(03-06-2020 09:12 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:02 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  WTF are you talking about?

First you need an entirely new stadium. I know you just renovated Wallace Wade. And that was long overdue ... it was the last P5 with a damn track around the football field. But it's nowhere near the amenity level of a serious FB program. Part of being able to compete at a high level is being able to cash in when you play at a high level. And that means a FB stadium with lots of luxury and box seating. And a stadium that holds double what it does now. And a stadium that has at least 40-50k in it instead of 10-15k. That's going to require an enormous marketing program with some dedicated employees. So just the stadium is $500m. You're probably talking another few million just for the marketing regime and the employees needed to run it to then fill it.

You're going to need a new staff next. And you're going to need a staff that brings a name brand reputation that will blunt the sullied image Duke FB has created for itself. Soup to nuts plus assistants and coordinators a lights out staff is about another $10m.

The new staff is going to then want an indoor practice facility and football operations center. The two combined are about another $150m.

Next you'll want new locker rooms and weight room facilities. And hey, maybe this time the visitor locker room at Wallace Wade Outdoor can be in the same zipcode. Another $50m.

Misc expenses, marketing, sports nutrition, apartments, stipend, recruiting support staffs, etc ... I think you'll easily find the remaining $40m finds a quick home.

If Duke wants football to be something other than a bowl trip to Shreveport ... that's the kinda expense ledger they'd be looking at.

How absurd. Why don't you get your own damned football program in order before you start telling other people to spend nearly a billion dollars? In any case, you can't just dial up wins by spending tons of money. See the University of Texas, for instance. Some people on this board have no sense. They think it's just really simple to have a winning program. Just have an enormous football stadium and spend incredible sums of money. If that's the answer, why does the University of Tennessee have such middling teams?

(03-06-2020 10:19 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  How absurd. Why don't you get your own damned football program in order before you start telling other people to spend nearly a billion dollars? In any case, you can't just dial up wins by spending tons of money. See the University of Texas, for instance. Some people on this board have no sense. They think it's just really simple to have a winning program. Just have an enormous football stadium and spend incredible sums of money. If that's the answer, why does the University of Tennessee have such middling teams?

You're right, you can't just dial up wins by spending a lot of money. But that doesn't mean spending a lot of money isn't a pre-requisite. You really wanna compare Texas and Duke in literally any quantifiable way as a football program? Would the best Duke FB team of the last 20 years reliably beat the worst Texas FB team of the last 20 years? I just don't get why you have your head in the sand on spending to win in football when you obscenely spend to win in basketball already.

Regarding UT ... they don't have the right AD. They may not even have the right President. Alarmingly for the ACC the AD that got ran out of town in Knoxville after less than 10 months on the job ... is currently the AD at Wake Forest. You might recall UT's parade of d'oh regarding their most recent FB HC and how they almost couldn't hire somebody (they even called Paul Johnson!). Phil Fulmer had to come back in as interim AD just to stop the infighting. Step 1 is you have to have the right AD and President. Without those no amount of spending matters. Maybe that was your point ... Kevin White can't be trusted to run a FB program even one with an unlimited budget.

The surest way to win a national championship (if you have the money) is to:
a) hire the very best coaches, sparing no expense (est. $200 million)
b) find the best transfer players who are immediately eligible
c) round that out with the very best 5-star recruits
d) pay players under the table to make sure you sign them all (another $10 million)
e) pay referees if you have to ($?)
- cheat like crazy!

Yeah, you'll eventually have your national championship title vacated, but fans will still remember it!

DISCLAIMER: I'm not actually advocating this approach, just pointing out it's the only guaranteed way to "buy" a championship.

(03-06-2020 10:38 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:19 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  How absurd. Why don't you get your own damned football program in order before you start telling other people to spend nearly a billion dollars? In any case, you can't just dial up wins by spending tons of money. See the University of Texas, for instance. Some people on this board have no sense. They think it's just really simple to have a winning program. Just have an enormous football stadium and spend incredible sums of money. If that's the answer, why does the University of Tennessee have such middling teams?

You're right, you can't just dial up wins by spending a lot of money. But that doesn't mean spending a lot of money isn't a pre-requisite. You really wanna compare Texas and Duke in literally any quantifiable way as a football program? Would the best Duke FB team of the last 20 years reliably beat the worst Texas FB team of the last 20 years? I just don't get why you have your head in the sand on spending to win in football when you obscenely spend to win in basketball already.

Regarding UT ... they don't have the right AD. They may not even have the right President. Alarmingly for the ACC the AD that got ran out of town in Knoxville after less than 10 months on the job ... is currently the AD at Wake Forest. You might recall UT's parade of d'oh regarding their most recent FB HC and how they almost couldn't hire somebody (they even called Paul Johnson!). Phil Fulmer had to come back in as interim AD just to stop the infighting. Step 1 is you have to have the right AD and President. Without those no amount of spending matters. Maybe that was your point ... Kevin White can't be trusted to run a FB program even one with an unlimited budget.

How much attention do you pay to either Duke or Texas football? There have been quite a few years where a Duke football team would have beaten a Texas football team. One that sticks out would have been 2013 when Duke went 10-4 and played in the Peach Bowl. Texas was 8-5 that season. Or there's 2014 and 2015 when Texas posted losing records while Duke went to bowl games.

Of course, you always have an excuse why money doesn't equal wins. It's because an idiot was AD or football coach.

(03-06-2020 04:07 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:38 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:19 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  How absurd. Why don't you get your own damned football program in order before you start telling other people to spend nearly a billion dollars? In any case, you can't just dial up wins by spending tons of money. See the University of Texas, for instance. Some people on this board have no sense. They think it's just really simple to have a winning program. Just have an enormous football stadium and spend incredible sums of money. If that's the answer, why does the University of Tennessee have such middling teams?

You're right, you can't just dial up wins by spending a lot of money. But that doesn't mean spending a lot of money isn't a pre-requisite. You really wanna compare Texas and Duke in literally any quantifiable way as a football program? Would the best Duke FB team of the last 20 years reliably beat the worst Texas FB team of the last 20 years? I just don't get why you have your head in the sand on spending to win in football when you obscenely spend to win in basketball already.

Regarding UT ... they don't have the right AD. They may not even have the right President. Alarmingly for the ACC the AD that got ran out of town in Knoxville after less than 10 months on the job ... is currently the AD at Wake Forest. You might recall UT's parade of d'oh regarding their most recent FB HC and how they almost couldn't hire somebody (they even called Paul Johnson!). Phil Fulmer had to come back in as interim AD just to stop the infighting. Step 1 is you have to have the right AD and President. Without those no amount of spending matters. Maybe that was your point ... Kevin White can't be trusted to run a FB program even one with an unlimited budget.

How much attention do you pay to either Duke or Texas football? There have been quite a few years where a Duke football team would have beaten a Texas football team. One that sticks out would have been 2013 when Duke went 10-4 and played in the Peach Bowl. Texas was 8-5 that season. Or there's 2014 and 2015 when Texas posted losing records while Duke went to bowl games.

Of course, you always have an excuse why money doesn't equal wins. It's because an idiot was AD or football coach.

Duke SHOULD have beaten Texas A&M that year.

(03-06-2020 04:07 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How much attention do you pay to either Duke or Texas football? There have been quite a few years where a Duke football team would have beaten a Texas football team. One that sticks out would have been 2013 when Duke went 10-4 and played in the Peach Bowl. Texas was 8-5 that season. Or there's 2014 and 2015 when Texas posted losing records while Duke went to bowl games.

Of course, you always have an excuse why money doesn't equal wins. It's because an idiot was AD or football coach.

I'm not so sure. I suspect that 10-4 Duke would have been an underdog playing 8-5 Texas. I went looking for Duke's last quality OOC win by brand .... in other words, over a football first school with some track record in the sport that plays at the P5 level.

2019: L 42-3 vs Alabama, L 38-7 vs Notre Dame
2018: 0 attempts made
2017: 0 attempts made
2016: W 38-35 vs Notre Dame
2015: 0 attempts made
2014: L 36-31 vs Arizona St
2013: L 52-48 vs TAMU
2012: L 50-13 vs Stanford
2011: L 44-14 vs Stanford
2010: L 62-13 vs Alabama

I stopped here because going back much further and you'll hit a run of over a decade where Duke struggles to beat anybody. Credit where credit is due ... you beat perennial B1G cellar Northwestern a few times. You beat post-rape-allegations-in-shambles Baylor twice. They are both essentially the Wake Forest of their respective conferences.

What you call excuses I call variables in the multi-faceted equation that is football competitiveness. Money can't by itself get you a title or even a winning season. Even infinite amounts of it. But it can very quickly raise your functional floor and raise your functional ceiling. Notice how the deep pocket programs have a different definition of down (8-5) than Duke does (4-8)? Or how having buckets of money sloshing around allows them to have recruiting assistant staffs more than four times bigger than Duke. Wonder if that plays into the quality of player you get .... Or how having buckets of money sloshing around lets you liquidate and replace a bad coaching staff immediately instead of eating 2-5 years of stagnation? And so on .... and so on .....

Again .... I just don't understand why you flout this in football when Duke is so successful piling on moneybags in basketball. We all know if you add up all of the Duke coaching staff revenue sources they're probably hands down the highest paid coaching staff for basketball in the country. Possibly even at any level. And how much is Duke charging for seats in Cameron these days? Do you think they insulate the interior walls of Cameron with that dough?

Now I'm curious so I'm still looking.... I've gotten past scores of winless seasons and winless-against-FBS seasons and winless-against-ACC seasons.

1994: L 34-20 to Wisconsin
1993: L 39-38 to Rutgers, L 52-19 to Tennessee
1992: 0 attempts
1991: T 24-24 vs South Carolina, W 42-22 vs Rutgers

There you have it ladies and gents. Just roll the clock back a solid 30 years and that's Duke's last OOC win against P5 competition that they themselves scheduled.

(03-06-2020 12:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The surest way to win a national championship (if you have the money) is to:
a) hire the very best coaches, sparing no expense (est. $200 million)
b) find the best transfer players who are immediately eligible
c) round that out with the very best 5-star recruits
d) pay players under the table to make sure you sign them all (another $10 million)
e) pay referees if you have to ($?)
- cheat like crazy!

Yeah, you'll eventually have your national championship title vacated, but fans will still remember it!

DISCLAIMER: I'm not actually advocating this approach, just pointing out it's the only guaranteed way to "buy" a championship.

Same in basketball.

Only difference is....bball is 20% of revenue and that is where ACC invests....80% of revenue is in football and that is where Clemson invests. The rest either won't (they priorities bball...20% of revenue) or don't have $$$.

If Duke wanted to buy a NC quality football program, they have plenty of money and potential boosters to fund the endeavor. They don't need to expand WW, what they have to do is buy the best coaches, allow the bag men to spread the money as needed, and adapt a specific co-curricular program with NC Central or Durham Tech in order to maintain the eligibility of kids that have no business at Duke.

The biggest problem Duke will have is keeping their students quiet regarding what they see from the misanthropes.

Duke elected to forego this route in 1961. I have no reason to think they will chose that path again, but if they were to chose that path, they have the money for the journey.

(03-06-2020 09:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If Duke wanted to buy a NC quality football program, they have plenty of money and potential boosters to fund the endeavor. They don't need to expand WW, what they have to do is buy the best coaches, allow the bag men to spread the money as needed, and adapt a specific co-curricular program with NC Central or Durham Tech in order to maintain the eligibility of kids that have no business at Duke.

The biggest problem Duke will have is keeping their students quiet regarding what they see from the misanthropes.

Duke elected to forego this route in 1961. I have no reason to think they will chose that path again, but if they were to chose that path, they have the money for the journey.

Stanford renovated and has a 100% chair back stadium less than 15 years old with way more luxury seating than it use to have. It brought fans back in ... but even when they were Top 10 they had trouble selling out or even getting close to selling out. This is where the University itself needs to foster that front porch relationship.

I'll put in my two cents...Swofford is number one to blame, as head of the organization, but there is blood on everyone's hands, including FSU and Clemson.

Some things were bad timing...ACC football being pathetic, the economy, etc. But it's not like the ACC being pathetic was just bad luck. It was pathetic for decades. I'm not going to do it again, but I went back and tracked by decade, and the ACC was by far the worst every decade in landing top 10 final poll teams. Several decades, behind conferences that don't even exist any more, like the Big East or Southwest. People would always say "it's cyclical", but it wasn't cyclical...the ACC was the flat line worst for DECADES until the 2010s. So basically, they deephasized football for decades UNTIL they signed that deal.

We've seen the ACC have a solid performance in the last ten years (last year notwithstanding), in large part simply by making the commitment. The scales didn't fall of their eyes until the realignment crisis, and the dangling of the ACC Network, and all of a sudden ACC schools start realizing that football matters. Commitment gets results. If they'd done that in 2000 instead of 2010, we'd be in a totally different situation.

And I don't necessarily blame them for not having the insight in 1983 or something, when basketball was the big financial driver...but by the late 1990s is was plainly obvious to everyone but the ACC that football was the financial future. You would think that watching the arguably greatest basketball conference, the Big East, progressively fall apart over the inability to field a coherent football product would have made it perfectly clear that basketball wasn't going to save anybody, but that shouldn't even have been necessary.

All that being said, even if you're as blind to the changing financial landscape as the ACC was, the deal was STILL worse than it had to be. Even if they hadn't seen the football light until late in the game, they could have signed a shorter contract, pieced it out among suitors, and not set aside for Raycom.

All you have to do is look at the fact that the ACC was the ONLY conference that decided that:
1. ALL content should be sold to one network
2. Games MUST continue to be sold to a syndicator

No other conference thought that was a good move, and it actually went opposite the trend of everyone else.

So not only did you let your product deteriorate and stagnate even knowing a contract would be on the horizon, you then sold that product in a disadvantageous way. Swofford has to own that first and foremost, but it's not like one man made it happen against the wishes of the programs. The programs all own that by being complicit, ignorant, or simply deferring without thought. Swofford isn't a king or a mega genius, and the schools should not have acted (not acted) like he was.

(03-11-2020 10:04 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'll put in my two cents...Swofford is number one to blame, as head of the organization, but there is blood on everyone's hands, including FSU and Clemson.

Some things were bad timing...ACC football being pathetic, the economy, etc. But it's not like the ACC being pathetic was just bad luck. It was pathetic for decades. I'm not going to do it again, but I went back and tracked by decade, and the ACC was by far the worst every decade in landing top 10 final poll teams. Several decades, behind conferences that don't even exist any more, like the Big East or Southwest. People would always say "it's cyclical", but it wasn't cyclical...the ACC was the flat line worst for DECADES until the 2010s. So basically, they deephasized football for decades UNTIL they signed that deal.

We've seen the ACC have a solid performance in the last ten years (last year notwithstanding), in large part simply by making the commitment. The scales didn't fall of their eyes until the realignment crisis, and the dangling of the ACC Network, and all of a sudden ACC schools start realizing that football matters. Commitment gets results. If they'd done that in 2000 instead of 2010, we'd be in a totally different situation.

And I don't necessarily blame them for not having the insight in 1983 or something, when basketball was the big financial driver...but by the late 1990s is was plainly obvious to everyone but the ACC that football was the financial future. You would think that watching the arguably greatest basketball conference, the Big East, progressively fall apart over the inability to field a coherent football product would have made it perfectly clear that basketball wasn't going to save anybody, but that shouldn't even have been necessary.

All that being said, even if you're as blind to the changing financial landscape as the ACC was, the deal was STILL worse than it had to be. Even if they hadn't seen the football light until late in the game, they could have signed a shorter contract, pieced it out among suitors, and not set aside for Raycom.

All you have to do is look at the fact that the ACC was the ONLY conference that decided that:
1. ALL content should be sold to one network
2. Games MUST continue to be sold to a syndicator

No other conference thought that was a good move, and it actually went opposite the trend of everyone else.

So not only did you let your product deteriorate and stagnate even knowing a contract would be on the horizon, you then sold that product in a disadvantageous way. Swofford has to own that first and foremost, but it's not like one man made it happen against the wishes of the programs. The programs all own that by being complicit, ignorant, or simply deferring without thought. Swofford isn't a king or a mega genius, and the schools should not have acted (not acted) like he was.

You have so eloquently and elaborately stated what I have been saying for years now. Swofford didnt make these decisions all by himself. And Im a guy who really doesnt care for Swofford.

When you are the leader of something, be it the President of the US, commissioner of an athletic conference, coach of a team or Captain of an FD engine company you own any failures by that organization. That's one of the basic tenants of leadership, accepting responsibility.

Who was the commissioner of the ACC when the contract was negotiated? There's your answer.

(03-11-2020 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  When you are the leader of something, be it the President of the US, commissioner of an athletic conference, coach of a team or Captain of an FD engine company you own any failures by that organization. That's one of the basic tenants of leadership, accepting responsibility.

Who was the commissioner of the ACC when the contract was negotiated? There's your answer.

Correct.

Swofford been a complete failure. The failure of the individual schools is to watch his failure and think he is a 'ninja' and not the clown he is.


NOW....two things can be true at the same time.

As Lou said above....FSU leadership was as stupid as Swofford. Every move they made was wrong. They were extreme morons in how they handled almost everything over the last 10 years.

(03-11-2020 11:47 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 10:04 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'll put in my two cents...Swofford is number one to blame, as head of the organization, but there is blood on everyone's hands, including FSU and Clemson.

Some things were bad timing...ACC football being pathetic, the economy, etc. But it's not like the ACC being pathetic was just bad luck. It was pathetic for decades. I'm not going to do it again, but I went back and tracked by decade, and the ACC was by far the worst every decade in landing top 10 final poll teams. Several decades, behind conferences that don't even exist any more, like the Big East or Southwest. People would always say "it's cyclical", but it wasn't cyclical...the ACC was the flat line worst for DECADES until the 2010s. So basically, they deephasized football for decades UNTIL they signed that deal.

We've seen the ACC have a solid performance in the last ten years (last year notwithstanding), in large part simply by making the commitment. The scales didn't fall of their eyes until the realignment crisis, and the dangling of the ACC Network, and all of a sudden ACC schools start realizing that football matters. Commitment gets results. If they'd done that in 2000 instead of 2010, we'd be in a totally different situation.

And I don't necessarily blame them for not having the insight in 1983 or something, when basketball was the big financial driver...but by the late 1990s is was plainly obvious to everyone but the ACC that football was the financial future. You would think that watching the arguably greatest basketball conference, the Big East, progressively fall apart over the inability to field a coherent football product would have made it perfectly clear that basketball wasn't going to save anybody, but that shouldn't even have been necessary.

All that being said, even if you're as blind to the changing financial landscape as the ACC was, the deal was STILL worse than it had to be. Even if they hadn't seen the football light until late in the game, they could have signed a shorter contract, pieced it out among suitors, and not set aside for Raycom.

All you have to do is look at the fact that the ACC was the ONLY conference that decided that:
1. ALL content should be sold to one network
2. Games MUST continue to be sold to a syndicator

No other conference thought that was a good move, and it actually went opposite the trend of everyone else.

So not only did you let your product deteriorate and stagnate even knowing a contract would be on the horizon, you then sold that product in a disadvantageous way. Swofford has to own that first and foremost, but it's not like one man made it happen against the wishes of the programs. The programs all own that by being complicit, ignorant, or simply deferring without thought. Swofford isn't a king or a mega genius, and the schools should not have acted (not acted) like he was.

You have so eloquently and elaborately stated what I have been saying for years now. Swofford didnt make these decisions all by himself. And Im a guy who really doesnt care for Swofford.

I am hardly exonerating him. His head should have rolled. He's the one responsible.

What I'm trying to say is that all parties we culpable, and it's not as simple as "Bad man messed up."

The schools empowered him. The schools deferred to him. The schools were either too nonchalant or too ignorant to see what was happening.

That's important, or else its too easy to just shrug it off as if it was just one man's mistake, or just a "bad contract". It's a decades-long institutional failure that Swofford was able to exploit.

As Nole said, FSU deserves its share of recrimination. Back in the mid-late 1990s, when FSU was rolling the ACC like toilet paper, THAT'S when they should have been bitching about all the other schools letting football decay and riding their coattails. Not in the 2000s when FSU hit the skids.

The 1990s was when FSU had the leverage. The 1990s was when FSU should have said "Listen...this league has got to pick it up or we're gonezo." But we were plenty happy to smash everyone 55-0, sure that would never end despite our coach pushing 70. It's like nobody at FSU asked any hard questions. And in that same decade, while they created 97% of the ACC's football gravitas, FSU was allowing itself to shuffled to below the kids table in the conference. It's absurd.

It could have been different. Once the specter of realignment happened, and then ESPN said "your football sucks too much for an ACC Network", lo and behold the ACC had probably the best multi-year run in it's history. It's not that freaking complicated...investment and will.

Again, if that had happened in 2000, or 1995, (and MANY of us were shouting it to the rooftops then), we'd be in an incredibly different ballgame.

They all should be fired.

Swofford is guilty.

All school presidents are guilty to some extent.

Some schools are particularly guilty.

It's possible the ACC may get blown up when the GoR ends - but not necessarily so that teams can go to the SEC or Big Ten (those doors may be long-shut by then).

No, it may get blown up so that a new conference composed of the best of the ACC and whatever teams remain outside of the Big 2 can form a new conference. If that happens, any school which is not pulling its own weight will look in the mailbox but there won't be an invitation... the remaining teams will get the best contract they can get and hope it's good enough to compete.

Unless [ ] the economy collapses [ ] football is outlawed [ ] COVID-19 wipes out too many people [ ] the end of the world as we know it comes - in which case, who cares?

(03-11-2020 02:57 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 11:47 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 10:04 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'll put in my two cents...Swofford is number one to blame, as head of the organization, but there is blood on everyone's hands, including FSU and Clemson.

Some things were bad timing...ACC football being pathetic, the economy, etc. But it's not like the ACC being pathetic was just bad luck. It was pathetic for decades. I'm not going to do it again, but I went back and tracked by decade, and the ACC was by far the worst every decade in landing top 10 final poll teams. Several decades, behind conferences that don't even exist any more, like the Big East or Southwest. People would always say "it's cyclical", but it wasn't cyclical...the ACC was the flat line worst for DECADES until the 2010s. So basically, they deephasized football for decades UNTIL they signed that deal.

We've seen the ACC have a solid performance in the last ten years (last year notwithstanding), in large part simply by making the commitment. The scales didn't fall of their eyes until the realignment crisis, and the dangling of the ACC Network, and all of a sudden ACC schools start realizing that football matters. Commitment gets results. If they'd done that in 2000 instead of 2010, we'd be in a totally different situation.

And I don't necessarily blame them for not having the insight in 1983 or something, when basketball was the big financial driver...but by the late 1990s is was plainly obvious to everyone but the ACC that football was the financial future. You would think that watching the arguably greatest basketball conference, the Big East, progressively fall apart over the inability to field a coherent football product would have made it perfectly clear that basketball wasn't going to save anybody, but that shouldn't even have been necessary.

All that being said, even if you're as blind to the changing financial landscape as the ACC was, the deal was STILL worse than it had to be. Even if they hadn't seen the football light until late in the game, they could have signed a shorter contract, pieced it out among suitors, and not set aside for Raycom.

All you have to do is look at the fact that the ACC was the ONLY conference that decided that:
1. ALL content should be sold to one network
2. Games MUST continue to be sold to a syndicator

No other conference thought that was a good move, and it actually went opposite the trend of everyone else.

So not only did you let your product deteriorate and stagnate even knowing a contract would be on the horizon, you then sold that product in a disadvantageous way. Swofford has to own that first and foremost, but it's not like one man made it happen against the wishes of the programs. The programs all own that by being complicit, ignorant, or simply deferring without thought. Swofford isn't a king or a mega genius, and the schools should not have acted (not acted) like he was.

You have so eloquently and elaborately stated what I have been saying for years now. Swofford didnt make these decisions all by himself. And Im a guy who really doesnt care for Swofford.

I am hardly exonerating him. His head should have rolled. He's the one responsible.

What I'm trying to say is that all parties we culpable, and it's not as simple as "Bad man messed up."

The schools empowered him. The schools deferred to him. The schools were either too nonchalant or too ignorant to see what was happening.

That's important, or else its too easy to just shrug it off as if it was just one man's mistake, or just a "bad contract". It's a decades-long institutional failure that Swofford was able to exploit.

As Nole said, FSU deserves its share of recrimination. Back in the mid-late 1990s, when FSU was rolling the ACC like toilet paper, THAT'S when they should have been bitching about all the other schools letting football decay and riding their coattails. Not in the 2000s when FSU hit the skids.

The 1990s was when FSU had the leverage. The 1990s was when FSU should have said "Listen...this league has got to pick it up or we're gonezo." But we were plenty happy to smash everyone 55-0, sure that would never end despite our coach pushing 70. It's like nobody at FSU asked any hard questions. And in that same decade, while they created 97% of the ACC's football gravitas, FSU was allowing itself to shuffled to below the kids table in the conference. It's absurd.

It could have been different. Once the specter of realignment happened, and then ESPN said "your football sucks too much for an ACC Network", lo and behold the ACC had probably the best multi-year run in it's history. It's not that freaking complicated...investment and will.

Again, if that had happened in 2000, or 1995, (and MANY of us were shouting it to the rooftops then), we'd be in an incredibly different ballgame.

I agree with everything that you wrote. Im not exonerating Swofford either. But the parts of your statement that are in bold cannot be ignored. This is why I place as much blame on the presidents as I do Swofford. Some folks try to make him out to be the boogeyman, but there were 12 other boogeymen, because they were as you commented "culpable."

One ring to rule them all,
One ring to find them all,
One ring to bring them all,
And into the darkness to bind them all.

The ACC has several disadvantages compared to the B1G and SEC.

1. Basketball First Culture among many schools

2. Four friggin teams in NC. Two which do not pull their weight in Football (fan base, traveling base, TV draw)

3. BC was a horrible add back in 2003. They have had some success and tradition in Football but they do not travel and support among fans is pretty casual. The city of Boston does not care about BC or college sports.

4. Miami (sporadic fan support), VT and Cuse (sporadic fan support) all have been disappointing in consistent winning over the last 10+ years