(06-27-2020 06:18 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: (06-26-2020 10:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: (06-26-2020 10:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: I think Swofford would be better remembered had he sold his membership on East Coast unity in 2004 and instead of leaving Big East football to die a slow and painful death, pushed his 9 members to add the 7 full Big East schools (no Temple) for a 16 team super league.
North: BC, Cuse, Rutgers, Pitt, M’land, WVU, VT, Miami
South: UVA, UNC, NC St, Duke, WF, Clemson, GT, FSU
I can't argue with that. For one, that's a really strong league in a lot of respects. Secondly, it would have demonstrated vision rather than desperation.
There was too much hemming and hawing over what Big East products were helpful. Too much snobbery.
Let's not also forget that some of the missteps along the way created a situation where a founding member in Maryland felt the need to leave. Contrast that with your idea and had it been completed early enough then who knows, perhaps both Notre Dame and Penn State would have been attracted to the ACC?
I suppose it could have been worse for the ACC, but the league was pretty close to collapse before they signed their GOR. I see no reason to think Swofford as anything more than a fairly inept example of middle-management. ESPN mostly told him what to do and he didn't do a great job of leading the schools under him.
Both statements above are all wrong. From its founding, the ACC had only two schools that really emphasized football...Clemson and Maryland. Duke had taken football seriously historically, but by the 1950s their focus had shifted to basketball and Olympic sports. Over time, even Maryland transitioned to much more of a basketball-first school (thanks largely to great success by Lefty Driesell and Gary Williams). Basketball preeminence was an addictive drug that gave the ACC the best media rights payouts into the 1990s. The challenge for ACC commissioners for decades has been to focus more support for football.
I understand your point, but by the early 2000s, it was clear the ACC needed a new path. That's exactly what they tried to put together with Miami, VT, and BC(who used to be regarded as a better football product than they are now). With that said, it's obvious Swofford didn't really fix the problem.
His vision came down to an incremental expansion of football prowess rather than capitalizing on the issues within the Big East. In other words, he didn't manage the situation very well.
(06-27-2020 06:18 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: By the time Swofford became commissioner, the ship had sailed on Penn State (it was already in the BIG) and his predecessors had solidified football by adding Georgia Tech and FSU.
I know Penn State was already in the Big Ten, but there are reasons they could have been interested in the ACC had the league played their cards right. Too many of the ACC's decisions were short-sighted.
I'll give you credit for Florida State, especially snatching them away from the SEC's clutches, but Georgia Tech has never been a prime football product even though it's a football first school. They're a good addition to the ACC, but Swofford should have taken the 9 team foundation that had been laid and had his eye set more on the future.
(06-27-2020 06:18 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: “East Coast unity” nor “ESPN told him” where hardly Swofford’s vision nor approach. Swofford had to transform the ACC into a football first conference. I would argue that when Maryland unexpectedly left and Louisville was chosen over UConn, Swofford’s legacy was confirmed.
Swofford’s weakness has been his lack of skill in negotiating for better payouts...basically, leveraging his assets for financial stability. College athletics has become a big business and Swofford was very conservative in adapting to the changing landscape.
Isn't that basically what I said? He was tasked with managing and didn't perform at a high level. The world was changing around him and he didn't know how to handle it.
Sure, ESPN told him what to do. That's basically what the Boston College AD said when they added Syracuse and Pittsburgh. ESPN has had a hand in a lot of decisions the last 20 years or so. They are the ones paying the bills after all so it's not a conspiracy. It's basic business.
Even then, the ACC has been particularly vulnerable to their influence due to weaker ratings AND the fact their markets are so split. With a little more foresight, Swofford or someone else could have realized that they could have increased their leverage by absorbing every decent product in the Big East at one time. That would have provided leverage...it would have also added quite a few decent basketball products at one time. It wasn't necessary to turn every school into a football factory.
Trying to change the culture of multiple schools is a poor plan, it's not going to happen. He just needed to convince a few schools to invest in football more while simultaneously adding some schools with punch.
Now it may be true that Louisville is more of a football first school than Maryland, but the Big Ten is a football first league and people at UMD were happy to be in a conference that focused resources on that sport. Mostly, it was a financial decision for them. In other words, it wasn't a matter of Maryland bucking against any effort to focus on football in the ACC. It was a matter that the ACC had been so poorly managed that it was no longer tenable for them.
And to Louisville, they got in because a few of the football powers threatened to revolt unless it happened. That doesn't come back to Swofford being a good manager...just the opposite.
(06-27-2020 06:18 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: It’s crazy to blame him for not getting Penn State or Notre Dame (he also didn’t get Ohio State nor UGA...but maybe they weren’t in play). It’s naive to suggest that he just followed ESPN’s guidance (the ACC has made horrible TV deals...including propping up Raycom to the detriment of ESPN and financial payouts).
The Raycom deal was straight nepotism. Now, it might be fair to say that wasn't in the best interest of ESPN, but it wasn't in the best interest of the ACC either. Once again, Swofford mismanaged the situation.
I'm not really blaming him for not landing ND or Penn State. What I'm saying is that he made a series of poor decisions over a long period of time that removed the ACC's ability to possibly acquire those schools. Consistently poor TV contracts will keep quality schools from being interested.
Your point about his inability to make quality TV deals simply underscores my point. ESPN makes more money if they pay less for their product. If you have a leader in Swofford who doesn't understand the landscape then your league probably gets taken advantage of by a corporate entity that doesn't interest itself in much of anything more than profit.
/
ACC Commissioner John Swofford to retire
.