There is nothing inevitable or certain about the survival of team professional and college sports.

They didn't exist in this country before 1869 and may not survive past 2069.

It could be that two hundred year span of college and professional sports may be viewed as an anomaly in the course of history, a blip on the screen.

(05-30-2018 10:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 09:23 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 05:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

The ACC HAS improved dramatically... and THAT is also the reason folks are so upset with the 2010 contract, which LOCKED in the OLD ACC value...

The ACC wanted more money while in the middle of a contract, right? ESPN was only going to give more money if the deal included an extension of years on the contract.

No, it was the FIRST contract with ESPN which was the problem... it was both TOO LOW and TOO LONG. They couldn't do much about the LOW, but they could've about the LONG.

That would have expired in summer 2024 if not extended. That contract was $1.86 billion for 12 years, average of $155 million/year. If that had never been renegotiated, not even for the additions of Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Notre Dame, then that average of $155 million/year would have been split 14 1/3 ways through the 2023-24 school year, with each full member getting about $10.8 million per year.

To sit tight on the existing contract until 2024, given how much less they would have been making compared to the Pac-12 and Big 12, let alone the SEC and Big Ten, is probably not what the ACC presidents wanted. They're getting a conference network, which should give them each a few million more per year, and now that Skipper is gone, ESPN might not have given the ACC a fat increase in 2024 anyway.

You're referring to the renegotiation of 2012-13 (IIRC). I'm referring to the INITIAL negotiation of 2010 which, as you pointed out, was for 12 years at approx. $12M/yr. That was below the SEC even then, and TV rights were already on the way UP... so why lock in 12 years? Bad decision - which the ACC has been paying for (literally) ever since!

(05-30-2018 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 10:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 05:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC HAS improved dramatically... and THAT is also the reason folks are so upset with the 2010 contract, which LOCKED in the OLD ACC value...

The ACC wanted more money while in the middle of a contract, right? ESPN was only going to give more money if the deal included an extension of years on the contract.

I think the point is Wedge that it still didn't help. They had to extend the GOR as well.

The oldest Boomers will be 80 in 2026 and 90 in 2036 when the ACC contract will be being discussed again. How is it that those East Coast Public Ivies were so brilliant that they didn't bother to consider demographics over time lapse when making the deal? The beginning of the thinning of the Boomer herd is underway. By 2026 it will be beginning to peak. The next time the ACC renews a contract most of the Boomers will have passed and with them the Golden Years of College Football. But in the interim the Big 10 and SEC will have bankrolled quite an advantage even if the new game is baseball, basketball, or something else. What they did was severely hamstring Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville and Miami during what could very well be the peak of college football revenue earnings.

If for no other reason that is why Swofford isn't that great of a commissioner.

Excellent point. College football will do better post-boomer than some others. For example the demographics for the NCAA Tournament are not encouraging at all, even older and whiter than the CFP. Baseball's demographics are ugly and now that most everyone is just swinging for the fences rather than hit gaps and advance runners baseball probably isn't going to see any real uptick.

Hoops demographics have been headed down for sometime. Baseball is at least relatively concussion free as compared to most other sports. But the game is long and it doesn't translate to those who never played and with the video game generation making up more and more of the work force, well it doesn't look too good.

My grandfather grew up loving Polo, Boxing and the Indianapolis 500 and Horse Racing. In his peak earning years he never missed the Brickyard or Churchill Downs.

My father grew up on football, and his closest cousin baseball.

I grew up with both and considered basketball a rainy day activity.

My daughters had the joy of playing their respective Universities marching bands. Their link to the sport is centered around that.

So far I have one grandson who can hunt, farm and raise chickens and he's becoming an engineer. I have another grandson who flies. And I have a third grandson who has never done anything in the flesh and only has video games to play. Every time he's with me I'm trying to teach him how to catch, throw, and hit. It's a big time work in progress and the only true inclination he has shown thus far is for fishing. Th one who is becoming an engineer was at least a swimmer. But none of them played baseball, football, or basketball. At least the youngest has time to learn. But as far as confidence building goes the oldest two are both quite self aware and confident and show good decision making capabilities so I have nothing to complain about. I'm proud of them both. The youngest is smart and social, but he needs confidence, but at least we have some years to work on that, God willing.

So when my daughters are gone the last big time football fans of this family will have passed. I don't think the big 3 have much of a future. In fact organized team sports in general may not have much of one.

My son and I have had discussions on the fate of pro sports and when he was a kid he played pretty much everything except hockey.

His prediction is that football's time at the top is nearly over because of the "DI", the "dude index". He says the DI is too high for football, if we go to MLS, baseball, hockey, NBA, he points out the higher numbers of women in the stands wearing jerseys compared to football and he is convinced that soccer and NHL have the best long-term potential with the NBA close behind and then baseball because more females are interested enough to purchase expensive authentic jerseys.

My recent college grad daughter pretty much hates all sports and loves hockey and then only reason she doesn't care much for soccer is because it's too damn hot for much of the MLS season.

(05-31-2018 12:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 10:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The ACC wanted more money while in the middle of a contract, right? ESPN was only going to give more money if the deal included an extension of years on the contract.

I think the point is Wedge that it still didn't help. They had to extend the GOR as well.

The oldest Boomers will be 80 in 2026 and 90 in 2036 when the ACC contract will be being discussed again. How is it that those East Coast Public Ivies were so brilliant that they didn't bother to consider demographics over time lapse when making the deal? The beginning of the thinning of the Boomer herd is underway. By 2026 it will be beginning to peak. The next time the ACC renews a contract most of the Boomers will have passed and with them the Golden Years of College Football. But in the interim the Big 10 and SEC will have bankrolled quite an advantage even if the new game is baseball, basketball, or something else. What they did was severely hamstring Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville and Miami during what could very well be the peak of college football revenue earnings.

If for no other reason that is why Swofford isn't that great of a commissioner.

Excellent point. College football will do better post-boomer than some others. For example the demographics for the NCAA Tournament are not encouraging at all, even older and whiter than the CFP. Baseball's demographics are ugly and now that most everyone is just swinging for the fences rather than hit gaps and advance runners baseball probably isn't going to see any real uptick.

Hoops demographics have been headed down for sometime. Baseball is at least relatively concussion free as compared to most other sports. But the game is long and it doesn't translate to those who never played and with the video game generation making up more and more of the work force, well it doesn't look too good.

My grandfather grew up loving Polo, Boxing and the Indianapolis 500 and Horse Racing. In his peak earning years he never missed the Brickyard or Churchill Downs.

My father grew up on football, and his closest cousin baseball.

I grew up with both and considered basketball a rainy day activity.

My daughters had the joy of playing their respective Universities marching bands. Their link to the sport is centered around that.

So far I have one grandson who can hunt, farm and raise chickens and he's becoming an engineer. I have another grandson who flies. And I have a third grandson who has never done anything in the flesh and only has video games to play. Every time he's with me I'm trying to teach him how to catch, throw, and hit. It's a big time work in progress and the only true inclination he has shown thus far is for fishing. Th one who is becoming an engineer was at least a swimmer. But none of them played baseball, football, or basketball. At least the youngest has time to learn. But as far as confidence building goes the oldest two are both quite self aware and confident and show good decision making capabilities so I have nothing to complain about. I'm proud of them both. The youngest is smart and social, but he needs confidence, but at least we have some years to work on that, God willing.

So when my daughters are gone the last big time football fans of this family will have passed. I don't think the big 3 have much of a future. In fact organized team sports in general may not have much of one.

My son and I have had discussions on the fate of pro sports and when he was a kid he played pretty much everything except hockey.

His prediction is that football's time at the top is nearly over because of the "DI", the "dude index". He says the DI is too high for football, if we go to MLS, baseball, hockey, NBA, he points out the higher numbers of women in the stands wearing jerseys compared to football and he is convinced that soccer and NHL have the best long-term potential with the NBA close behind and then baseball because more females are interested enough to purchase expensive authentic jerseys.

My recent college grad daughter pretty much hates all sports and loves hockey and then only reason she doesn't care much for soccer is because it's too damn hot for much of the MLS season.

I'm not yanking on your kids but think about it for a moment. Football is complex. Baseball is somewhat complex. Soccer and Hockey have 1 thing in common, continual action with a simple objective and much fewer rules than football or baseball. The modern education system gears brains for continual stimuli with simple straightforward objectives. In other words they don't have to know the game, or have played it, to be able to follow and understand it. Off sides in hockey may be one of the harder fouls to pick up on. High sticking is pretty simple. Tripping is pretty simple. Likewise in Soccer the fouls are fairly obvious. In football the rules aren't understandable unless you play the game. Chop blocks, blocking downfield on a pass, an uncovered tackle eligible, are just a few of the head scratchers for the uninitiated. Try explaining a balk to someone who never played baseball. Even the infield fly rule isn't as obvious as most may think. The more nuance, the less kids today like it. And they don't accept what they don't understand.

(05-31-2018 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 12:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 10:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think the point is Wedge that it still didn't help. They had to extend the GOR as well.

The oldest Boomers will be 80 in 2026 and 90 in 2036 when the ACC contract will be being discussed again. How is it that those East Coast Public Ivies were so brilliant that they didn't bother to consider demographics over time lapse when making the deal? The beginning of the thinning of the Boomer herd is underway. By 2026 it will be beginning to peak. The next time the ACC renews a contract most of the Boomers will have passed and with them the Golden Years of College Football. But in the interim the Big 10 and SEC will have bankrolled quite an advantage even if the new game is baseball, basketball, or something else. What they did was severely hamstring Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville and Miami during what could very well be the peak of college football revenue earnings.

If for no other reason that is why Swofford isn't that great of a commissioner.

Excellent point. College football will do better post-boomer than some others. For example the demographics for the NCAA Tournament are not encouraging at all, even older and whiter than the CFP. Baseball's demographics are ugly and now that most everyone is just swinging for the fences rather than hit gaps and advance runners baseball probably isn't going to see any real uptick.

Hoops demographics have been headed down for sometime. Baseball is at least relatively concussion free as compared to most other sports. But the game is long and it doesn't translate to those who never played and with the video game generation making up more and more of the work force, well it doesn't look too good.

My grandfather grew up loving Polo, Boxing and the Indianapolis 500 and Horse Racing. In his peak earning years he never missed the Brickyard or Churchill Downs.

My father grew up on football, and his closest cousin baseball.

I grew up with both and considered basketball a rainy day activity.

My daughters had the joy of playing their respective Universities marching bands. Their link to the sport is centered around that.

So far I have one grandson who can hunt, farm and raise chickens and he's becoming an engineer. I have another grandson who flies. And I have a third grandson who has never done anything in the flesh and only has video games to play. Every time he's with me I'm trying to teach him how to catch, throw, and hit. It's a big time work in progress and the only true inclination he has shown thus far is for fishing. Th one who is becoming an engineer was at least a swimmer. But none of them played baseball, football, or basketball. At least the youngest has time to learn. But as far as confidence building goes the oldest two are both quite self aware and confident and show good decision making capabilities so I have nothing to complain about. I'm proud of them both. The youngest is smart and social, but he needs confidence, but at least we have some years to work on that, God willing.

So when my daughters are gone the last big time football fans of this family will have passed. I don't think the big 3 have much of a future. In fact organized team sports in general may not have much of one.

My son and I have had discussions on the fate of pro sports and when he was a kid he played pretty much everything except hockey.

His prediction is that football's time at the top is nearly over because of the "DI", the "dude index". He says the DI is too high for football, if we go to MLS, baseball, hockey, NBA, he points out the higher numbers of women in the stands wearing jerseys compared to football and he is convinced that soccer and NHL have the best long-term potential with the NBA close behind and then baseball because more females are interested enough to purchase expensive authentic jerseys.

My recent college grad daughter pretty much hates all sports and loves hockey and then only reason she doesn't care much for soccer is because it's too damn hot for much of the MLS season.

I'm not yanking on your kids but think about it for a moment. Football is complex. Baseball is somewhat complex. Soccer and Hockey have 1 thing in common, continual action with a simple objective and much fewer rules than football or baseball. The modern education system gears brains for continual stimuli with simple straightforward objectives. In other words they don't have to know the game, or have played it, to be able to follow and understand it. Off sides in hockey may be one of the harder fouls to pick up on. High sticking is pretty simple. Tripping is pretty simple. Likewise in Soccer the fouls are fairly obvious. In football the rules aren't understandable unless you play the game. Chop blocks, blocking downfield on a pass, an uncovered tackle eligible, are just a few of the head scratchers for the uninitiated. Try explaining a balk to someone who never played baseball. Even the infield fly rule isn't as obvious as most may think. The more nuance, the less kids today like it. And they don't accept what they don't understand.

My son is a college football fanatic. His interest is the main thing that keeps me interested enough to buy tickets.

Daughter just likes watching the dudes crash into each other and fight.

The most popular spectator sport worldwide is soccer, and second is basketball. It's probably not a coincidence that they also have the smallest rulebooks.