(01-21-2021 06:48 PM)schmolik Wrote: You blame Swofford for choosing markets over football brands. Yet the ACC isn't the only conference that emphasized markets. The Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers. The Pac 12 added Colorado. And the SEC had a chance at West Virginia and chose Missouri. Are those conferences all as stupid as the ACC? And the Big Ten added Nebraska "for football". How did that work out for the Big Ten? They've had four losing seasons in a row and now the Big Ten's stuck with western crap and long plane rides. Has West Virginia really made the Big 12 more valuable? If West Virginia was so great, why did the SEC choose Missouri over them? Is Missouri a better football program than West Virginia? I doubt it. They're a more populous state and they have big markets and they also have better academics. Like it or not, academic presidents have to sign off on expansion candidates. The ACC should have added West Virginia? First of all, many ACC schools would have rejected them (still would today). Second, I've shown you their pathetic TV ratings this season. If they become Clemson, they're an asset. If they're as good in the ACC as they are in the Big 12, they're an extra mouth to feed. You act like Mark Warner and Virginia Tech "saved" the ACC. Virginia Tech is just another eight win a year on average ACC football program. It's not like Michael Vick is still playing for them. Half the ACC can win eight games in a non COVID-19 year and Virginia Tech adds no market that Virginia doesn't already give the conference. Three of their last four bowl trips were to the Belk Bowl and the other was to the Independence Bowl. I'll say this, if I were in charge of the Big Ten and I were looking to ACC teams to expand, Virginia Tech would be in the bottom half of teams I would invite. Not everything's football and if the only way your school can be of value to a conference is if your football team is good your school is practically worthless.
As for the contract, I agree that in general you don't want to renew when your leverage is low. But that was the point. Maryland either had left or was on their way out and I remember rumors of Florida State going to the Big 12 (Texas A&M was invited to the SEC as #13 and there was nothing stopping them from adding FSU as #14 instead of Missouri). At the time, survival was the biggest immediate goal of Swofford and the ACC, and they remained mostly intact (how many of you ACC fans miss Maryland and do you consider Louisville an upgrade or a downgrade?) ESPN probably was able to take advantage of the ACC's weakness at the time and got a deal in their favor and against the ACC's but the alternative would have been Florida State in the Big 12 or SEC right now.
So they become Syracuse?
I'm willing to bet that WVU wouldn't be 27 games under .500 in ACC play in football.
(01-21-2021 03:21 PM)YouPeople Wrote: The ratings for ACC are behind those from B1G and SEC which justifies payment below them. Question for me has always been, how do you maximize what you have?
The first thing you do is destroy these divisions and get the better "brands" playing each other more often. I understand why the divisions are what they are...but if more money is at stake some people are just gonna have to suck it up.
ACC has better TV ratings (combine bball and football) than PAC 12 and Big 12, but ACC way behind them in payout.
The payment 100% is below what it should be. It is NOT justified.
I agree....and I believe that will be the first thing out of Phillips' mouth when he meets ESPN.
And the first thing out of ESPN's mouth is going to be: "We have a signed and sealed contract that gives us control of your rights until 2036. What incentive do we have to pay you more for something we have already bought?"
New ACC Commish Phillips has one bit of leverage as I see it: ESPN now has too much inventory for Saturdays, and the SEC doesn't want to budge on that. So the ACC can offer to play more games on Mondays, Sundays, Thursdays and Fridays - but here's the thing: Phillips MUST get a significant raise for anything he negotiates.
He can improve the quality of the schedule by eliminating divisions (with or without the blessing of the NCAA / P5). He can mandate 2 P5 OOC games for every ACC team. He can have the ACC start sponsoring neutral site games in the Northeast (think Philly, DC, NYC).
JR is right - no sense crying over spilled milk. That said, defending the status quo on a sinking ship is foolish. Nobody cares who's buried in first class - they're just as dead.
(01-21-2021 09:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: New ACC Commish Phillips has one bit of leverage as I see it: ESPN now has too much inventory for Saturdays, and the SEC doesn't want to budge on that. So the ACC can offer to play more games on Mondays, Sundays, Thursdays and Fridays - but here's the thing: Phillips MUST get a significant raise for anything he negotiates.
He can improve the quality of the schedule by eliminating divisions (with or without the blessing of the NCAA / P5). He can mandate 2 P5 OOC games for every ACC team. He can have the ACC start sponsoring neutral site games in the Northeast (think Philly, DC, NYC).
JR is right - no sense crying over spilled milk. That said, defending the status quo on a sinking ship is foolish. Nobody cares who's buried in first class - they're just as dead.
Who plays college football on Sundays? There were a few games this season out of desperation due to COVID but how many of you will agree to watch your favorite ACC team as opposed to the NFL on regular Sundays? Thursday and Monday night also go against the NFL. It also would mess up most teams' schedules as well as academics. These are college students, not NFL teams.
(01-21-2021 03:21 PM)YouPeople Wrote: The ratings for ACC are behind those from B1G and SEC which justifies payment below them. Question for me has always been, how do you maximize what you have?
The first thing you do is destroy these divisions and get the better "brands" playing each other more often. I understand why the divisions are what they are...but if more money is at stake some people are just gonna have to suck it up.
ACC has better TV ratings (combine bball and football) than PAC 12 and Big 12, but ACC way behind them in payout.
The payment 100% is below what it should be. It is NOT justified.
I agree....and I believe that will be the first thing out of Phillips' mouth when he meets ESPN.
And the first thing out of ESPN's mouth is going to be: "We have a signed and sealed contract that gives us control of your rights until 2036. What incentive do we have to pay you more for something we have already bought?"
Nope...look-ins are part of the contract.
Indeed they are. What isn't, however, are escalators associated with these look-ins.
(01-21-2021 06:48 PM)schmolik Wrote: You blame Swofford for choosing markets over football brands. Yet the ACC isn't the only conference that emphasized markets. The Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers. The Pac 12 added Colorado. And the SEC had a chance at West Virginia and chose Missouri. Are those conferences all as stupid as the ACC? And the Big Ten added Nebraska "for football". How did that work out for the Big Ten? They've had four losing seasons in a row and now the Big Ten's stuck with western crap and long plane rides. Has West Virginia really made the Big 12 more valuable? If West Virginia was so great, why did the SEC choose Missouri over them? Is Missouri a better football program than West Virginia? I doubt it. They're a more populous state and they have big markets and they also have better academics. Like it or not, academic presidents have to sign off on expansion candidates. The ACC should have added West Virginia? First of all, many ACC schools would have rejected them (still would today). Second, I've shown you their pathetic TV ratings this season. If they become Clemson, they're an asset. If they're as good in the ACC as they are in the Big 12, they're an extra mouth to feed. You act like Mark Warner and Virginia Tech "saved" the ACC. Virginia Tech is just another eight win a year on average ACC football program. It's not like Michael Vick is still playing for them. Half the ACC can win eight games in a non COVID-19 year and Virginia Tech adds no market that Virginia doesn't already give the conference. Three of their last four bowl trips were to the Belk Bowl and the other was to the Independence Bowl. I'll say this, if I were in charge of the Big Ten and I were looking to ACC teams to expand, Virginia Tech would be in the bottom half of teams I would invite. Not everything's football and if the only way your school can be of value to a conference is if your football team is good your school is practically worthless.
As for the contract, I agree that in general you don't want to renew when your leverage is low. But that was the point. Maryland either had left or was on their way out and I remember rumors of Florida State going to the Big 12 (Texas A&M was invited to the SEC as #13 and there was nothing stopping them from adding FSU as #14 instead of Missouri). At the time, survival was the biggest immediate goal of Swofford and the ACC, and they remained mostly intact (how many of you ACC fans miss Maryland and do you consider Louisville an upgrade or a downgrade?) ESPN probably was able to take advantage of the ACC's weakness at the time and got a deal in their favor and against the ACC's but the alternative would have been Florida State in the Big 12 or SEC right now.
Yes there was, they needed 2 schools in 2 new states to be able to re-open the TV contract. FSU was not in a new state.
(01-21-2021 09:54 PM)YouPeople Wrote: If the ratings justify a bump, and they do, then it would be in ESPN's best interest to help grow the ACC since they are part owner of the ACCN.
ESPN knows the PAC is dying and the XII is on borrowed time. The Mouse is "all in" on the ACC and SEC. I expect a nice bump this year.
I guess it depends on what constitutes a "nice bump" in your eyes.
I mean, you consider NC State not coming close to winning an ACC title in over 40 years or even finishing better than two games out of winning a division titles as "competing".
If the bump you are dreaming about doesn't put us within 75% revenue of the SEC then it's not a "nice" bump.
Just because NC State has decided to not compete at a national level on either of the revenue sports doesn't mean the rest of the conference has. You Wolpfackers might be happy with mediocrity in everything but some of the other fanbases aren't.
(01-21-2021 06:48 PM)schmolik Wrote: You blame Swofford for choosing markets over football brands. Yet the ACC isn't the only conference that emphasized markets. The Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers. The Pac 12 added Colorado. And the SEC had a chance at West Virginia and chose Missouri. Are those conferences all as stupid as the ACC? And the Big Ten added Nebraska "for football". How did that work out for the Big Ten? They've had four losing seasons in a row and now the Big Ten's stuck with western crap and long plane rides. Has West Virginia really made the Big 12 more valuable? If West Virginia was so great, why did the SEC choose Missouri over them? Is Missouri a better football program than West Virginia? I doubt it. They're a more populous state and they have big markets and they also have better academics. Like it or not, academic presidents have to sign off on expansion candidates. The ACC should have added West Virginia? First of all, many ACC schools would have rejected them (still would today). Second, I've shown you their pathetic TV ratings this season. If they become Clemson, they're an asset. If they're as good in the ACC as they are in the Big 12, they're an extra mouth to feed. You act like Mark Warner and Virginia Tech "saved" the ACC. Virginia Tech is just another eight win a year on average ACC football program. It's not like Michael Vick is still playing for them. Half the ACC can win eight games in a non COVID-19 year and Virginia Tech adds no market that Virginia doesn't already give the conference. Three of their last four bowl trips were to the Belk Bowl and the other was to the Independence Bowl. I'll say this, if I were in charge of the Big Ten and I were looking to ACC teams to expand, Virginia Tech would be in the bottom half of teams I would invite. Not everything's football and if the only way your school can be of value to a conference is if your football team is good your school is practically worthless.
As for the contract, I agree that in general you don't want to renew when your leverage is low. But that was the point. Maryland either had left or was on their way out and I remember rumors of Florida State going to the Big 12 (Texas A&M was invited to the SEC as #13 and there was nothing stopping them from adding FSU as #14 instead of Missouri). At the time, survival was the biggest immediate goal of Swofford and the ACC, and they remained mostly intact (how many of you ACC fans miss Maryland and do you consider Louisville an upgrade or a downgrade?) ESPN probably was able to take advantage of the ACC's weakness at the time and got a deal in their favor and against the ACC's but the alternative would have been Florida State in the Big 12 or SEC right now.
So they become Syracuse?
I'm willing to bet that WVU wouldn't be 27 games under .500 in ACC play in football.
Syracuse beat both Clemson and WVU while in the ACC
You remember we beat WVU 34-18 after the 2018 season and we significantly outdrew WVU in the bowl game in Orlando?
(01-21-2021 06:48 PM)schmolik Wrote: You blame Swofford for choosing markets over football brands. Yet the ACC isn't the only conference that emphasized markets. The Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers. The Pac 12 added Colorado. And the SEC had a chance at West Virginia and chose Missouri. Are those conferences all as stupid as the ACC? And the Big Ten added Nebraska "for football". How did that work out for the Big Ten? They've had four losing seasons in a row and now the Big Ten's stuck with western crap and long plane rides. Has West Virginia really made the Big 12 more valuable? If West Virginia was so great, why did the SEC choose Missouri over them? Is Missouri a better football program than West Virginia? I doubt it. They're a more populous state and they have big markets and they also have better academics. Like it or not, academic presidents have to sign off on expansion candidates. The ACC should have added West Virginia? First of all, many ACC schools would have rejected them (still would today). Second, I've shown you their pathetic TV ratings this season. If they become Clemson, they're an asset. If they're as good in the ACC as they are in the Big 12, they're an extra mouth to feed. You act like Mark Warner and Virginia Tech "saved" the ACC. Virginia Tech is just another eight win a year on average ACC football program. It's not like Michael Vick is still playing for them. Half the ACC can win eight games in a non COVID-19 year and Virginia Tech adds no market that Virginia doesn't already give the conference. Three of their last four bowl trips were to the Belk Bowl and the other was to the Independence Bowl. I'll say this, if I were in charge of the Big Ten and I were looking to ACC teams to expand, Virginia Tech would be in the bottom half of teams I would invite. Not everything's football and if the only way your school can be of value to a conference is if your football team is good your school is practically worthless.
As for the contract, I agree that in general you don't want to renew when your leverage is low. But that was the point. Maryland either had left or was on their way out and I remember rumors of Florida State going to the Big 12 (Texas A&M was invited to the SEC as #13 and there was nothing stopping them from adding FSU as #14 instead of Missouri). At the time, survival was the biggest immediate goal of Swofford and the ACC, and they remained mostly intact (how many of you ACC fans miss Maryland and do you consider Louisville an upgrade or a downgrade?) ESPN probably was able to take advantage of the ACC's weakness at the time and got a deal in their favor and against the ACC's but the alternative would have been Florida State in the Big 12 or SEC right now.
So they become Syracuse?
I'm willing to bet that WVU wouldn't be 27 games under .500 in ACC play in football.
Syracuse beat both Clemson and WVU while in the ACC
You remember we beat WVU 34-18 after the 2018 season and we significantly outdrew WVU in the bowl game in Orlando?
I knew when I clicked "Show this post" for an ignored poster it was going to be worth it.
Indeed, you beat Clemson once and WVU once since joining the ACC.
You've also lost to Clemson 7 times, finished over .500 twice in eight years, and are 27 games under .500 in conference play. The closest Syracuse has came to being relevant in their entire time in conference they were 2 games out of playing for the ACC title. Their best year in conference play was highlighted by a collapse against what was the week before third string QB and this hit by a true freshman
West Virginia football wouldn't be bragging about two wins in eight years of ACC play. ****, compare the basketball resumes the past eight years and there's even more ammunition that the ACC added the wrong Big Least program.
Your frustrations are duly noted and I tend to agree with many of your points here. ACC is a microcosm of realignment's failures and the failures of future realignment. Swofford had little to do with these past moves. It's the networks dictating who goes where. History and tradition is being destroyed for the mighty dollar. BC, Syracuse and Pitt don't belong in the ACC and neither does WVU. Those 4, plus Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, ND, Louisville and Cincinnati belong in a Northeastern centric P6 league. Rivalries were the backbone of college sports. ND should always be independent, but if they were to join a league that's their best fit.
Your frustrations are duly noted and I tend to agree with many of your points here. ACC is a microcosm of realignment's failures and the failures of future realignment. Swofford had little to do with these past moves. It's the networks dictating who goes where. History and tradition is being destroyed for the mighty dollar. BC, Syracuse and Pitt don't belong in the ACC and neither does WVU. Those 4, plus Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, ND, Louisville and Cincinnati belong in a Northeastern centric P6 league. Rivalries were the backbone of college sports. ND should always be independent, but if they were to join a league that's their best fit.
Your frustrations are duly noted and I tend to agree with many of your points here. ACC is a microcosm of realignment's failures and the failures of future realignment. Swofford had little to do with these past moves. It's the networks dictating who goes where. History and tradition is being destroyed for the mighty dollar. BC, Syracuse and Pitt don't belong in the ACC and neither does WVU. Those 4, plus Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, ND, Louisville and Cincinnati belong in a Northeastern centric P6 league. Rivalries were the backbone of college sports. ND should always be independent, but if they were to join a league that's their best fit.
What's Northeast about Louisville and Cincinnati? I felt when the Big East added Louisville and Cincinnati (and DePaul and Marquette) that they "jumped the shark" and got away from their "Northeast" roots (especially since they rejected Temple in the process.
I'm big on geography as well but when it comes to the Northeast they are pretty lacking when it comes to football. As a Penn State fan I'd love to be in the same conference as Pittsburgh and would love to play the last Saturday in November every year again. I also love Penn State playing Ohio State and Michigan too. I absolutely feel Pittsburgh should have been Big Ten #12 instead of damn western crap Nebraska. I would trade Rutgers for Pittsburgh today (I'm sure the ACC would hang up the phone if I called). Hey, you want Nebraska for Pittsburgh? I would love Penn State in a Northeast based conference but I wouldn't give up the Big Ten for it.
You can argue Penn State killed Northeast football when they joined the Big Ten. Then again, Penn State was rejected by the Big East. If they had been accepted, maybe the Northeast football conference of Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, and Boston College does materialize.
(01-21-2021 01:26 PM)XLance Wrote: Swofford did exactly what he was hired to do...
(01-21-2021 02:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: Captain Smith asked the chief architect and engineer Mr. Andrews how long the ship had to live. Meanwhile Mr. Ismay of the White Star Line disguised himself and got into a lifeboat. Rockets were fired to attract another ship on the horizon and the wireless messages of distress were sent.
It seems to me a silly time to be laying blame when it is time to assess the seaworthiness of the ACC, as it currently is, and to make the best recommendations for all concerned moving forward. A new commissioner means an opportunity to chart a new course, provided the vessel he inherited is able. I think you guys should be talking about all future options rather than dwelling on past mistakes.
There are so many would have, should have, could have threads on this site in multiple forums and nothing good ever comes from them.
Honestly, I used to think Nole was just barking up a tree, but quotes like the one at the top should explain why we are still having these discussions. Too many people honestly think nothing was done wrong. If you can't learn from your mistakes, you are DOOMED to repeat them!
My point Mark is that it is after the crisis that evaluations are made. During a crisis it is time to assess the situation and pursue the best course of action to avoid its potential adverse outcomes.
i took the post by You People to be constructive. I take the ones about Swofford to be best saved for later.
COVID hurt revenues everywhere but for basketball first schools it was even harsher. Football at least had finished before it hit and limped through this year. Everyone is in a crisis mode, but they aren't saying so.
The issues for the ACC are as follows:
1. Contract is way past Boomer involvement days which means past peak revenue for college sports.
2. Other conferences are renewing now and getting large pay days for the last decade of Boomer involvement in attendance and donations. They also will be making enough to have an easier transition into a post Boomer world.
3. Potential additions for the ACC are extremely limited as to value adding potential. Notre Dame is the best prospect and they aren't chomping at the bit to join. West Virginia could add some value but not enough to play serious catch up.
Those are the realities amid the crisis.
So in light of that altering schedules to produce more high profile games is constructive and would have an immediate impact.
Arguing over Swafford's legacy is not.
As far as I'm concerned Delany and Slive were playing chess while Swoffod played footsie with ACC social circles. But, that opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What's done is done. The idea is to get behind the new guy and get it right. The new guy doesn't have the time to listen to the fussing about Swofford because it doesn't help him lead, but only divides opinions about him by which side of the pro anti Swofford crowd gets his ear. He loses either way.
So the best thing for the ACC is to consider all positive options and move forward. Your new guy wants to succeed. Get behind him and go! To heck with Swofford as he's yesterday's news!
JR - Although I appreciate the optimism generated by just looking forward, I’m worried that there isn’t sufficient consensus to make significant changes in the ACC’s operating model. The revenue gap from conference-managed sources has been and will continue (in the forthcoming several years) to widen. Having a long-term media contract and GOR through 2036 may have dulled the appetite for risk-taking that is essential for generating new revenue.
(01-21-2021 09:54 PM)YouPeople Wrote: If the ratings justify a bump, and they do, then it would be in ESPN's best interest to help grow the ACC since they are part owner of the ACCN.
ESPN knows the PAC is dying and the XII is on borrowed time. The Mouse is "all in" on the ACC and SEC. I expect a nice bump this year.
I guess it depends on what constitutes a "nice bump" in your eyes.
I mean, you consider NC State not coming close to winning an ACC title in over 40 years or even finishing better than two games out of winning a division titles as "competing".
If the bump you are dreaming about doesn't put us within 75% revenue of the SEC then it's not a "nice" bump.
Just because NC State has decided to not compete at a national level on either of the revenue sports doesn't mean the rest of the conference has. You Wolpfackers might be happy with mediocrity in everything but some of the other fanbases aren't.
You've proven once again that when all your so called logic gets shot down, you can't help yourself but to default back to obsessing over NC State. Let the grown folks discuss contracts while you pick peanuts....that's about your speed.. This type stuff is over your head which is why you're better suited to be my maintenance guy. Still waiting for you to accept my offer, Cletus.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2021 08:36 AM by YouPeople.)
(01-21-2021 06:48 PM)schmolik Wrote: You blame Swofford for choosing markets over football brands. Yet the ACC isn't the only conference that emphasized markets. The Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers. The Pac 12 added Colorado. And the SEC had a chance at West Virginia and chose Missouri. Are those conferences all as stupid as the ACC? And the Big Ten added Nebraska "for football". How did that work out for the Big Ten? They've had four losing seasons in a row and now the Big Ten's stuck with western crap and long plane rides. Has West Virginia really made the Big 12 more valuable? If West Virginia was so great, why did the SEC choose Missouri over them? Is Missouri a better football program than West Virginia? I doubt it. They're a more populous state and they have big markets and they also have better academics. Like it or not, academic presidents have to sign off on expansion candidates. The ACC should have added West Virginia? First of all, many ACC schools would have rejected them (still would today). Second, I've shown you their pathetic TV ratings this season. If they become Clemson, they're an asset. If they're as good in the ACC as they are in the Big 12, they're an extra mouth to feed. You act like Mark Warner and Virginia Tech "saved" the ACC. Virginia Tech is just another eight win a year on average ACC football program. It's not like Michael Vick is still playing for them. Half the ACC can win eight games in a non COVID-19 year and Virginia Tech adds no market that Virginia doesn't already give the conference. Three of their last four bowl trips were to the Belk Bowl and the other was to the Independence Bowl. I'll say this, if I were in charge of the Big Ten and I were looking to ACC teams to expand, Virginia Tech would be in the bottom half of teams I would invite. Not everything's football and if the only way your school can be of value to a conference is if your football team is good your school is practically worthless.
As for the contract, I agree that in general you don't want to renew when your leverage is low. But that was the point. Maryland either had left or was on their way out and I remember rumors of Florida State going to the Big 12 (Texas A&M was invited to the SEC as #13 and there was nothing stopping them from adding FSU as #14 instead of Missouri). At the time, survival was the biggest immediate goal of Swofford and the ACC, and they remained mostly intact (how many of you ACC fans miss Maryland and do you consider Louisville an upgrade or a downgrade?) ESPN probably was able to take advantage of the ACC's weakness at the time and got a deal in their favor and against the ACC's but the alternative would have been Florida State in the Big 12 or SEC right now.
So they become Syracuse?
I'm willing to bet that WVU wouldn't be 27 games under .500 in ACC play in football.
Syracuse beat both Clemson and WVU while in the ACC
You remember we beat WVU 34-18 after the 2018 season and we significantly outdrew WVU in the bowl game in Orlando?
Yea I remember WVU's QB and others opting out while Dana Holgerson was off to Houston. We are to the point where bowl wins don't mean as much as they used to thanks to opt outs. Cuse had a nice team that year for sure though.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2021 08:16 AM by YouPeople.)
Your frustrations are duly noted and I tend to agree with many of your points here. ACC is a microcosm of realignment's failures and the failures of future realignment. Swofford had little to do with these past moves. It's the networks dictating who goes where. History and tradition is being destroyed for the mighty dollar. BC, Syracuse and Pitt don't belong in the ACC and neither does WVU. Those 4, plus Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, ND, Louisville and Cincinnati belong in a Northeastern centric P6 league. Rivalries were the backbone of college sports. ND should always be independent, but if they were to join a league that's their best fit.
Nothing is happening until Penn State comes back and ND decides they want to get into a conference.
Until CFB is totally reorganized you will have these mega conferences for TV dollars.
(01-21-2021 06:48 PM)schmolik Wrote: You blame Swofford for choosing markets over football brands. Yet the ACC isn't the only conference that emphasized markets. The Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers. The Pac 12 added Colorado. And the SEC had a chance at West Virginia and chose Missouri. Are those conferences all as stupid as the ACC? And the Big Ten added Nebraska "for football". How did that work out for the Big Ten? They've had four losing seasons in a row and now the Big Ten's stuck with western crap and long plane rides. Has West Virginia really made the Big 12 more valuable? If West Virginia was so great, why did the SEC choose Missouri over them? Is Missouri a better football program than West Virginia? I doubt it. They're a more populous state and they have big markets and they also have better academics. Like it or not, academic presidents have to sign off on expansion candidates. The ACC should have added West Virginia? First of all, many ACC schools would have rejected them (still would today). Second, I've shown you their pathetic TV ratings this season. If they become Clemson, they're an asset. If they're as good in the ACC as they are in the Big 12, they're an extra mouth to feed. You act like Mark Warner and Virginia Tech "saved" the ACC. Virginia Tech is just another eight win a year on average ACC football program. It's not like Michael Vick is still playing for them. Half the ACC can win eight games in a non COVID-19 year and Virginia Tech adds no market that Virginia doesn't already give the conference. Three of their last four bowl trips were to the Belk Bowl and the other was to the Independence Bowl. I'll say this, if I were in charge of the Big Ten and I were looking to ACC teams to expand, Virginia Tech would be in the bottom half of teams I would invite. Not everything's football and if the only way your school can be of value to a conference is if your football team is good your school is practically worthless.
As for the contract, I agree that in general you don't want to renew when your leverage is low. But that was the point. Maryland either had left or was on their way out and I remember rumors of Florida State going to the Big 12 (Texas A&M was invited to the SEC as #13 and there was nothing stopping them from adding FSU as #14 instead of Missouri). At the time, survival was the biggest immediate goal of Swofford and the ACC, and they remained mostly intact (how many of you ACC fans miss Maryland and do you consider Louisville an upgrade or a downgrade?) ESPN probably was able to take advantage of the ACC's weakness at the time and got a deal in their favor and against the ACC's but the alternative would have been Florida State in the Big 12 or SEC right now.
Who acted like Virginia Tech saved the conference? And who cares if you don’t want VT in Big Ten? By the way, I believe the SEC considered VT before Missiouri but VT was not interested.
VT to the ACC makes sense becuase VT is the second team in ACC’s core state. It’s like MSU joining the Western conference made so much sense.
RE: Seismic change is coming 
