(05-19-2015 02:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 02:42 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 02:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Do you really think that any of the schools made long term deals for these games? I know that South Carolina contracted theirs from year to year in order to maximize the available payday.

I don't know the specifics of how South Carolina managed their media arrangements. UofL sold their retained rights in multi-year chunks. And I know that's how the Big 12 teams do it as well.

If annual arrangements were standard practice, the SEC would not have had to buy back any of these rights at all. So, this still doesn't add up.

The SEC had to buy them from the individual schools. Per their media contracts the conference never controlled those games instead they had always been controlled by the individual schools. In order to be able to utilize these games for the SEC Network the conference had to get these rights from the schools.

This is true. But, as stated, the schools had to buy them back from the companies they sold them to, sometimes more than one. They all sold them to other entities, either PPV, or local stations, or RSN's. They had to buy back ALL of them. I did not ignore than in my post: it was the point of it. And they were able to do it. Now the difference is those rights were not life or death for the rights holders they sold them to, like it is for Raycom, but they did have to buy them back. And several were long term deals they had to buy out of.

I didn't ignore this: it was the point.

(05-19-2015 12:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't disagree that the ACCN would sell like hot cakes in those areas, but if they take content from ESPN, won't that hurt ESPN's carriage rates?

Much like with the SEC Network, the content used for the network is currently not aired on ESPN, but is syndicated, some by ESPN itself, some by Raycom. It would not affect ESPN content, other than maybe one game per year (generally one quasi-marquee game per year that normally would be on ESPN/ESPN2 is moved to the network for marketing purposes, like you saw when the SECN launched with Texas A&M vs. South Carolina.

You're missing my point. There is an opportunity cost to establishing an ACC network. The games have to come from somewhere, which will adversely affect that location's carriage rates. If ESPN (or whatever network/channel fits your fancy) thought that they could charge more and make more money, they would. However, there is a limit to what consumers will pay for everything, including ESPN. Therefore, there is a limit to cable companies will pay for access to the channel in question. I get that the agreement between <insert network here> and <inset cable company here> is a multiple year deal, but there are strong incentives favoring cooperation. Those incentives can take the form of arbitration clauses as a result of material changes and the fact that contracts are repeat games (i.e. reputations matter).

(05-19-2015 12:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Sure. How does ACC ownership affect the valuation? We sold our rights. Unless we buy them back at FMV, we aren't needed for an ACC-centric channel. And, if we do buy them back at FMV, how would we make money?

it would be the same setup as the SEC model. The leverage we have is the contract forbids a conference network, just like the SEC's did. That means we can't start a conference network without their permission, AND they cannot start one without ours. As much hoopla is made about the issues the ACC would have to buy back the rights, it is literally no different than the SEC's. Actually it is less, because you only have two entities to buy back from (Raycom and Fox), compared to 12 entities than the SEC had to buy back from. The only difference is with the SEC games gone off the market, the ACC games are actually MORE important to them, as it is all they have left.

Like everyone else here, I haven't seen the contract, but I would be amazed if you were right. Theoretically, ESPN could have paid the ACC to forego their legal right to bid on any ACC content over the life of their deal with ESPN, but why would ESPN do that? And, if the ACC and ESPN didn't agree to a materially similar clause, then there is no contractual bar to the ACC creating a network. As I understand it, the obstacles are the startup costs (including transactions costs related to negotiating with cable companies) and the costs associated with buying back content (though this might technically fall under the transaction cost umbrella). I haven't heard of any cease and desist agreement. You're going to have to give links to get me to believe it.

The same goes for ESPN. I'm sure that there are some restrictions as to how the network can use ACC content (i.e. minimum number of nationally broadcast games, minimum number of nationally televised games, minimum number of primetime games, etc.), but I would be amazed if there is a clause that restricted ESPN from pulling non-ACC content from ESPN 3 or something like that. You're going to have to provide a link to get me to believe otherwise.

(05-19-2015 04:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 02:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 02:42 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 02:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Do you really think that any of the schools made long term deals for these games? I know that South Carolina contracted theirs from year to year in order to maximize the available payday.

I don't know the specifics of how South Carolina managed their media arrangements. UofL sold their retained rights in multi-year chunks. And I know that's how the Big 12 teams do it as well.

If annual arrangements were standard practice, the SEC would not have had to buy back any of these rights at all. So, this still doesn't add up.

The SEC had to buy them from the individual schools. Per their media contracts the conference never controlled those games instead they had always been controlled by the individual schools. In order to be able to utilize these games for the SEC Network the conference had to get these rights from the schools.

This is true. But, as stated, the schools had to buy them back from the companies they sold them to, sometimes more than one. They all sold them to other entities, either PPV, or local stations, or RSN's. They had to buy back ALL of them. I did not ignore than in my post: it was the point of it. And they were able to do it. Now the difference is those rights were not life or death for the rights holders they sold them to, like it is for Raycom, but they did have to buy them back. And several were long term deals they had to buy out of.

I didn't ignore this: it was the point.

OK so it's the same thing.

Except the SEC had to buy them back from the member schools.

And they had far less rights to buy back compared to what we have to secure.

And the rights they had to buy back were far less valuable than the ones we have to get.

And they didn't have to buy them back from entities that A. depend on these rights for it's existence or B. would be not only giving up future revenue but giving it up to a direct competitor.

Yep....EXACT same thing the SEC had to go through.

(05-19-2015 05:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 12:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't disagree that the ACCN would sell like hot cakes in those areas, but if they take content from ESPN, won't that hurt ESPN's carriage rates?

Much like with the SEC Network, the content used for the network is currently not aired on ESPN, but is syndicated, some by ESPN itself, some by Raycom. It would not affect ESPN content, other than maybe one game per year (generally one quasi-marquee game per year that normally would be on ESPN/ESPN2 is moved to the network for marketing purposes, like you saw when the SECN launched with Texas A&M vs. South Carolina.

You're missing my point. There is an opportunity cost to establishing an ACC network. The games have to come from somewhere, which will adversely affect that location's carriage rates. If ESPN (or whatever network/channel fits your fancy) thought that they could charge more and make more money, they would. However, there is a limit to what consumers will pay for everything, including ESPN. Therefore, there is a limit to cable companies will pay for access to the channel in question. I get that the agreement between <insert network here> and <inset cable company here> is a multiple year deal, but there are strong incentives favoring cooperation. Those incentives can take the form of arbitration clauses as a result of material changes and the fact that contracts are repeat games (i.e. reputations matter).

I didn't miss your point. I explained why it is incorrect. The games that go on a conference network are not currently aired on ANY ESPN Network, save for exclusive ESPN3 contests, which if anything, would be the only thing affected. These are events currently not on an ESPN Network, so it would not affect their programming, thus their carriage rates. You specifically asked about the carriage rates, that was what I commented on.

Now you are seemingly changing it, and going back to that same premise you tried to make about the BTN and YES that bundling someone takes away from fees they could otherwise charge. Something that simply has proven to be false.

(05-18-2015 08:57 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  ESPN will care about ACC football when the ACC shows it cares about football by getting better coaches (up to the individual schools) and better/smarter conference scheduling (up to the conference to get buy in from the individual schools).

As a result of the above, college football fans will care about the ACC, which will then make ESPN care.

Until then, all ESPN will care about is ACC basketball. In that regard, they have no problem over-hyping the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

So are you asserting that the ACC has something to do with Syracuse's performance in football over the last dozen or so years? Since 2002 Syracuse is 61-98 with just three winning seasons. The adage "orangeman heal thyself" comes to mind. That's an average of 4.7 wins a year.

Admittedly NC State has not performed much over that same time period, averaging just 6.5 wins and enjoying just 7 winning seasons.

Obvioulsy the goal is to be more like Clemson who was 110-55 over the same time frame with just one losing season and averaging 8.5 wins a season, however it should be noted that from Dabo's first full season he is 59-22 a .721% winning percentage or an average of 9.5 wins a year.

Clemson "did not care about football" when they hired Tommy Bowden. He just couldn't do the job. NC State "did not care about football" when it hired Tom O'Brien (although some have accused the old Athletic Director of just that). But the facts are TOB could not recruit in the South and could not do the job.

How many extra millions would have made Pasquiloni a better coach? I don't think FSU "did not care about football" when Bobby B got too old and his staff too old to keep up with the competition. No amount of money was going to make Bobby younger. The same issue may be plaguing VT.

How many top head coaches are out there? How many can do it all - recruit, raise money, coach the game, coach in the actual game with a feel for the game, and not become a control freak and find a couple of guys he trusts to handled the minutia? If there were so many of these guys the NFL would have then all an not need to fire coaches.

Omni - what you are essentially saying is that you want to have a top 20 head coach. There aren't that many - there may be a dozen in their prime, with some aging out (Beemer for instance), some going to the NFL, and some on the rise.

Where is that top guy going to go? To a basketball school? No. To a school in the rust belt - not unless they have a grand tradition like ND, OSU, Michigan, or MSU. How many West Coast guys are really willing to come east and stay?

Since no one can agree on this so-called better smarter scheduling what do you suggest? The root of the scheduling problem is that no one south of Pittsburg wants to play Syracuse or BC.

When you dissect the FSU and Clemson ***** and moan, it's not just the North Carolina schools, it's really as much about having to travel to Syracuse or Boston which they consider to be a waste of resources. NC State doesn't get much out of those two trips as well.

Nowhere did I say what you are trying to say I said. I clearly laid the blame for better coaching on the individual schools. And from that point, I segued to the next point which is that once that happens (for the most part - since not all schools will get said better coaching, it can be a crapshoot) that it is up to the conference office to persuade the individual schools that there is a smarter and better way to schedule then the current divisional format.

It's a two-way street. And obviously not every school can have a Top 20 coach. But then many of the coaches that are now Top 20 weren't always Top 20. They all started somewhere. But it's more than just the head coach, which I have said in several posts over the past couple years. It's $$$ spent on assistant coaches as well. My perception is that other than a couple of schools, the ACC pays the least to assistant coaches overall than any other P5 conference.

If you have data that says otherwise, then I will stand corrected. But that is my perception of the situation, which may be biased being a Syracuse fan.

As for no one agreeing on this smarter/better scheduling perhaps it may be that the conference is not be doing it's job of persuading and cajoling the member schools to do what is right for the conference overall?

The conference trumpets that it wants to change the NCAA rules that regulate how a conference chooses it's champion. But it doesn't put forth a clear vision as to WHY it wants it - such as the 3-5-5 scheduling model (if that is even what it wants because heaven forbid conference members should play each and every member more often then they play ND ).

With the inability of the conference office to articulate clear visions, I'm having flashbacks to 2003, when they couldn't put forth a clear vision that they could passionately espouse as to why they wanted Miami, BC, and SU. What started as a soft whisper of we want an Atlantic Coast Conference that truly stretches the Atlantic ultimately became well we wanted a championship game so we had to get to 12 and we knew we wanted Miami and THEY wanted BC and SU, we didn't. And we really didn't want VT at all, but since we had to take them to get Miami we did. Which later became, who knew that getting VT and BC would pay off whereas Miami hasn't?

I think Swofford managed some tough waters from 2010-2012 when his back was against the wall, but once he gets comfortable, he has a nasty habit of being unable to articulate a clear vision that can inspire. Say what you will about the devil Delany, he can articulate what it is he wants and he's able to sell it (even when it may be a lemon). He sold initial B1G expansion on ND, Texas and one of Texas A&M or Nebraska. He settled for Nebraska. When he went for another bite of the conference realignment pie he actually sold the conference on Maryland and Rutgers. Now that's conference leadership, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-18-2015 01:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:26 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 10:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 08:57 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  ESPN will care about ACC football when the ACC shows it cares about football by getting better coaches (up to the individual schools) and better/smarter conference scheduling (up to the conference to get buy in from the individual schools).

As a result of the above, college football fans will care about the ACC, which will then make ESPN care.

Until then, all ESPN will care about is ACC basketball. In that regard, they have no problem over-hyping the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

Since no one can agree on this so-called better smarter scheduling what do you suggest? The root of the scheduling problem is that no one south of Pittsburg wants to play Syracuse or BC.

When you dissect the FSU and Clemson ***** and moan, it's not just the North Carolina schools, it's really as much about having to travel to Syracuse or Boston which they consider to be a waste of resources. NC State doesn't get much out of those two trips as well.

Didn't BC join the ACC over a decade ago? Why did the ACC expand into the North at all, then?

The ACC expanded north because Miami wanted that. When the first discussions were held back in the early 90's, Miami wanted partners from the BE and they wanted Syracuse and BC. The deal that Gene Corrigan, FSU's and NCSU's AD had been negotiation included those three. When Swofford took over, he plowed full steam ahead not realizing that Duke and UNC did not want Syracuse in the ACC.

Miami's agreement was for all three to go. The way UNC and Duke played it, VT was allowed into the mix by UNC and Duke saying they would not vote for any expansion. That allowed VT to play politics in the State of Va. What UNC and Duke wanted at that time was butts in their football stadiums, VT would supply that and give no basketball competition. Perfect plan.

The coup de grace came when NC State's new Chancellor, proposed the ACC negotiate with ND before adding a 12th team - that froze out both Syracuse and BC. BC played nice, Syracuse was surly.

For all the claims of Conference Chair power, that entire affair, while dreamt up by Gene Corrigan, Paul Dee, Les Robinson and a few others below the President level, when it came time to take action, the school Presidents and Chancellors ran the show.

That's how we got BC. BC was gotten to get to you - ND.

It was not anticipated at the time in 2004, that the B12 would implode, the SEC go to 14 and MD would be taken over by old Ohio State lovers and bolt for the B10 and screw the ACC's talks with Penn State. None of that hits the horizon until Nebraska bolted for the B10 in 2010.

By the time 2011 rolls around, the ACC has no choice but to take two of Pitt/Syracuse/West Va in order to force ND into the ACC because without a legitimate BE, ND has to make a decision - ACC/B10 or B12. With the animus between ND and some B10 schools and the instability in the B12 - there was no choice.

That's how the ACC ended up going north.

Well, you guys are stuck with it. The ACC is not a Southern conference any longer.

Yep. Plus the fact that taking Pitt and SU allowed the ACC to renegotiate the pathetic contract higher because ESPN knew that with those two schools added to BC, Miami, and GT would result in ND coming in at least partially which then kicked up the contract again.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-19-2015 05:43 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  OK so it's the same thing.
Except the SEC had to buy them back from the member schools.
And they had far less rights to buy back compared to what we have to secure.
And the rights they had to buy back were far less valuable than the ones we have to get.

And they didn't have to buy them back from entities that A. depend on these rights for it's existence or B. would be not only giving up future revenue but giving it up to a direct competitor.

Yep....EXACT same thing the SEC had to go through.

They did have less rights to buy back: 5 total less games from the schools than the ACC has to buy back from Raycom. And they had to buyback from CSS, FSN, WSB, Sun sports, Fox Sports South, Fox PPV, and several team's contracts with IMG or the like, who host their PPV. Oh wait, I forgot. Then ESPN STILL had to buy back the 14 syndicated games they sold in 35 markets nationwide. So that means they had to buy back 40 games, versus 31 with the ACC (ESPN actually retained some ACC games for ESPN3, that they do not need to "buy back").

And listen to yourself: if the rights they had to buy back were "less valuable," since they had to by back all but about 7 seven football games per year now on the SEC Network (due to overflow from expansion), that would make an ACC Network even MORE valuable than the SEC Network. Using your words, not mine. The ACC has 31 football games to buy back plus basketball games: The SEC had 40 to buy back. That is MORE, not less. Not debatable. And if you say they are less valuable, well then the ACC Network will be far better than we all thought. Here are all of the games they had to buy back from 2013:

Broadly Syndicated (ESPN to buy back)
Game Network Time
Toledo at Florida
western Kentucky at Tennessee
Southern Miss at Arkansas Saturday
North Texas at Georgia Saturday
South Alabama at Tennessee Saturday
Georgia St. at Alabama Saturday
South Carolina at Arkansas Saturday
Florida at Missouri Saturday
Vanderbilt at Texas A&M Saturday
Mississippi St. at South Carolina Saturday
Arkansas at Ole Miss Saturday
Kentucky at Vanderbilt Saturday
Mississippi St. at Arkansas Saturday
Wake Forest at Vanderbilt Saturday


Regional Telecasts (games must be bought back by schools)
Game Network
UL-Lafayette at Arkansas Saturday
Austin Peay at Tennessee Saturday
Murray St. at Missouri Saturday
Miami (OH) at Kentucky Saturday
Alcorn St. at Mississippi St. Saturday
Southeast Missouri St. at Ole Miss Saturday
Sam Houston St. at Texas A&M Saturday
Samford at Arkansas Saturday
Arkansas St. at Auburn Saturday
Austin Peay at Vanderbilt Saturday
Troy at Mississippi St. Saturday
UAB at Vanderbilt Saturday
Arkansas St. at Missouri Saturday
Kentucky at South Carolina Saturday
Missouri at Vanderbilt Saturday
Western Carolina at Auburn Saturday
Bowling Green at Mississippi St. Saturday
Furman at LSU Saturday
FAU at Auburn Saturday
Idaho at Ole Miss Saturday
Alabama St. at Kentucky Saturday
Vanderbilt at Florida Saturday
Appalachian St. at Georgia Saturday
Coastal Carolina at South Carolina Saturday
Chattanooga at Alabama Saturday
Georgia Southern at Florida Saturday


Tell me again how it was easier for them?

(05-18-2015 01:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The distaste or dislike of playing at Boston or Syracuse for football has nothing to do with their fans, or their accents, or anything like that. The real issue is that kids up there don't play football like they used to - they are playing lacrosse. Recruits are slim, weather can be bad, and you just don't get the bang for the buck as playing an away game in Atlanta, Clemson, or Miami.

Then shouldn't every school in the ACC rally behind something like the 3-5-5 scheduling model once the rules get changed? Isn't playing SU and BC less precisely what the 3-5-5 scheduling model would mean to the Old Guard? A near equal dosage of BC, SU, Wake, and Duke on the schedule to balance things out which at best means that the Old Guard teams face those 4 schools a combined 18 times over a 12 year period and at worse 30 times if one of those four schools is included in the 3 part of the 3-5-5 equation.

Oh wait, that only helps the Atlantic division teams who play three of the four annually for a combined total of 36 games in a 12-year stretch. Which goes to 38 times combined when Duke is added to the picture for every Atlantic Coast team not named Wake.

This doesn't, however, apply to the Coastal division teams where UNC, UVa, GT, and Miami only play SU, BC, and Wake a combined total of 6 times in a 12-year span. And when Duke is added to the equation that jumps to a total of 18 games combined. Duke which plays Wake annually gets that up to 18 times combined in 12-years - which is the most likely scenario in 3-5-5 for an Old Guard member in the Coastal currently. And probably not that it matters, but the former BE teams in the Coastal not named Miami in VT and Pitt jump to 28 times combined in 12-years when Duke is added to the picture since they have the misfortune of having BC and SU as their cross-divisional rivals.

So I wonder why 3-5-5 isn't the mantra from all right now and the focal point as to why the ACC wants the rule changed? Rather we are hearing that even if the rule changes the ACC likes the divisional format and the majority like the divisional format as it is currently.

Will conference leadership be able to "sell" why 3-5-5 might be best for the conference overall? I still have hope, but not a lot of it.

Cheers,
Neil

Sorry for all the edits. The math part of my brain is obviously "off" tonight and changing the focus from just SU and BC to also include Duke and Wake didn't help matters.

(05-19-2015 07:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 05:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 12:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't disagree that the ACCN would sell like hot cakes in those areas, but if they take content from ESPN, won't that hurt ESPN's carriage rates?

Much like with the SEC Network, the content used for the network is currently not aired on ESPN, but is syndicated, some by ESPN itself, some by Raycom. It would not affect ESPN content, other than maybe one game per year (generally one quasi-marquee game per year that normally would be on ESPN/ESPN2 is moved to the network for marketing purposes, like you saw when the SECN launched with Texas A&M vs. South Carolina.

You're missing my point. There is an opportunity cost to establishing an ACC network. The games have to come from somewhere, which will adversely affect that location's carriage rates. If ESPN (or whatever network/channel fits your fancy) thought that they could charge more and make more money, they would. However, there is a limit to what consumers will pay for everything, including ESPN. Therefore, there is a limit to cable companies will pay for access to the channel in question. I get that the agreement between <insert network here> and <inset cable company here> is a multiple year deal, but there are strong incentives favoring cooperation. Those incentives can take the form of arbitration clauses as a result of material changes and the fact that contracts are repeat games (i.e. reputations matter).

I didn't miss your point. I explained why it is incorrect. The games that go on a conference network are not currently aired on ANY ESPN Network, save for exclusive ESPN3 contests, which if anything, would be the only thing affected. These are events currently not on an ESPN Network, so it would not affect their programming, thus their carriage rates. You specifically asked about the carriage rates, that was what I commented on.

Now you are seemingly changing it, and going back to that same premise you tried to make about the BTN and YES that bundling someone takes away from fees they could otherwise charge. Something that simply has proven to be false.

1. You're still missing my point (as usual). The content is being aired. The fact that it isn't ESPN airing it is irrelevant. I used ESPN as a proxy for the company airing the content because they have the largest interest and listing everyone involved is needlessly cumbersome.

2. I have no idea what you think I'm changing or why you think that the Yankees are randomly doing the B1G a solid for free. Your understanding of business/economics and law is deeply flawed. The New York Yankees is not a charity organization, and Fox cannot violate fiduciary duties of loyalty and/or care. I really don't care how deeply you bury your head in the sand.

**Specifically, misallocating revenue would be a breach of the fiduciary duty of care and the fiduciary duty of loyalty, which would translate into tax evasion via fraudulent transfer pricing (impacting both state treasury departments and the IRS). There's also a chance that it could draw the attention of the SEC as well (pending how the screwy transfer pricing impacts publicly traded firms).**

(05-18-2015 02:52 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 08:57 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The distaste or dislike of playing at Boston or Syracuse for football has nothing to do with their fans, or their accents, or anything like that. The real issue is that kids up there don't play football like they used to - they are playing lacrosse. Recruits are slim, weather can be bad, and you just don't get the bang for the buck as playing an away game in Atlanta, Clemson, or Miami.

Yeah, the travel is long, and the weather can be bad. But nobody would complain about going to ND every other year.

As you said, Syracuse, BC, and to some extent Pitt are looked at as programs with very low ceilings. Even despite some fairly recent success by BC, the perception remains that you're looking at three programs that have too small a football fan base, too little football enthusiasm, and too few athletes to be any more than an occasional nice story.

That doesn't mean that they don't bring anything to the conference by any means. But it's a conference that already has one of the lowest-ceiling programs in Wake Forest, one of the traditionally worst FBS programs in the last fifty years in Duke, and a "core" of NC State, UNC and UVA that seem to manage one good season every decade or two. In other words, the ACC added weakness to its weakness.

And unlike UVA or UNC or previously Maryland, it's awfully tough to even tell yourself a fairly tale that they COULD experience a jump to the next level, like say Oregon. The fundamentals just don't seem like they are there. When you see the difficulty that schools like Michigan, Penn State, and even Notre Dame have reaching any level of consistent elite play in today's game...it's just hard to imagine that programs with much less support and resources are going to establish themselves as anything other than .500 programs over time.

Any of Syracuse, Pitt and BC may be "competitive". They may string together a few 8-win seasons. But the ACC already had that, now they just have more of it, and we have to travel further for it.

Lou, I respect you as a poster, but this one comes across to me as outright condescending. The same can be said of Utah (45,194 and 46,437 average attendance the past two years) and Colorado (38,463 and 37,778) in the Pac-12. And it's not as though the Pac-12 has these multiple elite programs in it anyway. And in that regard they resemble the ACC, at least to me.

Besides, is it BC's, SU's, and Pitt's fault that the ACC didn't have better options in 2004 and 2011? Perhaps had the ACC been able to articulate a clear vision back in 2003 prior to the success of the BTN in 2008, they may have bagged PSU and ND (full) in that time frame of 2004-2006 or so to go along with VT and Pitt and been the first to 16?

The fact that the B1G was worried about PSU's roving eyes with an extremely successful BTN in play says to me that the while it was 0.5% chance of happening in 2011-12, it likely would have been 10% or slightly higher in 2005 or 2006 prior to the BTN.

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge. It is what it is. And both the individual schools and the conference office have to make the best of it.

The real question is do all or a significant majority involved have the fortitude to do the hard work?

(05-18-2015 12:26 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The ACC expanded north because Miami wanted that. When the first discussions were held back in the early 90's, Miami wanted partners from the BE and they wanted Syracuse and BC. The deal that Gene Corrigan, FSU's and NCSU's AD had been negotiation included those three. When Swofford took over, he plowed full steam ahead not realizing that Duke and UNC did not want Syracuse in the ACC.

Miami's agreement was for all three to go. The way UNC and Duke played it, VT was allowed into the mix by UNC and Duke saying they would not vote for any expansion. That allowed VT to play politics in the State of Va. What UNC and Duke wanted at that time was butts in their football stadiums, VT would supply that and give no basketball competition. Perfect plan.

The coup de grace came when NC State's new Chancellor, proposed the ACC negotiate with ND before adding a 12th team - that froze out both Syracuse and BC. BC played nice, Syracuse was surly.

For all the claims of Conference Chair power, that entire affair, while dreamt up by Gene Corrigan, Paul Dee, Les Robinson and a few others below the President level, when it came time to take action, the school Presidents and Chancellors ran the show.

That's how we got BC. BC was gotten to get to you - ND.

Which tends to back up my point in another post that the Presidents didn't know what they were doing back then, that the conference commissioner couldn't articulate a clear vision as to why this was the right move the ACC. And Fox's ND connection has been so overrated by southern fans over the years it is bordering on pathetic. She was on the board, along with like 50 other people.

If she thought for one minute that ND would come to an entirely southern conference as #12 then she would have to have been the stupidest person alive with an ND connection, and that is saying a lot, since I know many ND alums. No offense Terry.

And if the ACC thought that later taking BC by itself as a "northern satellite" would lead to ND coming around, again I question their collective sanity.

To even get ND aboard partially the ACC had to expand with SU, Pitt, and BC AND it needed the Big East (that included both the Catholic schools and funded athletic D1 football schools in the northeast and midwest) as ND's "safe haven" to go away. Which anyone with a half a brain could have told ACC leadership (presidents and conference commissioner) that hinged more on SU being taken more than any other single domino.

Quote:It was not anticipated at the time in 2004, that the B12 would implode, the SEC go to 14 and MD would be taken over by old Ohio State lovers and bolt for the B10 and screw the ACC's talks with Penn State. None of that hits the horizon until Nebraska bolted for the B10 in 2010.

By the time 2011 rolls around, the ACC has no choice but to take two of Pitt/Syracuse/West Va in order to force ND into the ACC because without a legitimate BE, ND has to make a decision - ACC/B10 or B12. With the animus between ND and some B10 schools and the instability in the B12 - there was no choice.

That's how the ACC ended up going north.

If the ACC leadership couldn't anticipate that there had been real and actual talk about possible conference expansion beyond 12 since the early 90s, again, I question their competency.

And considering two ACC individuals back in 2003 while the visits with Miami, SU, and BC were underway actually said that they didn't see ACC expansion stopping at 12, but that they would need 5-7 years at 12 prior to looking at expanding beyond then I have to wonder why you seem to believe that the ACC was taken aback when other conferences were talking about doing precisely that in 2010?

Cheers,
Neil

(05-19-2015 08:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:26 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The ACC expanded north because Miami wanted that. When the first discussions were held back in the early 90's, Miami wanted partners from the BE and they wanted Syracuse and BC. The deal that Gene Corrigan, FSU's and NCSU's AD had been negotiation included those three. When Swofford took over, he plowed full steam ahead not realizing that Duke and UNC did not want Syracuse in the ACC.

Miami's agreement was for all three to go. The way UNC and Duke played it, VT was allowed into the mix by UNC and Duke saying they would not vote for any expansion. That allowed VT to play politics in the State of Va. What UNC and Duke wanted at that time was butts in their football stadiums, VT would supply that and give no basketball competition. Perfect plan.

The coup de grace came when NC State's new Chancellor, proposed the ACC negotiate with ND before adding a 12th team - that froze out both Syracuse and BC. BC played nice, Syracuse was surly.

For all the claims of Conference Chair power, that entire affair, while dreamt up by Gene Corrigan, Paul Dee, Les Robinson and a few others below the President level, when it came time to take action, the school Presidents and Chancellors ran the show.

That's how we got BC. BC was gotten to get to you - ND.

Which tends to back up my point in another post that the Presidents didn't know what they were doing back then, that the conference commissioner couldn't articulate a clear vision as to why this was the right move the ACC. And Fox's ND connection has been so overrated by southern fans over the years it is bordering on pathetic. She was on the board, along with like 50 other people.

If she thought for one minute that ND would come to an entirely southern conference as #12 then she would have to have been the stupidest person alive with an ND connection, and that is saying a lot, since I know many ND alums. No offense Terry.

And if the ACC thought that later taking BC by itself as a "northern satellite" would lead to ND coming around, again I question their collective sanity.

To even get ND aboard partially the ACC had to expand with SU, Pitt, and BC AND it needed the Big East (that included both the Catholic schools and funded athletic D1 football schools in the northeast and midwest) as ND's "safe haven" to go away. Which anyone with a half a brain could have told ACC leadership (presidents and conference commissioner) that hinged more on SU being taken more than any other single domino.

Quote:It was not anticipated at the time in 2004, that the B12 would implode, the SEC go to 14 and MD would be taken over by old Ohio State lovers and bolt for the B10 and screw the ACC's talks with Penn State. None of that hits the horizon until Nebraska bolted for the B10 in 2010.

By the time 2011 rolls around, the ACC has no choice but to take two of Pitt/Syracuse/West Va in order to force ND into the ACC because without a legitimate BE, ND has to make a decision - ACC/B10 or B12. With the animus between ND and some B10 schools and the instability in the B12 - there was no choice.

That's how the ACC ended up going north.

If the ACC leadership couldn't anticipate that there had been real and actual talk about possible conference expansion beyond 12 since the early 90s, again, I question their competency.

And considering two ACC individuals back in 2003 while the visits with Miami, SU, and BC were underway actually said that they didn't see ACC expansion stopping at 12, but that they would need 5-7 years at 12 prior to looking at expanding beyond then I have to wonder why you seem to believe that the ACC was taken aback when other conferences were talking about doing precisely that in 2010?

Cheers,
Neil

In 2003 the Presidents did EXACTLY what was in the best interest of their institutions. That's what they are paid to do. It was in UNC's, Duke's, and NC State's best institutional interest to not invite Syracuse to the ACC. Miami wanted you - that was it. NC State's Chancellor could have given you no cover at all by allowing a vote between BC and Syracuse - a vote you would have lost. Plus they all knew the pathway to ND was through BC and Pitt, not Syracuse. Gene Corrigan did not anticipate conferences at 14 when he retired in 2002 or so. NO ONE really thought that would happen with the major conferences until the TV money exploded, because every prior time conferences grew beyond 10 to 12, they fell apart.

(05-18-2015 07:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC as it's now configured is a grand experiment. I'm not sure who should take the credit for the design (the merger of the ACC and the best or most compatible of the Big East including the partial membership of Notre Dame).
No matter who came up with the design, ESPN bought the concept and bankrolled the whole shebang.
All the different components are still feeling each other out and starting to grow together unlike the other combo experiment in the middle of the country when the core of the SWC and the Big 8 merged. That group came apart before they really ever got to know each other....what a shame it was a monster conference.
The ACC decided to stick it out sign a GOR and keep trying to work out their differences.
Will the experiment work?
I don't know, but we have made a lot more progress than the Big 12 did and if we can hold together until the GOR expires we should have time to work out all of our differences and be ready for the long haul.

i think the biggest advantage that the acc has over the big 12 is that the core schools (the 6 nc/va schools) actually want to be together. That is tremendously understated everytime people talk about the stability of the acc. The core schools of the big 12 (the 6 tx/ok schools) have proven time and time again that their union is a marriage of convenience and that they are willing to take better offers. that will ultimately be there undoing

(05-19-2015 01:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am fine with an ACC network. However I think there is something to being "the last man standing" in the syndication game. The value of the syndicated games will only go up, because there are no more on the market. The Big Ten, Pac 12, and SEC all have networks, and the Big 12 does each school's rights individually. I still think buying Raycom is best for business, But from there they can look at revamping the syndication model, which can and does have nationwide clearances, or going forward with a network. Or combination of both. But I think a new syndication model can still be profitable, and generate lots of exposure. Or both can be done.

Basically last year there were 48 games that would have fallen to the ACC Network, between the games shown on the Game of the Week Syndication package, the RSN package, those kept by ESPN for ESPN3, and the two overflow games on ESPNews. That is 3.5 games per week, too many to show on the network anyway in one day (unless one every other week is a weekday game, which is not a good option for non-national TV games). There is room to still syndicate one game per week if wanted, keeping the syndication model alive, generating extra revenue, and getting extra exposure on top of national TV games and a network. For basketball, the same situation applies, as there are so many games anyway, multiple feeds would be needed to show them all anyway, so a little syndication does the same there as well. And since the syndicator would be inhouse, that is just extra money to be made.

No need to abandon one ship when

Excellent point!

With tv changing and evolving the way it is, syndication could prove to be a tremendously underrated factor. money can be made on the syndication market, but having a network is the it thing even if it is not as financially profitable (see the PAC 12 network). see how i love lucy reruns on cbs beat the mad men finale on amc sunday night in the ratings. whats old can still be profitable

(05-19-2015 09:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  In 2003 the Presidents did EXACTLY what was in the best interest of their institutions. That's what they are paid to do. It was in UNC's, Duke's, and NC State's best institutional interest to not invite Syracuse to the ACC. Miami wanted you - that was it. NC State's Chancellor could have given you no cover at all by allowing a vote between BC and Syracuse - a vote you would have lost. Plus they all knew the pathway to ND was through BC and Pitt, not Syracuse. Gene Corrigan did not anticipate conferences at 14 when he retired in 2002 or so. NO ONE really thought that would happen with the major conferences until the TV money exploded, because every prior time conferences grew beyond 10 to 12, they fell apart.

Let's begin by saying that Miami the institution had no real preference between SU, BC, and Pitt. Prior to the Big East they played Pitt 19 times, BC 12 times, and SU 9 times.

All three threw the Hurricanes a life-line when they were anathema and worked with them to make its entry into the Big East as smooth as possible. Did you know that one of the biggest Miami alumni chapters in the northeast was in Pittsburgh? Not sure if that is still true today, but it was true during the early 00s.

Now it is true that Shalala herself had a slight affinity to SU but she was never the type of individual that would fall on her sword if let's say the ACC truly wanted Pitt and BC rather than SU and BC. So, let's get that notion out of the way that the only reason why SU was included was because of Shalala/Miami. It's nonsense.

The pathway to ND and PSU was all Miami, and then BC, Pitt, and SU (in alpha order). They needed Miami since they wanted to secure Florida and the Hurricanes were the hottest property at that time, plus they were a private school that ND once related to and of course being in southern Florida for recruiting purposes for both ND and PSU. The other three added to Maryland would clearly take the conference away from it's purely southern roots and make it truly a conference of the entire East Coast. This would appeal to both ND and PSU. In terms of slight preferences, PSU (re:Paterno) probably preferred MD and SU while yes ND would prefer Pitt and BC. So how did it come down to Miami, BC, and SU?

Let's continue on by first debunking your bolded statemen above. You can say that no one was considering going beyond 12 until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what Debbie Yow had to say back in 2003 before the actual site visits even took place:

Maryland athletic director Deborah Yow said Tuesday she believes the Atlantic Coast Conference's expansion from nine to 12 teams will happen, and she thinks someday the league might go beyond a dozen.

Speaking on the John Thompson radio show on Sports Talk 980 in Washington, Yow, asked by Thompson if expansion is a fait accompli, said: "In my mind it is. But I'm not the final say.

"If it isn't as close to a done deal as it can be without actually having someone sign, it would turn out to be a very foolish decision to go public with it, wouldn't it?" Yow said.

The ACC has targeted Big East members Miami, Syracuse and Boston College. Virginia Tech was hoping for an invitation, but was bypassed. On radio, Yow said she hoped one day Tech could join.

"Who said we were stopping at 12; what's wrong with 14?"

Yow said in a later phone interview with USA TODAY her reference to 14 teams was "talking about down the road."

In another later interview she even specified 5-7 years as the time frame.

This was echoed by another ACC person, who iirc, was Lee Fowler. Then you had both Clough and Barker as on the record saying in the late 90s that expanded conferences with 14-16 teams was where college athletics was heading.

But continue to believe what you want. However, I should let you know that I collected hundreds of articles like this from about 1998 through 2004 all about ACC expansion. Even the articles with simply rumors and unconfirmed reports in them. I was going to write a book on it. One of the more interesting 'rumor" ones was about both PSU and Pitt being approached separately about their interest in joining the ACC "down the road" while the ACC was talking expansion with Miami, BC, and SU.

Not a lot of these articles are still out on the internet free, but some are, like the above:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...wrap_x.htm


So what were the options for beyond 12? The information below comes from an ESPN TNS Sports Poll in 2000 which was used in the report by the consultants. The report gave several options and why they thought the expanded ACC beyond 12 was the best option, but the second best option was Miami, SU, and BC.

The document had all 9 sub-regions but the pertinent facts were in three of those regions as well as that fact that only two programs made the Top 10 in all 9 regions - ND and FSU and the third program that made 6 out of 9 was PSU.

South Atlantic

1. Florida State 12.6
2. Florida 8.7
3. North Carolina 6.2
4. Georgia 5.4
5. Virginia Tech 5.1
6. West Virginia 4.1
7. Notre Dame 3.7
8. Miami 3.5
9. Penn State 3.1
10. Clemson 2.6

New England

1. Notre Dame 15.9
2. Boston College 12.6
3. Penn State 6.7
4. Florida State 3.8
5. Michigan 3.0
6. Maine 2.8
7. Florida 1.8
8. Nebraska 1.6
9. Yale 1.6
10. Ohio State 1.5

Mid-Atlantic

1. Penn State 29.0
2. Notre Dame 13.1
3. Syracuse 6.0
4. Pittsburgh 4.1
5. Florida State 3.9
6. Michigan 3.4
7. Florida 1.6
8. Ohio State 1.4
9. Miami 1.3
10. Nebraska 1.3

Yes, the ACC was strong in their own region of the South Atlantic (Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) with the #1 and #3 favorite teams and Clemson down at #10. But so was the SEC with Florida and Georgia. The ACC could try for Miami, VT, and WVU to get a stranglehold in that sub-region. But other than Miami, the other two had no reach outside that sub-region.

But look who were at #7 and #9 with Miami in-between at #8 all about the same level of fan support. There are ND and PSU, respectively. Well what reach do they have outside the "home sub-region"? Well there popularity was national overall but the strongest support being in the Northeast region, which contains two sub-regions New England and the Mid-Atlantic. So, if they were the ideal ultimate targets, who best supports them in those sub-regions. Well BC obviously in New England and either SU or Pitt in the Mid-Atlantic.

Something you may or may not know is that while the ACC was talking with Miami, SU, and BC they had already started back door negotiations with Notre Dame. It wasn't that Fox magically woke up one day and said "Gee, we are missing the boat here. Why take SU or BC when we can get ND".

In other words, it wasn't a V-8 moment. The reason why the ACC thought they could get ND was because they were already negotiating with them, which is why Wetherell let ND slip out quite a few times from early June through the decision to stop at 11. Those negotiations began in late May and early June with discussions centering around partial membership for seven years and then full membership after that.

So connect the dots. If the 2nd option was selected because the first option was too grand a scale to get done all at once and you're not sure if when you get to the next step who will still be interested at that time who do you take NOW (now being 2003). You take BC and SU, BC for the obvious reasons and SU because Shalala had a slight affinity for them, they were more popular than Pitt at that time (we had a 10 win season in 2001 and our 90s was great compared to Pitt's which was dreadful during the 90s). SU was probably slightly more preferable to PSU than Pitt (thanks to Paterno, although he had no love for Crouthamel either) and if you don't convince PSU to join when the time comes later you try and entice ND with taking them as 13 and Pitt as 14.

VT gets in as 16 if ND 13, PSU 14 and Pitt 15. Yow's comments were telling in that she was hoping that VT would get in "some day".

Cheers,
Neil

What, FSU drew/draws well in all regions of the eastern seaboard? And it's the only acc school to register in all three regions? I'm stunned. Stunned, I tell you. Well, maybe not as stunned as those fools on here claiming FSU doesn't carry acc football. You fools know who you are.

And another person disproving the lies of our resident insider? Shocking.

(05-19-2015 10:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  i think the biggest advantage that the acc has over the big 12 is that the core schools (the 6 nc/va schools) actually want to be together. That is tremendously understated everytime people talk about the stability of the acc. The core schools of the big 12 (the 6 tx/ok schools) have proven time and time again that their union is a marriage of convenience and that they are willing to take better offers. that will ultimately be there undoing

It's true that because of the conference networks, the schools that are DESIRED by other conferences also happen to want to stay in the ACC. And combine that with the fact that none are (like OU and TX) engaged in the college football arms race, and that makes the allure of more money even less effective.

All that said, for all the bitching from some quarters of Big 12 country (mostly Oklahoma), the Big 12 works for OU in TX in a LOT of ways...there is a lot of positives there for them. And the fact is, the Big 12 only exists because they've decided exactly that. It's good money, they've got high influence, they've got a great shot at a Sugar Bowl, etc.

What I think will eventually get the Big 12 is being a small regional conference in an era of national conferences, combined with the fact that after TX and OU, and to some extent WVU, the rest of that conference are dregs historically.

What TCU, KSU, Baylor, and Oklahoma State have been able to do it simply extraordinary. But they are all way over their heads right now historically. Part of that is having great coaches, the all-time best that their programs have ever had. Part of that is the offensive innovation that's taken place in the Big 12. Part of it is Texas and to some extent Oklahoma being down. And part of that is that they don't take too many challenges out of conference, so they prop each other up.

I personally simply don't buy that those schools are here to stay at that level. With all the success they've had, they don't recruit like elite programs. They don't produce NFL talent like elite programs. And they rarely make a statement out of conference.

I think that as Oklahoma and especially Texas right the ship, some of those coaches will be looking to get out while the getting is good. I think most of the schools in that conference will revert closer to the historical mean, and the Big 12 will begin to look a lot like the SWC and Big 8 did, and Oklahoma and Texas will feel like they are being marginalized and diminished by their schedules and the footprint.

If I'm wrong, and Baylor and TCU et al become perennial powers and national brands, I think the Big 12 will mostly continue to serve TX and OU pretty well.

(05-19-2015 10:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 07:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC as it's now configured is a grand experiment. I'm not sure who should take the credit for the design (the merger of the ACC and the best or most compatible of the Big East including the partial membership of Notre Dame).
No matter who came up with the design, ESPN bought the concept and bankrolled the whole shebang.
All the different components are still feeling each other out and starting to grow together unlike the other combo experiment in the middle of the country when the core of the SWC and the Big 8 merged. That group came apart before they really ever got to know each other....what a shame it was a monster conference.
The ACC decided to stick it out sign a GOR and keep trying to work out their differences.
Will the experiment work?
I don't know, but we have made a lot more progress than the Big 12 did and if we can hold together until the GOR expires we should have time to work out all of our differences and be ready for the long haul.

i think the biggest advantage that the acc has over the big 12 is that the core schools (the 6 nc/va schools) actually want to be together. That is tremendously understated everytime people talk about the stability of the acc. The core schools of the big 12 (the 6 tx/ok schools) have proven time and time again that their union is a marriage of convenience and that they are willing to take better offers. that will ultimately be there undoing

IMHO, you are absolutely right. Beyond that (and flowing to/from it) is a spider web of school allegiances (i.e. Miami -> Pitt -> SU -> BC)

(05-20-2015 12:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 09:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  In 2003 the Presidents did EXACTLY what was in the best interest of their institutions. That's what they are paid to do. It was in UNC's, Duke's, and NC State's best institutional interest to not invite Syracuse to the ACC. Miami wanted you - that was it. NC State's Chancellor could have given you no cover at all by allowing a vote between BC and Syracuse - a vote you would have lost. Plus they all knew the pathway to ND was through BC and Pitt, not Syracuse. Gene Corrigan did not anticipate conferences at 14 when he retired in 2002 or so. NO ONE really thought that would happen with the major conferences until the TV money exploded, because every prior time conferences grew beyond 10 to 12, they fell apart.

Let's begin by saying that Miami the institution had no real preference between SU, BC, and Pitt. Prior to the Big East they played Pitt 19 times, BC 12 times, and SU 9 times.

All three threw the Hurricanes a life-line when they were anathema and worked with them to make its entry into the Big East as smooth as possible. Did you know that one of the biggest Miami alumni chapters in the northeast was in Pittsburgh? Not sure if that is still true today, but it was true during the early 00s.

Now it is true that Shalala herself had a slight affinity to SU but she was never the type of individual that would fall on her sword if let's say the ACC truly wanted Pitt and BC rather than SU and BC. So, let's get that notion out of the way that the only reason why SU was included was because of Shalala/Miami. It's nonsense.

The pathway to ND and PSU was all Miami, and then BC, Pitt, and SU (in alpha order). They needed Miami since they wanted to secure Florida and the Hurricanes were the hottest property at that time, plus they were a private school that ND once related to and of course being in southern Florida for recruiting purposes for both ND and PSU. The other three added to Maryland would clearly take the conference away from it's purely southern roots and make it truly a conference of the entire East Coast. This would appeal to both ND and PSU. In terms of slight preferences, PSU (re:Paterno) probably preferred MD and SU while yes ND would prefer Pitt and BC. So how did it come down to Miami, BC, and SU?

Let's continue on by first debunking your bolded statemen above. You can say that no one was considering going beyond 12 until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what Debbie Yow had to say back in 2003 before the actual site visits even took place:

Maryland athletic director Deborah Yow said Tuesday she believes the Atlantic Coast Conference's expansion from nine to 12 teams will happen, and she thinks someday the league might go beyond a dozen.

Speaking on the John Thompson radio show on Sports Talk 980 in Washington, Yow, asked by Thompson if expansion is a fait accompli, said: "In my mind it is. But I'm not the final say.

"If it isn't as close to a done deal as it can be without actually having someone sign, it would turn out to be a very foolish decision to go public with it, wouldn't it?" Yow said.

The ACC has targeted Big East members Miami, Syracuse and Boston College. Virginia Tech was hoping for an invitation, but was bypassed. On radio, Yow said she hoped one day Tech could join.

"Who said we were stopping at 12; what's wrong with 14?"

Yow said in a later phone interview with USA TODAY her reference to 14 teams was "talking about down the road."

In another later interview she even specified 5-7 years as the time frame.

This was echoed by another ACC person, who iirc, was Lee Fowler. Then you had both Clough and Barker as on the record saying in the late 90s that expanded conferences with 14-16 teams was where college athletics was heading.

But continue to believe what you want. However, I should let you know that I collected hundreds of articles like this from about 1998 through 2004 all about ACC expansion. Even the articles with simply rumors and unconfirmed reports in them. I was going to write a book on it. One of the more interesting 'rumor" ones was about both PSU and Pitt being approached separately about their interest in joining the ACC "down the road" while the ACC was talking expansion with Miami, BC, and SU.

Not a lot of these articles are still out on the internet free, but some are, like the above:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...wrap_x.htm


So what were the options for beyond 12? The information below comes from an ESPN TNS Sports Poll in 2000 which was used in the report by the consultants. The report gave several options and why they thought the expanded ACC beyond 12 was the best option, but the second best option was Miami, SU, and BC.

The document had all 9 sub-regions but the pertinent facts were in three of those regions as well as that fact that only two programs made the Top 10 in all 9 regions - ND and FSU and the third program that made 6 out of 9 was PSU.

South Atlantic

1. Florida State 12.6
2. Florida 8.7
3. North Carolina 6.2
4. Georgia 5.4
5. Virginia Tech 5.1
6. West Virginia 4.1
7. Notre Dame 3.7
8. Miami 3.5
9. Penn State 3.1
10. Clemson 2.6

New England

1. Notre Dame 15.9
2. Boston College 12.6
3. Penn State 6.7
4. Florida State 3.8
5. Michigan 3.0
6. Maine 2.8
7. Florida 1.8
8. Nebraska 1.6
9. Yale 1.6
10. Ohio State 1.5

Mid-Atlantic

1. Penn State 29.0
2. Notre Dame 13.1
3. Syracuse 6.0
4. Pittsburgh 4.1
5. Florida State 3.9
6. Michigan 3.4
7. Florida 1.6
8. Ohio State 1.4
9. Miami 1.3
10. Nebraska 1.3

Yes, the ACC was strong in their own region of the South Atlantic (Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) with the #1 and #3 favorite teams and Clemson down at #10. But so was the SEC with Florida and Georgia. The ACC could try for Miami, VT, and WVU to get a stranglehold in that sub-region. But other than Miami, the other two had no reach outside that sub-region.

But look who were at #7 and #9 with Miami in-between at #8 all about the same level of fan support. There are ND and PSU, respectively. Well what reach do they have outside the "home sub-region"? Well there popularity was national overall but the strongest support being in the Northeast region, which contains two sub-regions New England and the Mid-Atlantic. So, if they were the ideal ultimate targets, who best supports them in those sub-regions. Well BC obviously in New England and either SU or Pitt in the Mid-Atlantic.

Something you may or may not know is that while the ACC was talking with Miami, SU, and BC they had already started back door negotiations with Notre Dame. It wasn't that Fox magically woke up one day and said "Gee, we are missing the boat here. Why take SU or BC when we can get ND".

In other words, it wasn't a V-8 moment. The reason why the ACC thought they could get ND was because they were already negotiating with them, which is why Wetherell let ND slip out quite a few times from early June through the decision to stop at 11. Those negotiations began in late May and early June with discussions centering around partial membership for seven years and then full membership after that.

So connect the dots. If the 2nd option was selected because the first option was too grand a scale to get done all at once and you're not sure if when you get to the next step who will still be interested at that time who do you take NOW (now being 2003). You take BC and SU, BC for the obvious reasons and SU because Shalala had a slight affinity for them, they were more popular than Pitt at that time (we had a 10 win season in 2001 and our 90s was great compared to Pitt's which was dreadful during the 90s). SU was probably slightly more preferable to PSU than Pitt (thanks to Paterno, although he had no love for Crouthamel either) and if you don't convince PSU to join when the time comes later you try and entice ND with taking them as 13 and Pitt as 14.

VT gets in as 16 if ND 13, PSU 14 and Pitt 15. Yow's comments were telling in that she was hoping that VT would get in "some day".

Cheers,
Neil

"Gene Corrigan did not anticipate conferences at 14 when he retired in 2002 or so. NO ONE really thought that would happen with the major conferences until the TV money exploded, because every prior time conferences grew beyond 10 to 12, they fell apart."


Neil, Corrigan actually retired in 1997. My comments were about HIS thoughts regarding expansion up to the time he retired. Even as late as 2002, ACC presidents and chancellors (the real decision makers) did not think the ACC was going to expand into the teens because the last time that had happened, the conference fell apart with 17 members. At that time Duke, UVa, NC State, UNC, and WF did not want a conference that large. Those were the opinions that mattered. So in that sense, I should have used different phraseology than "NO ONE". I should have said NO ONE WITH A VOTE TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN outside the states of NC and Va - that would have been more accurate.

Debbie was not a "decision maker" and had no vote in 2003. In 2003 her job was to look after MD's best interests. One of those interests was to keep people sitting in Byrd Stadium.

These decisions are not made by AD's they are made by Chancellors and Presidents and they are made by the ones that don't run their mouths to the media. I realize it's a Syracuse thing to speak out of turn to the media and the ACC has a few other schools where they have difficulty controlling lower-level voices.

Yow's very diplomatic comments about VT in 2003 are nice aren't they.

If one didn't know better it could be taken as just another signal to UNC and Duke about their ability to pressure UVa's expansion vote regarding VT.

But I encourage you to write your book. Being published can be a real ego boost. [/i]

And of course Gene was talking to his former employer before he retired.

(05-20-2015 10:44 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 12:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 09:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  In 2003 the Presidents did EXACTLY what was in the best interest of their institutions. That's what they are paid to do. It was in UNC's, Duke's, and NC State's best institutional interest to not invite Syracuse to the ACC. Miami wanted you - that was it. NC State's Chancellor could have given you no cover at all by allowing a vote between BC and Syracuse - a vote you would have lost. Plus they all knew the pathway to ND was through BC and Pitt, not Syracuse. Gene Corrigan did not anticipate conferences at 14 when he retired in 2002 or so. NO ONE really thought that would happen with the major conferences until the TV money exploded, because every prior time conferences grew beyond 10 to 12, they fell apart.

Let's begin by saying that Miami the institution had no real preference between SU, BC, and Pitt. Prior to the Big East they played Pitt 19 times, BC 12 times, and SU 9 times.

All three threw the Hurricanes a life-line when they were anathema and worked with them to make its entry into the Big East as smooth as possible. Did you know that one of the biggest Miami alumni chapters in the northeast was in Pittsburgh? Not sure if that is still true today, but it was true during the early 00s.

Now it is true that Shalala herself had a slight affinity to SU but she was never the type of individual that would fall on her sword if let's say the ACC truly wanted Pitt and BC rather than SU and BC. So, let's get that notion out of the way that the only reason why SU was included was because of Shalala/Miami. It's nonsense.

The pathway to ND and PSU was all Miami, and then BC, Pitt, and SU (in alpha order). They needed Miami since they wanted to secure Florida and the Hurricanes were the hottest property at that time, plus they were a private school that ND once related to and of course being in southern Florida for recruiting purposes for both ND and PSU. The other three added to Maryland would clearly take the conference away from it's purely southern roots and make it truly a conference of the entire East Coast. This would appeal to both ND and PSU. In terms of slight preferences, PSU (re:Paterno) probably preferred MD and SU while yes ND would prefer Pitt and BC. So how did it come down to Miami, BC, and SU?

Let's continue on by first debunking your bolded statemen above. You can say that no one was considering going beyond 12 until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what Debbie Yow had to say back in 2003 before the actual site visits even took place:

Maryland athletic director Deborah Yow said Tuesday she believes the Atlantic Coast Conference's expansion from nine to 12 teams will happen, and she thinks someday the league might go beyond a dozen.

Speaking on the John Thompson radio show on Sports Talk 980 in Washington, Yow, asked by Thompson if expansion is a fait accompli, said: "In my mind it is. But I'm not the final say.

"If it isn't as close to a done deal as it can be without actually having someone sign, it would turn out to be a very foolish decision to go public with it, wouldn't it?" Yow said.

The ACC has targeted Big East members Miami, Syracuse and Boston College. Virginia Tech was hoping for an invitation, but was bypassed. On radio, Yow said she hoped one day Tech could join.

"Who said we were stopping at 12; what's wrong with 14?"

Yow said in a later phone interview with USA TODAY her reference to 14 teams was "talking about down the road."

In another later interview she even specified 5-7 years as the time frame.

This was echoed by another ACC person, who iirc, was Lee Fowler. Then you had both Clough and Barker as on the record saying in the late 90s that expanded conferences with 14-16 teams was where college athletics was heading.

But continue to believe what you want. However, I should let you know that I collected hundreds of articles like this from about 1998 through 2004 all about ACC expansion. Even the articles with simply rumors and unconfirmed reports in them. I was going to write a book on it. One of the more interesting 'rumor" ones was about both PSU and Pitt being approached separately about their interest in joining the ACC "down the road" while the ACC was talking expansion with Miami, BC, and SU.

Not a lot of these articles are still out on the internet free, but some are, like the above:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...wrap_x.htm


So what were the options for beyond 12? The information below comes from an ESPN TNS Sports Poll in 2000 which was used in the report by the consultants. The report gave several options and why they thought the expanded ACC beyond 12 was the best option, but the second best option was Miami, SU, and BC.

The document had all 9 sub-regions but the pertinent facts were in three of those regions as well as that fact that only two programs made the Top 10 in all 9 regions - ND and FSU and the third program that made 6 out of 9 was PSU.

South Atlantic

1. Florida State 12.6
2. Florida 8.7
3. North Carolina 6.2
4. Georgia 5.4
5. Virginia Tech 5.1
6. West Virginia 4.1
7. Notre Dame 3.7
8. Miami 3.5
9. Penn State 3.1
10. Clemson 2.6

New England

1. Notre Dame 15.9
2. Boston College 12.6
3. Penn State 6.7
4. Florida State 3.8
5. Michigan 3.0
6. Maine 2.8
7. Florida 1.8
8. Nebraska 1.6
9. Yale 1.6
10. Ohio State 1.5

Mid-Atlantic

1. Penn State 29.0
2. Notre Dame 13.1
3. Syracuse 6.0
4. Pittsburgh 4.1
5. Florida State 3.9
6. Michigan 3.4
7. Florida 1.6
8. Ohio State 1.4
9. Miami 1.3
10. Nebraska 1.3

Yes, the ACC was strong in their own region of the South Atlantic (Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) with the #1 and #3 favorite teams and Clemson down at #10. But so was the SEC with Florida and Georgia. The ACC could try for Miami, VT, and WVU to get a stranglehold in that sub-region. But other than Miami, the other two had no reach outside that sub-region.

But look who were at #7 and #9 with Miami in-between at #8 all about the same level of fan support. There are ND and PSU, respectively. Well what reach do they have outside the "home sub-region"? Well there popularity was national overall but the strongest support being in the Northeast region, which contains two sub-regions New England and the Mid-Atlantic. So, if they were the ideal ultimate targets, who best supports them in those sub-regions. Well BC obviously in New England and either SU or Pitt in the Mid-Atlantic.

Something you may or may not know is that while the ACC was talking with Miami, SU, and BC they had already started back door negotiations with Notre Dame. It wasn't that Fox magically woke up one day and said "Gee, we are missing the boat here. Why take SU or BC when we can get ND".

In other words, it wasn't a V-8 moment. The reason why the ACC thought they could get ND was because they were already negotiating with them, which is why Wetherell let ND slip out quite a few times from early June through the decision to stop at 11. Those negotiations began in late May and early June with discussions centering around partial membership for seven years and then full membership after that.

So connect the dots. If the 2nd option was selected because the first option was too grand a scale to get done all at once and you're not sure if when you get to the next step who will still be interested at that time who do you take NOW (now being 2003). You take BC and SU, BC for the obvious reasons and SU because Shalala had a slight affinity for them, they were more popular than Pitt at that time (we had a 10 win season in 2001 and our 90s was great compared to Pitt's which was dreadful during the 90s). SU was probably slightly more preferable to PSU than Pitt (thanks to Paterno, although he had no love for Crouthamel either) and if you don't convince PSU to join when the time comes later you try and entice ND with taking them as 13 and Pitt as 14.

VT gets in as 16 if ND 13, PSU 14 and Pitt 15. Yow's comments were telling in that she was hoping that VT would get in "some day".

Cheers,
Neil

"Gene Corrigan did not anticipate conferences at 14 when he retired in 2002 or so. NO ONE really thought that would happen with the major conferences until the TV money exploded, because every prior time conferences grew beyond 10 to 12, they fell apart."


Neil, Corrigan actually retired in 1997. My comments were about HIS thoughts regarding expansion up to the time he retired. Even as late as 2002, ACC presidents and chancellors (the real decision makers) did not think the ACC was going to expand into the teens because the last time that had happened, the conference fell apart with 17 members. At that time Duke, UVa, NC State, UNC, and WF did not want a conference that large. Those were the opinions that mattered. So in that sense, I should have used different phraseology than "NO ONE". I should have said NO ONE WITH A VOTE TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN outside the states of NC and Va - that would have been more accurate.

Debbie was not a "decision maker" and had no vote in 2003. In 2003 her job was to look after MD's best interests. One of those interests was to keep people sitting in Byrd Stadium.

These decisions are not made by AD's they are made by Chancellors and Presidents and they are made by the ones that don't run their mouths to the media. I realize it's a Syracuse thing to speak out of turn to the media and the ACC has a few other schools where they have difficulty controlling lower-level voices.

Yow's very diplomatic comments about VT in 2003 are nice aren't they.

If one didn't know better it could be taken as just another signal to UNC and Duke about their ability to pressure UVa's expansion vote regarding VT.

But I encourage you to write your book. Being published can be a real ego boost. [/i]

And of course Gene was talking to his former employer before he retired.

Looks like you messed with the wrong poster dude!