clemson/Ohio State

For seven years between 2007 and 2013, the Orange Bowl matchup sucked from a TV rating standpoint, and an attendance problems most of those years. The ACC was put in a position that without a champion partner from the SEC, B10, or B12 that something had to be given up in order to maintain a game with enough stature to matter. The ACC also knew from past experience that small alumni and fan base schools could win the ACC and get the Orange Bowl bid. Wake Forest proved that, and BC threatened that a couple of times. WF, Duke, and BC could bring their entire university population and not fill an end zone.

VT proved that if the same team was sent to NYD bowl enough times in a row, bowl fatigue would set in.

The two largest schools in the ACC are FSU and NC State - NC State's last big game was against ND in the Gator Bowl in 2003. UNC and UVa have large fan bases (UNC's larger), but UVa has done nothing since the Sugar Bowl in 1990, and UNC has done nothing major in football since Mack Brown's last two years in 97 and 98.

Because of their location in the cold rust belt, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State will take a ton of folks to sunny Florida. Because of their proximity, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, SC, and the two Mississippi's will take a lot of people.

The ACC didn't have a great bargaining position.

The Orange Bowl handed over the rights to the game to the ACC, how in the hell could we not have a great bargaining position?

The SEC and B1G may have tried to play hardball but all it would have took to break that is the instant we floated the rumor that the Big XII was interested in renewing the historic tie-in many of their teams enjoyed as members of the Big 8. Or that the Pac 12 was interested in getting some east coast exposure during the bowl season. About five minutes after that rumor hit Twitter the phones in Greensboro would have been ringing off the hook with 205 and 847 area codes showing up on caller ID.

THe SEC and BIG aren't stupid. They knew the Big XII wasn't interested already. All the Big XII wanted was a tie-in with the SEC and they got it with the Sugar Bowl. The Orange Bowl was left trying to piece it together. At the time the OB deal was negotiated, the ACC hadn't won the national title (FSU), beat OSU in the OB (Clemson), or added Louisville to replace Maryland.

(12-15-2014 07:07 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  This was what the Orange has the last 8 or so years:

2007 - Louisville/Wake Forest
2008 - Kansas/VT
2009 - VT/Cincy
2010 - Iowa/GT
2011 - Stanford/VT
2012 - WVa/Clemson
2013 - FSU/Northern Illinois

2014 - Clemson/Ohio State

For seven years between 2007 and 2013, the Orange Bowl matchup sucked from a TV rating standpoint, and an attendance problems most of those years. The ACC was put in a position that without a champion partner from the SEC, B10, or B12 that something had to be given up in order to maintain a game with enough stature to matter. The ACC also knew from past experience that small alumni and fan base schools could win the ACC and get the Orange Bowl bid. Wake Forest proved that, and BC threatened that a couple of times. WF, Duke, and BC could bring their entire university population and not fill an end zone.

VT proved that if the same team was sent to NYD bowl enough times in a row, bowl fatigue would set in.

The two largest schools in the ACC are FSU and NC State - NC State's last big game was against ND in the Gator Bowl in 2003. UNC and UVa have large fan bases (UNC's larger), but UVa has done nothing since the Sugar Bowl in 1990, and UNC has done nothing major in football since Mack Brown's last two years in 97 and 98.

Because of their location in the cold rust belt, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State will take a ton of folks to sunny Florida. Because of their proximity, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, SC, and the two Mississippi's will take a lot of people.

The ACC didn't have a great bargaining position.

The Orange Bowl handed over the rights to the game to the ACC, how in the hell could we not have a great bargaining position?

The SEC and B1G may have tried to play hardball but all it would have took to break that is the instant we floated the rumor that the Big XII was interested in renewing the historic tie-in many of their teams enjoyed as members of the Big 8. Or that the Pac 12 was interested in getting some east coast exposure during the bowl season. About five minutes after that rumor hit Twitter the phones in Greensboro would have been ringing off the hook with 205 and 847 area codes showing up on caller ID.

THe SEC and BIG aren't stupid. They knew the Big XII wasn't interested already. All the Big XII wanted was a tie-in with the SEC and they got it with the Sugar Bowl. The Orange Bowl was left trying to piece it together. At the time the OB deal was negotiated, the ACC hadn't won the national title (FSU), beat OSU in the OB (Clemson), or added Louisville to replace Maryland.

So the Big XII wouldn't have been interested in an additional $5-10 million per year payout and additional exposure for one of their top teams in a top of the line NYD bowl ?










Going to have to have a link to that.

Or is this another one of your "It's only common sense" jokes....I mean deals?

(12-15-2014 07:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:07 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  This was what the Orange has the last 8 or so years:

2007 - Louisville/Wake Forest
2008 - Kansas/VT
2009 - VT/Cincy
2010 - Iowa/GT
2011 - Stanford/VT
2012 - WVa/Clemson
2013 - FSU/Northern Illinois

2014 - Clemson/Ohio State

For seven years between 2007 and 2013, the Orange Bowl matchup sucked from a TV rating standpoint, and an attendance problems most of those years. The ACC was put in a position that without a champion partner from the SEC, B10, or B12 that something had to be given up in order to maintain a game with enough stature to matter. The ACC also knew from past experience that small alumni and fan base schools could win the ACC and get the Orange Bowl bid. Wake Forest proved that, and BC threatened that a couple of times. WF, Duke, and BC could bring their entire university population and not fill an end zone.

VT proved that if the same team was sent to NYD bowl enough times in a row, bowl fatigue would set in.

The two largest schools in the ACC are FSU and NC State - NC State's last big game was against ND in the Gator Bowl in 2003. UNC and UVa have large fan bases (UNC's larger), but UVa has done nothing since the Sugar Bowl in 1990, and UNC has done nothing major in football since Mack Brown's last two years in 97 and 98.

Because of their location in the cold rust belt, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State will take a ton of folks to sunny Florida. Because of their proximity, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, SC, and the two Mississippi's will take a lot of people.

The ACC didn't have a great bargaining position.

The Orange Bowl handed over the rights to the game to the ACC, how in the hell could we not have a great bargaining position?

The SEC and B1G may have tried to play hardball but all it would have took to break that is the instant we floated the rumor that the Big XII was interested in renewing the historic tie-in many of their teams enjoyed as members of the Big 8. Or that the Pac 12 was interested in getting some east coast exposure during the bowl season. About five minutes after that rumor hit Twitter the phones in Greensboro would have been ringing off the hook with 205 and 847 area codes showing up on caller ID.

THe SEC and BIG aren't stupid. They knew the Big XII wasn't interested already. All the Big XII wanted was a tie-in with the SEC and they got it with the Sugar Bowl. The Orange Bowl was left trying to piece it together. At the time the OB deal was negotiated, the ACC hadn't won the national title (FSU), beat OSU in the OB (Clemson), or added Louisville to replace Maryland.

So the Big XII wouldn't have been interested in an additional $5-10 million per year payout and additional exposure for one of their top teams in a top of the line NYD bowl ?










Going to have to have a link to that.

Or is this another one of your "It's only common sense" jokes....I mean deals?

At the time the BIG XII was competing with the ACC for that #4 spot along side the SEC, BIG, and Pac 12 and wasn't really interested in helping the ACC. Frankly, I don't think the ACC was interested in it either. Everyone knows the SEC and BIG are the two most watched conferences so at the time it made the most sense. Perception reigned supreme so alot of people though the ACC was on the outs when they weren't involved in the Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl.

(12-15-2014 07:37 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:07 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  This was what the Orange has the last 8 or so years:

2007 - Louisville/Wake Forest
2008 - Kansas/VT
2009 - VT/Cincy
2010 - Iowa/GT
2011 - Stanford/VT
2012 - WVa/Clemson
2013 - FSU/Northern Illinois

2014 - Clemson/Ohio State

For seven years between 2007 and 2013, the Orange Bowl matchup sucked from a TV rating standpoint, and an attendance problems most of those years. The ACC was put in a position that without a champion partner from the SEC, B10, or B12 that something had to be given up in order to maintain a game with enough stature to matter. The ACC also knew from past experience that small alumni and fan base schools could win the ACC and get the Orange Bowl bid. Wake Forest proved that, and BC threatened that a couple of times. WF, Duke, and BC could bring their entire university population and not fill an end zone.

VT proved that if the same team was sent to NYD bowl enough times in a row, bowl fatigue would set in.

The two largest schools in the ACC are FSU and NC State - NC State's last big game was against ND in the Gator Bowl in 2003. UNC and UVa have large fan bases (UNC's larger), but UVa has done nothing since the Sugar Bowl in 1990, and UNC has done nothing major in football since Mack Brown's last two years in 97 and 98.

Because of their location in the cold rust belt, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State will take a ton of folks to sunny Florida. Because of their proximity, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, SC, and the two Mississippi's will take a lot of people.

The ACC didn't have a great bargaining position.

The Orange Bowl handed over the rights to the game to the ACC, how in the hell could we not have a great bargaining position?

The SEC and B1G may have tried to play hardball but all it would have took to break that is the instant we floated the rumor that the Big XII was interested in renewing the historic tie-in many of their teams enjoyed as members of the Big 8. Or that the Pac 12 was interested in getting some east coast exposure during the bowl season. About five minutes after that rumor hit Twitter the phones in Greensboro would have been ringing off the hook with 205 and 847 area codes showing up on caller ID.

THe SEC and BIG aren't stupid. They knew the Big XII wasn't interested already. All the Big XII wanted was a tie-in with the SEC and they got it with the Sugar Bowl. The Orange Bowl was left trying to piece it together. At the time the OB deal was negotiated, the ACC hadn't won the national title (FSU), beat OSU in the OB (Clemson), or added Louisville to replace Maryland.

So the Big XII wouldn't have been interested in an additional $5-10 million per year payout and additional exposure for one of their top teams in a top of the line NYD bowl ?










Going to have to have a link to that.

Or is this another one of your "It's only common sense" jokes....I mean deals?

At the time the BIG XII was competing with the ACC for that #4 spot along side the SEC, BIG, and Pac 12 and wasn't really interested in helping the ACC. Frankly, I don't think the ACC was interested in it either. Everyone knows the SEC and BIG are the two most watched conferences so at the time it made the most sense. Perception reigned supreme so alot of people though the ACC was on the outs when they weren't involved in the Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl.

Seriously, you might be as delusional as lumber.

(12-15-2014 07:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Seriously, you might be as delusional as lumber.

Nah. I read. Like all of the comments I read after you guys were destroyed in the Orange Bowl the year before. Nobody respected the ACC. FSU was still coming back. So what in the world makes you think the ACC would have gotten a better deal? The Rose and Sugar Bowls were billed as champion vs champion. That's not the case with the OB.

Sorry Jam, but your position regarding the Big 12 (and in reality the Pac as well) is not backed up but what actually happened.

Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to get another contract bowl (either a 7th or one within the six) where the best of the G5 champions would face off with either a B12 or Pac-12 team.

However, there was no equivalent value TV $$$ in such a set-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...off-access

Cheers,
Neil

(12-16-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry Jam, but your position regarding the Big 12 (and in reality the Pac as well) is not backed up but what actually happened.

Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to get another contract bowl (either a 7th or one within the six) where the best of the G5 champions would face off with either a B12 or Pac-12 team.

However, there was no equivalent value TV $$$ in such a set-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...off-access

Cheers,
Neil

So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

To argue that the ACC had no choice but to sign up with the SEC and/or B1G, you have to assume that the "no partner" option (i.e. just let the CFP committee assign a top 10 at-large team) would have paid less than $44 million (the amount needed to pay the same as the Peach, Cotton and Fiesta to the at-large team while still paying $40M to the ACC). That's $11M less that what they actually got WITH the SEC/B1G tie...

Furthermore, along those same lines, surely the ACC could've gotten more than $27.5M + $4M = $31.5M without those other guys getting ANY cut at all... just sayin'

(12-08-2014 04:37 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Shouldn't it be more than that? If the ACC gets 50 mil base + 6 mil playoffs + 27.5 mil Orange Bowl = 83.5 mil

So you are saying the other 10 bowls are only pulling in 10 million combined???

You are comparing yearly averages with actual figures from the first year of the contract. For example if the Orange Bowl pays an average of $27.5 million each year, in the first year, the number is likely closer to $23 million. Same for the playoff. Etc. Likewise nearer the end of the contracts, the payouts will be higher than the net average.

(12-09-2014 12:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:18 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:02 PM)Cardsfan1974 Wrote:  Next season , we need a ACC team to make either the Sugar or Rose bowl . So the conference can get another fat payday. Also the ACC need to get 8 to 10 teams a year in the NCAA, so they can start collecting lots NCAA units.

Next year it appears we lose $27.5 million from this year's pot with Orange part of the CFP. Meanwhile, each of the SEC, BiG, PAC, and Big12 get $40 million more with Sugar and Rose Bowls back in play.

Cheers,
Neil

We really screwed up the OB negotiations. We should be $40+ and playing the best available team. That needs to change by the next round of negotiations. Fortunately, I think that will be well before the contract expires. I think that there will be an 8 team playoff fairly soon. When that happens, this will all have to be re-worked out.

The primary reason the payout is less is due to the opponent. The PAC and B1G and the XII/SEC had already aligned to put their "champions" against each other (or really their highest ranked non playoff teams), while the ACC was left with the 3rd best team from the B1G/SEC or ND. Thus the payout was less because the draw is lower.

(12-16-2014 03:51 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 04:37 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Shouldn't it be more than that? If the ACC gets 50 mil base + 6 mil playoffs + 27.5 mil Orange Bowl = 83.5 mil

So you are saying the other 10 bowls are only pulling in 10 million combined???

You are comparing yearly averages with actual figures from the first year of the contract. For example if the Orange Bowl pays an average of $27.5 million each year, in the first year, the number is likely closer to $23 million. Same for the playoff. Etc. Likewise nearer the end of the contracts, the payouts will be higher than the net average.

(12-09-2014 12:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:18 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:02 PM)Cardsfan1974 Wrote:  Next season , we need a ACC team to make either the Sugar or Rose bowl . So the conference can get another fat payday. Also the ACC need to get 8 to 10 teams a year in the NCAA, so they can start collecting lots NCAA units.

Next year it appears we lose $27.5 million from this year's pot with Orange part of the CFP. Meanwhile, each of the SEC, BiG, PAC, and Big12 get $40 million more with Sugar and Rose Bowls back in play.

Cheers,
Neil

We really screwed up the OB negotiations. We should be $40+ and playing the best available team. That needs to change by the next round of negotiations. Fortunately, I think that will be well before the contract expires. I think that there will be an 8 team playoff fairly soon. When that happens, this will all have to be re-worked out.

The primary reason the payout is less is due to the opponent. The PAC and B1G and the XII/SEC had already aligned to put their "champions" against each other (or really their highest ranked non playoff teams), while the ACC was left with the 3rd best team from the B1G/SEC or ND. Thus the payout was less because the draw is lower.

I think that you'er talking about total payout ($80 million v. $55 million), whereas I'm talking about the ACC's cut ($27.5 million v. $40 million). Hokie Mark did a pretty decent job of explaining how the ACC could have held its own without sacrificing it's share. (see below)

(12-16-2014 02:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To argue that the ACC had no choice but to sign up with the SEC and/or B1G, you have to assume that the "no partner" option (i.e. just let the CFP committee assign a top 10 at-large team) would have paid less than $44 million (the amount needed to pay the same as the Peach, Cotton and Fiesta to the at-large team while still paying $40M to the ACC). That's $11M less that what they actually got WITH the SEC/B1G tie...

Furthermore, along those same lines, surely the ACC could've gotten more than $27.5M + $4M = $31.5M without those other guys getting ANY cut at all... just sayin'

As you can see, coming out of the OB negotiations with a $27.5 million payout and a $27.5 million payout to the opponent is a HUGE failure, especially since we are paying $27.5 million for the 3rd best SEC/B1G team.

(12-16-2014 03:51 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 04:37 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Shouldn't it be more than that? If the ACC gets 50 mil base + 6 mil playoffs + 27.5 mil Orange Bowl = 83.5 mil

So you are saying the other 10 bowls are only pulling in 10 million combined???

You are comparing yearly averages with actual figures from the first year of the contract. For example if the Orange Bowl pays an average of $27.5 million each year, in the first year, the number is likely closer to $23 million. Same for the playoff. Etc. Likewise nearer the end of the contracts, the payouts will be higher than the net average.

(12-09-2014 12:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:18 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:02 PM)Cardsfan1974 Wrote:  Next season , we need a ACC team to make either the Sugar or Rose bowl . So the conference can get another fat payday. Also the ACC need to get 8 to 10 teams a year in the NCAA, so they can start collecting lots NCAA units.

Next year it appears we lose $27.5 million from this year's pot with Orange part of the CFP. Meanwhile, each of the SEC, BiG, PAC, and Big12 get $40 million more with Sugar and Rose Bowls back in play.

Cheers,
Neil

We really screwed up the OB negotiations. We should be $40+ and playing the best available team. That needs to change by the next round of negotiations. Fortunately, I think that will be well before the contract expires. I think that there will be an 8 team playoff fairly soon. When that happens, this will all have to be re-worked out.

The primary reason the payout is less is due to the opponent. The PAC and B1G and the XII/SEC had already aligned to put their "champions" against each other (or really their highest ranked non playoff teams), while the ACC was left with the 3rd best team from the B1G/SEC or ND. Thus the payout was less because the draw is lower.

Which is a huge reason that the current deal is a horrible deal.

A. We shouldn't have limited our choices to just the SEC, Big 10, and the parasites. We should have set it up where we take the highest ranked team regardless of conference.
It worked out fine this year, but if the Big 10 continues it's decline how attractive is it going to be towards the end of the contract and we are being forced contractually to take a Big 10 team that's ranked in the low teens/high twenties? Unattractive games towards the end of a contract are certainly going to help the renegotiation process aren't they?

B. The fact that we are paying the exact same to the SEC and Big 10 for their #2/3/4 teams that our #1/2 is absolutely horrible and is the point I have been making all along. We could have played hardball and paid them less than what we were getting and if we would have stuck to our guns we would have got it. Even if it would have been a $35 million/$15 million split it would have made the revenue gap that much less. Any suggestion that the Big XII or Pac 12 wouldn't have been interested is foolish at best.

Everybody with any amount of knowledge (which excludes the majority of the posters on this forum) knew we weren't going to make the money the Sugar and Rose made simply because we are saddled with a wonderful combination of small private schools with small fanbases and schools with huge enrollments and large alumni presence that simply do not travel in football. Unlike the other conferences we have four schools who will travel: FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Louisville. The rest are a joke. The bowl payout isn't the problem, the problem is and always has been the fact that we held all the cards in the negotiation and we still are paying the exact same to the SEC and Big 10 for lesser teams.

(12-16-2014 01:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry Jam, but your position regarding the Big 12 (and in reality the Pac as well) is not backed up but what actually happened.

Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to get another contract bowl (either a 7th or one within the six) where the best of the G5 champions would face off with either a B12 or Pac-12 team.

However, there was no equivalent value TV $$$ in such a set-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...off-access

Cheers,
Neil

So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

Jam, my post was to address your position that the ACC couldn't have gone to the B12 (or by inference the Pac) to try and get the "price" down for the SEC/BiG taking part of the Orange.

You specifically said the B12 had no interest since they had gotten what they wanted with the Sugar Bowl deal.

That stance is incorrect as the article I posted showed, both the B12 and PAC12 would have wanted to be a part of it.

Now, would the value have been the same at $55 million with those conferences instead of the SEC/BiG? Probably not.

But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million.

And the Orange needed to be a contract bowl as much as the ACC needed one as a conference in order to try and remain a step ahead of the other Event Bowls. So it really came down to how much was TV willing to payout. But even there, the Orange and the ACC had the option to go to FOX or another network.

I don't see why so many fans of North Carolina schools want to defend Swofford on this issue. I think he has done an admirable job overall, but on this one issue, he dropped the ball, imho.

And the facts seem to support that position. At least that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil