(02-17-2016 09:17 AM)nole Wrote:  Great post, you should be the ACC Commish.

I would only adjust one point that you mentioned. The ACC already has unequal situation....Notre Dame.

Once that deal was made, the argument that everything is 100% equal in the ACC died. The ACC needs to start rewarding the producers for teams who bring in revenue (so no, sorry folks that win field hockey national titles, you don't get extra cash).

(02-16-2016 08:16 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  No doubt the ACC brass didn't do its better football playing members any good with the TV deal and the request for more exposure over more money. The whole Raycom deal screams of nepotism instead of a shrewed move to acquire the necessary infrastructure for an upcoming network. The only hope is that comes to fruition somehow. If a network isn't possible, then take the extra 3-4 mill per team and wait for the end of the contract. To get to that point, the ACC office should take care of the football bread winners. Zero cost to participants for the ACC championship game, zero cost for playoff participant. This should come out of the ACC conference share. I don't think unequal revenue sharing should be an option. Look what it did and is doing to the Big 12.

Once that contract runs out, NBC, Fox, ESPN, CBS Sports whomever should be listened to because unlike the last time, the ACC brass can come with a better football package. It will not be just FSU. And, if the revenue split is 80/20 football to basketball why settle for that split. Classic bball games are not just confined to UNC/Duke. Now there is UNC/'Ville and Duke/'Cuse. All of those games have been classics so far. Throw in UVa, ND, Pitt and the occasional State, FSU and Miami, the ACC brass should command a higher price for those match ups.

The ACC should make sure the scheduling is better for OOC football games. Make sure 'Ville, FSU, VaTech, Clemson, GaTech, etc get a cupcake or a bye prior to their SEC OOC game and/or tough OOC game. Also, time to maximize the ND games. If it allows for the ACC's national contender a stronger SOS, then push/pull some games. I know Pitt and BC have that history with ND and maybe Cuse, but why not strike while the iron is hot and redo the schedule so that our national title contenders get first crack at ND. In order words, get the best possible match ups so there is national interest. ND/Miami, ND/FSU, ND/Clemson, ND/Pitt, ND/BC, ND/Ville, ND/VaTech, ND/GaTech, the heavest rotation should go to the best teams and then ND get Wake, State, Duke, UVa, UNC. Match ups, match ups, match ups. Finally, if you haven't played an ACC team that you want to play, Schedule a home and home with that opponent. Case in point FSU/GaTech. Why not schedule a OOC home/home game with them when they are not on your ACC schedule? Is it really necessary to play another Sam Houston State? VaTech want to play 'Ville more, go that route. It will at least better your schedule strength.

These are all good thoughts. This is the discussion we should be having, rather than arguing over WHETHER this discussion is even necessary.

It's true that much of it lies with the individual programs. And the ACC is always going to have a lower football ceiling because it has so many schools that simply aren't big time football programs with big time support. That doesn't mean those schools are worthless, or can't be good or better than they are in football, but there's no solution in "if Boston College can just turn into Ole Miss" or something like that. It is what it is.

Despite that, or maybe more to the point, because of that, it's all the more important that the conference does take a stronger role in strengthening it's position. And there is a lot more that can be done than has been/is being done...

1) While I don't expect it to be done publicly, the ACC leadership must privately absolutely own up to doing a poor job maximizing TV revenues in the 2010 contract, and commit to the schools that it will never fall into that trap again. I'm not talking about just the poor timing of the contract, I'm talking about the undeniable fact that the ACC left money on the table for other reasons in the last contract by...

a. Mandating Raycom as a partner. It is indisputable that by forcing an additional middle man into the equation cost the ACC money. There’s somebody else taking a piece of the pie, which reduces the value of the deal for ESPN. The ACC let, at worst nepotism, and at best, “old times sake” get in the way of money
b. Insisting on selling its entire rights package to one party. NO OTHER CONFERENCE HAS DONE THIS. Every single other conference splits it’s rights between 2-3 entities to max revenue. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the ACC was so hell bent on being all in with ESPN.
c. Passing on a network a couple years before wanting/needing a network

The ACC needs to look at member schools (privately) and say something along the lines of “We dropped the ball and got caught with our pants down. We really underestimated where the money was heading in college sports, and let other interests and ‘nice to haves’ get in the way of our number one priority with a network deal, and that is revenue to you. Be aware that going forward, we are focused on maximizing financial return, and we expect you all to be on the same page, whether that ruffles your sense of decorum or not.”

2) The ACC needs to put all its supposed brains together and come up with a sensible philosophy toward OOC scheduling. The conference has set itself up for failure more than any other conference, and the crazy out of conference scheduling has done more to harm this conference’s reputation than anything else. The scheduling into games where you will be double digit underdogs HAS TO END. Scheduling multiple likely losses per year out of conference HAS TO END. Playing road games at G5 schools (with some exceptions) needs to be highly curtailed. Virginia and others must be brought into line on this, and if they can’t, there needs to be punishment. They need to be the ones playing all the Thursday games on four days rest, they need to be eating the brutal road stretches. It really shouldn’t come to that.

3) Not totally unrelated to the previous point, the ACC should allow a partial “eat what you kill” policy toward bowl games. This gets at the unequal distribution issue without saying “FSU and Clemson just get more.” Schools that make the playoffs, make the major bowls, should absolutely reap more than schools who schedule themselves out of a bowl in the OOC. It allows the schools who can play to win close some of the gap with other conferences, and also discourages teams from scheduling stupidly.

4) Conference scheduling needs to be smart…not burning FSU-Clemson in the second week of the season…not sending your prime football schools to Boston in November on four days rest. Not scheduling conference games the week before SEC rivalries while the SEC is playing FCS foes. This has improved greatly in the last few seasons.

5) Get plugged in, stop getting blindsided, and have some vision. For being a supposed “ninja”, this conference gets left standing around with its dong in its hands while other conferences pull off moves. Conference champion ship games. Conference networks. PAC TV deal. Maryland’s exit. Big 12-SEC Sugar Bowl. Championship game deregulation reversal in the last minute. None of those things were up to the individual schools…those were all conference moves. The ACC hasn’t pulled off a proactive, visionary move since 2003 expansion. Instead, they’re constantly trying to make chicken salad out of lemons as other conferences run circles around them.
There’s many more I’m sure, but the ACC as a conference can DEFINITELY do things to better solidify its standing and improve its value.

(02-17-2016 09:58 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:17 AM)nole Wrote:  Great post, you should be the ACC Commish.

I would only adjust one point that you mentioned. The ACC already has unequal situation....Notre Dame.

Once that deal was made, the argument that everything is 100% equal in the ACC died. The ACC needs to start rewarding the producers for teams who bring in revenue (so no, sorry folks that win field hockey national titles, you don't get extra cash).

(02-16-2016 08:16 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  No doubt the ACC brass didn't do its better football playing members any good with the TV deal and the request for more exposure over more money. The whole Raycom deal screams of nepotism instead of a shrewed move to acquire the necessary infrastructure for an upcoming network. The only hope is that comes to fruition somehow. If a network isn't possible, then take the extra 3-4 mill per team and wait for the end of the contract. To get to that point, the ACC office should take care of the football bread winners. Zero cost to participants for the ACC championship game, zero cost for playoff participant. This should come out of the ACC conference share. I don't think unequal revenue sharing should be an option. Look what it did and is doing to the Big 12.

Once that contract runs out, NBC, Fox, ESPN, CBS Sports whomever should be listened to because unlike the last time, the ACC brass can come with a better football package. It will not be just FSU. And, if the revenue split is 80/20 football to basketball why settle for that split. Classic bball games are not just confined to UNC/Duke. Now there is UNC/'Ville and Duke/'Cuse. All of those games have been classics so far. Throw in UVa, ND, Pitt and the occasional State, FSU and Miami, the ACC brass should command a higher price for those match ups.

The ACC should make sure the scheduling is better for OOC football games. Make sure 'Ville, FSU, VaTech, Clemson, GaTech, etc get a cupcake or a bye prior to their SEC OOC game and/or tough OOC game. Also, time to maximize the ND games. If it allows for the ACC's national contender a stronger SOS, then push/pull some games. I know Pitt and BC have that history with ND and maybe Cuse, but why not strike while the iron is hot and redo the schedule so that our national title contenders get first crack at ND. In order words, get the best possible match ups so there is national interest. ND/Miami, ND/FSU, ND/Clemson, ND/Pitt, ND/BC, ND/Ville, ND/VaTech, ND/GaTech, the heavest rotation should go to the best teams and then ND get Wake, State, Duke, UVa, UNC. Match ups, match ups, match ups. Finally, if you haven't played an ACC team that you want to play, Schedule a home and home with that opponent. Case in point FSU/GaTech. Why not schedule a OOC home/home game with them when they are not on your ACC schedule? Is it really necessary to play another Sam Houston State? VaTech want to play 'Ville more, go that route. It will at least better your schedule strength.

These are all good thoughts. This is the discussion we should be having, rather than arguing over WHETHER this discussion is even necessary.

Or pissing and moaning about the "mistakes" made, mistakes which in hindsight are huge but when put into context of the time may not have been?

It cuts both ways.

Cheers,
Neil

I think we all agree that incentivizing Bowl Winners is a good idea. Do we do the same for hoops?

The quandary there is the NCAA uses the NCAA Tournament as their Robin Hood Distribution program. The 68 teams send money to not 125 FB teams but 350 BB teams...which about 150 of them are masquerading as D-1 programs to collect their share.

(02-17-2016 10:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that much of it lies with the individual programs. And the ACC is always going to have a lower football ceiling because it has so many schools that simply aren't big time football programs with big time support. That doesn't mean those schools are worthless, or can't be good or better than they are in football, but there's no solution in "if Boston College can just turn into Ole Miss" or something like that. It is what it is.

Despite that, or maybe more to the point, because of that, it's all the more important that the conference does take a stronger role in strengthening it's position. And there is a lot more that can be done than has been/is being done...

1) While I don't expect it to be done publicly, the ACC leadership must privately absolutely own up to doing a poor job maximizing TV revenues in the 2010 contract, and commit to the schools that it will never fall into that trap again. I'm not talking about just the poor timing of the contract, I'm talking about the undeniable fact that the ACC left money on the table for other reasons in the last contract by...

a. Mandating Raycom as a partner. It is indisputable that by forcing an additional middle man into the equation cost the ACC money. There’s somebody else taking a piece of the pie, which reduces the value of the deal for ESPN. The ACC let, at worst nepotism, and at best, “old times sake” get in the way of money
b. Insisting on selling its entire rights package to one party. NO OTHER CONFERENCE HAS DONE THIS. Every single other conference splits it’s rights between 2-3 entities to max revenue. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the ACC was so hell bent on being all in with ESPN.
c. Passing on a network a couple years before wanting/needing a network

The ACC needs to look at member schools (privately) and say something along the lines of “We dropped the ball and got caught with our pants down. We really underestimated where the money was heading in college sports, and let other interests and ‘nice to haves’ get in the way of our number one priority with a network deal, and that is revenue to you. Be aware that going forward, we are focused on maximizing financial return, and we expect you all to be on the same page, whether that ruffles your sense of decorum or not.”

2) The ACC needs to put all its supposed brains together and come up with a sensible philosophy toward OOC scheduling. The conference has set itself up for failure more than any other conference, and the crazy out of conference scheduling has done more to harm this conference’s reputation than anything else. The scheduling into games where you will be double digit underdogs HAS TO END. Scheduling multiple likely losses per year out of conference HAS TO END. Playing road games at G5 schools (with some exceptions) needs to be highly curtailed. Virginia and others must be brought into line on this, and if they can’t, there needs to be punishment. They need to be the ones playing all the Thursday games on four days rest, they need to be eating the brutal road stretches. It really shouldn’t come to that.

3) Not totally unrelated to the previous point, the ACC should allow a partial “eat what you kill” policy toward bowl games. This gets at the unequal distribution issue without saying “FSU and Clemson just get more.” Schools that make the playoffs, make the major bowls, should absolutely reap more than schools who schedule themselves out of a bowl in the OOC. It allows the schools who can play to win close some of the gap with other conferences, and also discourages teams from scheduling stupidly.

4) Conference scheduling needs to be smart…not burning FSU-Clemson in the second week of the season…not sending your prime football schools to Boston in November on four days rest. Not scheduling conference games the week before SEC rivalries while the SEC is playing FCS foes. This has improved greatly in the last few seasons.

5) Get plugged in, stop getting blindsided, and have some vision. For being a supposed “ninja”, this conference gets left standing around with its dong in its hands while other conferences pull off moves. Conference champion ship games. Conference networks. PAC TV deal. Maryland’s exit. Big 12-SEC Sugar Bowl. Championship game deregulation reversal in the last minute. None of those things were up to the individual schools…those were all conference moves. The ACC hasn’t pulled off a proactive, visionary move since 2003 expansion. Instead, they’re constantly trying to make chicken salad out of lemons as other conferences run circles around them.
There’s many more I’m sure, but the ACC as a conference can DEFINITELY do things to better solidify its standing and improve its value.

1.
A. Agreed
B. Who knows?
C. This is just speculation on your part. There's no way of knowing whether a network is a good idea. Will it increase revenue? Yes. Does it make financial sense? Who knows? Networks cost a lot of money and expose conferences to far more uncertain payouts. There could very well be cheaper ways to increase revenues with the same level of risk. Why not pursue those opportunities instead?

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal. The B1G even has a ticket sale tax, where schools like OSU, PSU, and Michigan end up paying extra to schools like Northwestern. That keeps everyone competitive and makes more money for everyone involved.

Really, the ACC needs to tax free riding on the AD level, and payout equally to all the schools that are actively trying. Taxing free riding is just as easy to do, and far more effective.

4. The problem with playing Clemson-FSU late in the year is that someone has to lose. Would you rather have a 1 loss FSU/Clemson team lose early in the year or late?

5. You're 100% right on point #5.

(02-16-2016 08:16 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  No doubt the ACC brass didn't do its better football playing members any good with the TV deal and the request for more exposure over more money. The whole Raycom deal screams of nepotism instead of a shrewed move to acquire the necessary infrastructure for an upcoming network. The only hope is that comes to fruition somehow. If a network isn't possible, then take the extra 3-4 mill per team and wait for the end of the contract. To get to that point, the ACC office should take care of the football bread winners. Zero cost to participants for the ACC championship game, zero cost for playoff participant. This should come out of the ACC conference share. I don't think unequal revenue sharing should be an option. Look what it did and is doing to the Big 12.

Once that contract runs out, NBC, Fox, ESPN, CBS Sports whomever should be listened to because unlike the last time, the ACC brass can come with a better football package. It will not be just FSU. And, if the revenue split is 80/20 football to basketball why settle for that split. Classic bball games are not just confined to UNC/Duke. Now there is UNC/'Ville and Duke/'Cuse. All of those games have been classics so far. Throw in UVa, ND, Pitt and the occasional State, FSU and Miami, the ACC brass should command a higher price for those match ups.

The ACC should make sure the scheduling is better for OOC football games. Make sure 'Ville, FSU, VaTech, Clemson, GaTech, etc get a cupcake or a bye prior to their SEC OOC game and/or tough OOC game. Also, time to maximize the ND games. If it allows for the ACC's national contender a stronger SOS, then push/pull some games. I know Pitt and BC have that history with ND and maybe Cuse, but why not strike while the iron is hot and redo the schedule so that our national title contenders get first crack at ND. In order words, get the best possible match ups so there is national interest. ND/Miami, ND/FSU, ND/Clemson, ND/Pitt, ND/BC, ND/Ville, ND/VaTech, ND/GaTech, the heavest rotation should go to the best teams and then ND get Wake, State, Duke, UVa, UNC. Match ups, match ups, match ups. Finally, if you haven't played an ACC team that you want to play, Schedule a home and home with that opponent. Case in point FSU/GaTech. Why not schedule a OOC home/home game with them when they are not on your ACC schedule? Is it really necessary to play another Sam Houston State? VaTech want to play 'Ville more, go that route. It will at least better your schedule strength.

1. I'm not sure where you're getting 3-4 mm, but if it is 3-4 mm on top of 18 mm, then we actually have a pretty decent deal. To put things in perspective, the PAC makes 20-21 and they sunk a TON of money into a network. If we're getting the same or better by spending less, we're winning.

2. The idea behind non-zero cost participation is two-fold. 1. It's impossible to do because schools will respond by running up tabs (i.e. by sending the band, by bussing students, etc.), and 2. It puts the burden on the schools to sell tickets to their fans. Since those schools are best positioned to sell tickets to their fans, having them do it maximizes overall revenue.

3. I agree about the cupcakes before big OOC games

4. Reworking ND schedules at the last minute is hard because it impacts everyone's OOC commitments. It's not realistically doable.

5. I agree about 2 ACC schools playing "OOC" if they feel that they aren't meeting enough on the field. However, that's already happening.

(02-17-2016 10:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:58 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:17 AM)nole Wrote:  Great post, you should be the ACC Commish.

I would only adjust one point that you mentioned. The ACC already has unequal situation....Notre Dame.

Once that deal was made, the argument that everything is 100% equal in the ACC died. The ACC needs to start rewarding the producers for teams who bring in revenue (so no, sorry folks that win field hockey national titles, you don't get extra cash).

(02-16-2016 08:16 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  No doubt the ACC brass didn't do its better football playing members any good with the TV deal and the request for more exposure over more money. The whole Raycom deal screams of nepotism instead of a shrewed move to acquire the necessary infrastructure for an upcoming network. The only hope is that comes to fruition somehow. If a network isn't possible, then take the extra 3-4 mill per team and wait for the end of the contract. To get to that point, the ACC office should take care of the football bread winners. Zero cost to participants for the ACC championship game, zero cost for playoff participant. This should come out of the ACC conference share. I don't think unequal revenue sharing should be an option. Look what it did and is doing to the Big 12.

Once that contract runs out, NBC, Fox, ESPN, CBS Sports whomever should be listened to because unlike the last time, the ACC brass can come with a better football package. It will not be just FSU. And, if the revenue split is 80/20 football to basketball why settle for that split. Classic bball games are not just confined to UNC/Duke. Now there is UNC/'Ville and Duke/'Cuse. All of those games have been classics so far. Throw in UVa, ND, Pitt and the occasional State, FSU and Miami, the ACC brass should command a higher price for those match ups.

The ACC should make sure the scheduling is better for OOC football games. Make sure 'Ville, FSU, VaTech, Clemson, GaTech, etc get a cupcake or a bye prior to their SEC OOC game and/or tough OOC game. Also, time to maximize the ND games. If it allows for the ACC's national contender a stronger SOS, then push/pull some games. I know Pitt and BC have that history with ND and maybe Cuse, but why not strike while the iron is hot and redo the schedule so that our national title contenders get first crack at ND. In order words, get the best possible match ups so there is national interest. ND/Miami, ND/FSU, ND/Clemson, ND/Pitt, ND/BC, ND/Ville, ND/VaTech, ND/GaTech, the heavest rotation should go to the best teams and then ND get Wake, State, Duke, UVa, UNC. Match ups, match ups, match ups. Finally, if you haven't played an ACC team that you want to play, Schedule a home and home with that opponent. Case in point FSU/GaTech. Why not schedule a OOC home/home game with them when they are not on your ACC schedule? Is it really necessary to play another Sam Houston State? VaTech want to play 'Ville more, go that route. It will at least better your schedule strength.

These are all good thoughts. This is the discussion we should be having, rather than arguing over WHETHER this discussion is even necessary.

Or pissing and moaning about the "mistakes" made, mistakes which in hindsight are huge but when put into context of the time may not have been?

It cuts both ways.

Cheers,
Neil

I agree with you, I think there is sometimes over-fixation on what can't be changed, rather than going forward. However, those of us concerned about it would feel a lot better if we could know that everyone involved UNDERSTANDS that it was a mistake, and therefore not fear that we are doomed to repeat it. Obviously, there's been no acknowledgement that it was a mistake, and a bunch of fans are still defending it. Right now it's very much an open question whether the ACC would march straight back into the Raycom boondoggle given another opportunity.

And yes, there is SOME aspects of how bad the deal is that are only fully realized in hindsight, mainly around the unrealized market value. The 2008 SEC deal, which was celebrated, was at least as undervalued in retrospect as the ACC's 2010 deal. On the other hand, there were other aspects (again, saving Raycom as a charity case) that raised red flags for many of us right from the jump.

But yes, if everyone could just acknowledge that the 2010 deal was very badly misplayed by the ACC, it's not otherwise THAT productive to dwell on it. It's just that the same people and structures and presumably philosophies that brought us that are still in power, so it's not that easy to let it go.

(02-17-2016 11:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that much of it lies with the individual programs. And the ACC is always going to have a lower football ceiling because it has so many schools that simply aren't big time football programs with big time support. That doesn't mean those schools are worthless, or can't be good or better than they are in football, but there's no solution in "if Boston College can just turn into Ole Miss" or something like that. It is what it is.

Despite that, or maybe more to the point, because of that, it's all the more important that the conference does take a stronger role in strengthening it's position. And there is a lot more that can be done than has been/is being done...

1) While I don't expect it to be done publicly, the ACC leadership must privately absolutely own up to doing a poor job maximizing TV revenues in the 2010 contract, and commit to the schools that it will never fall into that trap again. I'm not talking about just the poor timing of the contract, I'm talking about the undeniable fact that the ACC left money on the table for other reasons in the last contract by...

a. Mandating Raycom as a partner. It is indisputable that by forcing an additional middle man into the equation cost the ACC money. There’s somebody else taking a piece of the pie, which reduces the value of the deal for ESPN. The ACC let, at worst nepotism, and at best, “old times sake” get in the way of money
b. Insisting on selling its entire rights package to one party. NO OTHER CONFERENCE HAS DONE THIS. Every single other conference splits it’s rights between 2-3 entities to max revenue. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the ACC was so hell bent on being all in with ESPN.
c. Passing on a network a couple years before wanting/needing a network

The ACC needs to look at member schools (privately) and say something along the lines of “We dropped the ball and got caught with our pants down. We really underestimated where the money was heading in college sports, and let other interests and ‘nice to haves’ get in the way of our number one priority with a network deal, and that is revenue to you. Be aware that going forward, we are focused on maximizing financial return, and we expect you all to be on the same page, whether that ruffles your sense of decorum or not.”

2) The ACC needs to put all its supposed brains together and come up with a sensible philosophy toward OOC scheduling. The conference has set itself up for failure more than any other conference, and the crazy out of conference scheduling has done more to harm this conference’s reputation than anything else. The scheduling into games where you will be double digit underdogs HAS TO END. Scheduling multiple likely losses per year out of conference HAS TO END. Playing road games at G5 schools (with some exceptions) needs to be highly curtailed. Virginia and others must be brought into line on this, and if they can’t, there needs to be punishment. They need to be the ones playing all the Thursday games on four days rest, they need to be eating the brutal road stretches. It really shouldn’t come to that.

3) Not totally unrelated to the previous point, the ACC should allow a partial “eat what you kill” policy toward bowl games. This gets at the unequal distribution issue without saying “FSU and Clemson just get more.” Schools that make the playoffs, make the major bowls, should absolutely reap more than schools who schedule themselves out of a bowl in the OOC. It allows the schools who can play to win close some of the gap with other conferences, and also discourages teams from scheduling stupidly.

4) Conference scheduling needs to be smart…not burning FSU-Clemson in the second week of the season…not sending your prime football schools to Boston in November on four days rest. Not scheduling conference games the week before SEC rivalries while the SEC is playing FCS foes. This has improved greatly in the last few seasons.

5) Get plugged in, stop getting blindsided, and have some vision. For being a supposed “ninja”, this conference gets left standing around with its dong in its hands while other conferences pull off moves. Conference champion ship games. Conference networks. PAC TV deal. Maryland’s exit. Big 12-SEC Sugar Bowl. Championship game deregulation reversal in the last minute. None of those things were up to the individual schools…those were all conference moves. The ACC hasn’t pulled off a proactive, visionary move since 2003 expansion. Instead, they’re constantly trying to make chicken salad out of lemons as other conferences run circles around them.
There’s many more I’m sure, but the ACC as a conference can DEFINITELY do things to better solidify its standing and improve its value.

1.
A. Agreed
B. Who knows?
C. This is just speculation on your part. There's no way of knowing whether a network is a good idea. Will it increase revenue? Yes. Does it make financial sense? Who knows? Networks cost a lot of money and expose conferences to far more uncertain payouts. There could very well be cheaper ways to increase revenues with the same level of risk. Why not pursue those opportunities instead?

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal. The B1G even has a ticket sale tax, where schools like OSU, PSU, and Michigan end up paying extra to schools like Northwestern. That keeps everyone competitive and makes more money for everyone involved.

Really, the ACC needs to tax free riding on the AD level, and payout equally to all the schools that are actively trying. Taxing free riding is just as easy to do, and far more effective.

4. The problem with playing Clemson-FSU late in the year is that someone has to lose. Would you rather have a 1 loss FSU/Clemson team lose early in the year or late?

5. You're 100% right on point #5.

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

I think it's very hard to show any benefits, in engagement or otherwise, as a result of getting your brains beat in. I'm not talking about Clemson-Auburn or UNC-South Carolina here. Those games should happen.

I'm talking about UVA-Oregon, Syracuse-LSU, Duke-Alabama, etc. And even more specifically, it's about loading up games like that along with games like ECU, BYU, ND etc in the same season.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal.

Sorry, you're just wrong here, unless your premise is that the SEC is not one of the strongest conferences.

The SEC does this with bowl revenue (thanks to Hokie Mark's site):

SEC

For bowl games with receipts of $4,000,000 - $5,999,999, the participating team retains $1.475 million (Ole Miss), plus a travel allowance determined by SEC.
For bowl games with receipts of $6 million or more, the participating team receives $2 million (Alabama and Mississippi State), plus a travel allowance determined by the SEC.
If an SEC team makes it to the championship game, it receives another $2.1 million, plus travel allowance.
The remainder of the revenue from these bowls is divided 15 ways – one share for each of the 14 SEC teams and one share for the conference office.
There is a separate distribution method for bowls with lower payouts

How is that weakening the SEC. There are two strongest conferences, and one of them provides just the exact thing I'm proposing.

Great post overall Lou, but in the interest of discussion, what I disagree with will make it seem like I didn't enjoy it as much as I did. And you make many interesting points but miss the mark on some, imho.

(02-17-2016 10:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that much of it lies with the individual programs. And the ACC is always going to have a lower football ceiling because it has so many schools that simply aren't big time football programs with big time support. That doesn't mean those schools are worthless, or can't be good or better than they are in football, but there's no solution in "if Boston College can just turn into Ole Miss" or something like that. It is what it is.

Despite that, or maybe more to the point, because of that, it's all the more important that the conference does take a stronger role in strengthening it's position. And there is a lot more that can be done than has been/is being done...

1) While I don't expect it to be done publicly, the ACC leadership must privately absolutely own up to doing a poor job maximizing TV revenues in the 2010 contract, and commit to the schools that it will never fall into that trap again. I'm not talking about just the poor timing of the contract, I'm talking about the undeniable fact that the ACC left money on the table for other reasons in the last contract by...

a. Mandating Raycom as a partner. It is indisputable that by forcing an additional middle man into the equation cost the ACC money. There’s somebody else taking a piece of the pie, which reduces the value of the deal for ESPN. The ACC let, at worst nepotism, and at best, “old times sake” get in the way of money
b. Insisting on selling its entire rights package to one party. NO OTHER CONFERENCE HAS DONE THIS. Every single other conference splits it’s rights between 2-3 entities to max revenue. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the ACC was so hell bent on being all in with ESPN.
c. Passing on a network a couple years before wanting/needing a network

The ACC needs to look at member schools (privately) and say something along the lines of “We dropped the ball and got caught with our pants down. We really underestimated where the money was heading in college sports, and let other interests and ‘nice to haves’ get in the way of our number one priority with a network deal, and that is revenue to you. Be aware that going forward, we are focused on maximizing financial return, and we expect you all to be on the same page, whether that ruffles your sense of decorum or not.”

If ACC conference management hasn't already done this, then isn't it on the presidents of the individual institutions heads for not voting out the current management and replacing it? Heck, even if Swofford has made such a pledge, why is he even still around?

Quote:2) The ACC needs to put all its supposed brains together and come up with a sensible philosophy toward OOC scheduling. The conference has set itself up for failure more than any other conference, and the crazy out of conference scheduling has done more to harm this conference’s reputation than anything else. The scheduling into games where you will be double digit underdogs HAS TO END. Scheduling multiple likely losses per year out of conference HAS TO END. Playing road games at G5 schools (with some exceptions) needs to be highly curtailed. Virginia and others must be brought into line on this, and if they can’t, there needs to be punishment. They need to be the ones playing all the Thursday games on four days rest, they need to be eating the brutal road stretches. It really shouldn’t come to that.

We will need to agree to disagree on the level this should be implemented, but we do agree it should be curtailed to a degree.

Quote:3) Not totally unrelated to the previous point, the ACC should allow a partial “eat what you kill” policy toward bowl games. This gets at the unequal distribution issue without saying “FSU and Clemson just get more.” Schools that make the playoffs, make the major bowls, should absolutely reap more than schools who schedule themselves out of a bowl in the OOC. It allows the schools who can play to win close some of the gap with other conferences, and also discourages teams from scheduling stupidly.

As a former Big East football fan, this is something I am used to and not necessarily against. But it is also a potential slippery slope.

Let's say the P5 in whatever format it eventually takes (P4, P3, etc.) does decide to break away from the NCAA and basically takes over the NCAA tourney? Will those who make the tourney and perform well get the greater share?

Let's say whatever model that develops overtime in terms of a conference network results in NYS and Massachusetts residents providing more in terms of subscription fees to the coffers of said conference network than South Carolina residents? Will the schools in those states receive a higher portion?

Quote:4) Conference scheduling needs to be smart…not burning FSU-Clemson in the second week of the season…not sending your prime football schools to Boston in November on four days rest. Not scheduling conference games the week before SEC rivalries while the SEC is playing FCS foes. This has improved greatly in the last few seasons.

Agreed. And it does appear that this is being addressed at least in terms of the perceived powers. But it has also resulted in bad scheduling for others. But that is fine.

Quote:5) Get plugged in, stop getting blindsided, and have some vision. For being a supposed “ninja”, this conference gets left standing around with its dong in its hands while other conferences pull off moves .... (list of items which I will address separately)... None of those things were up to the individual schools…those were all conference moves. The ACC hasn’t pulled off a proactive, visionary move since 2003 expansion.

Agreed overall with this notion of ACC leadership needing more vision, but disagree to the extent that this is a conference office issue solely. The conference cannot move forward on "visionary" issues if individual institutions subvert the vision for its own good.

Interesting that you cite the clusterfluck 2003 expansion as the last proactive, visionary move since in my opinion it resulted in SEC-lite destroying the conference's basketball strength for perceived strength in football that never truly materialized.

Quote:Conference championship games.

Wasn't the ACC first with conference championship game in bb? Also, wasn't it third in terms of football conference championship game? And it certainly seemed to be a topic of interest for the ACC from 1996 onward, so they were at least talking about. Also in a recent thread all the Noles fans who participated in it have said that FSU was only interested in getting Miami back in 2003 and could have cared less about a football championship game back then. Where were you in that thread? I could have used the assist.

Quote:Conference networks.

Agreed. This is an instance where Swofford misled the individual institutions from 2008 and beyond. And likely should have been reason enough for the presidents to sack him. While I think a conference network for the ACC is more akin to a PAC network than a B1G (or now SEC) one, the lack of having one at all hurts perception.

Quote:PAC TV deal.

Was this the result of incompetence or bad timing? Perhaps both?

It can be debated that the difference between the ACC TV deal in July 2010 versus the PAC TV deal in May 2011 is Comcast cable networks merging with NBC Universal entertainment in January 2011 which resulted in NBCSports potentially becoming a threat to ESPN/FOX.

This resulted in the latter two having a reason to work together to prevent the former from getting its foot in the door so to speak with major college athletics.

Prior to this moment, the only truly split major conference national TV contracts involving both FOX and ESPN were the ones where ESPN only wanted Tier 1 content and the Tier 2 went to FOX. I believe this was the first contract to actually share Tier 1 content between the two. But I could be mistaken here.

Quote:Maryland’s exit.

Definitely appears they were taken by surprise here, but not sure what the conference could have done other than float Maryland $$$ to help resolve their debt the way the B1G did.

Quote:Big 12-SEC Sugar Bowl.

Not sure what the conference could have done here either. The Championship Bowl was a direct shot at the Rose Bowl since the B1G was making huge noise about the impending changes in the BCS structure and potential playoff. I think one only needs to review the BCS final standings from 2006-2011 to see why the ACC didn't get that partnership.

I maintain the real screw-up here was the Orange Bowl deal with the ACC giving up more than I believe it was necessary to the B1G and SEC for what was likely only ever going to be a match-up between the ACC champion or second place team against the SEC's and B1G's third or fourth place team.

However, while stating the above, the fact that the ACC got the Orange at all rather than it being folded into the other Event Bowls was at least a band-aid to the perception of the ACC.

Quote:Championship game deregulation reversal in the last minute.

Agreed here. The lack of vision here is that they never made clear what precisely they were attempting to accomplish with it. The B12 wanted the option of having a championship game without going to 12. But what did the ACC truly want to accomplish here? Can anyone point to anything that clearly shows what that was? I sure can't.

At least back in 2003 they knew what the end goal was, they just couldn't articulate well enough and didn't anticipate the depth of the anti-northern sentiment the vision was instilling in ACC country.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-17-2016 12:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Great post overall Lou, but in the interest of discussion, what I disagree with will make it seem like I didn't enjoy it as much as I did. And you make many interesting points but miss the mark on some, imho.

(02-17-2016 10:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that much of it lies with the individual programs. And the ACC is always going to have a lower football ceiling because it has so many schools that simply aren't big time football programs with big time support. That doesn't mean those schools are worthless, or can't be good or better than they are in football, but there's no solution in "if Boston College can just turn into Ole Miss" or something like that. It is what it is.

Despite that, or maybe more to the point, because of that, it's all the more important that the conference does take a stronger role in strengthening it's position. And there is a lot more that can be done than has been/is being done...

1) While I don't expect it to be done publicly, the ACC leadership must privately absolutely own up to doing a poor job maximizing TV revenues in the 2010 contract, and commit to the schools that it will never fall into that trap again. I'm not talking about just the poor timing of the contract, I'm talking about the undeniable fact that the ACC left money on the table for other reasons in the last contract by...

a. Mandating Raycom as a partner. It is indisputable that by forcing an additional middle man into the equation cost the ACC money. There’s somebody else taking a piece of the pie, which reduces the value of the deal for ESPN. The ACC let, at worst nepotism, and at best, “old times sake” get in the way of money
b. Insisting on selling its entire rights package to one party. NO OTHER CONFERENCE HAS DONE THIS. Every single other conference splits it’s rights between 2-3 entities to max revenue. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the ACC was so hell bent on being all in with ESPN.
c. Passing on a network a couple years before wanting/needing a network

The ACC needs to look at member schools (privately) and say something along the lines of “We dropped the ball and got caught with our pants down. We really underestimated where the money was heading in college sports, and let other interests and ‘nice to haves’ get in the way of our number one priority with a network deal, and that is revenue to you. Be aware that going forward, we are focused on maximizing financial return, and we expect you all to be on the same page, whether that ruffles your sense of decorum or not.”

If ACC conference management hasn't already done this, then isn't it on the presidents of the individual institutions heads for not voting out the current management and replacing it? Heck, even if Swofford has made such a pledge, why is he even still around?

Quote:2) The ACC needs to put all its supposed brains together and come up with a sensible philosophy toward OOC scheduling. The conference has set itself up for failure more than any other conference, and the crazy out of conference scheduling has done more to harm this conference’s reputation than anything else. The scheduling into games where you will be double digit underdogs HAS TO END. Scheduling multiple likely losses per year out of conference HAS TO END. Playing road games at G5 schools (with some exceptions) needs to be highly curtailed. Virginia and others must be brought into line on this, and if they can’t, there needs to be punishment. They need to be the ones playing all the Thursday games on four days rest, they need to be eating the brutal road stretches. It really shouldn’t come to that.

We will need to agree to disagree on the level this should be implemented, but we do agree it should be curtailed to a degree.

Quote:3) Not totally unrelated to the previous point, the ACC should allow a partial “eat what you kill” policy toward bowl games. This gets at the unequal distribution issue without saying “FSU and Clemson just get more.” Schools that make the playoffs, make the major bowls, should absolutely reap more than schools who schedule themselves out of a bowl in the OOC. It allows the schools who can play to win close some of the gap with other conferences, and also discourages teams from scheduling stupidly.

As a former Big East football fan, this is something I am used to and not necessarily against. But it is also a potential slippery slope.

Let's say the P5 in whatever format it eventually takes (P4, P3, etc.) does decide to break away from the NCAA and basically takes over the NCAA tourney? Will those who make the tourney and perform well get the greater share?

Let's say whatever model that develops overtime in terms of a conference network results in NYS and Massachusetts residents providing more in terms of subscription fees to the coffers of said conference network than South Carolina residents? Will the schools in those states receive a higher portion?

Quote:4) Conference scheduling needs to be smart…not burning FSU-Clemson in the second week of the season…not sending your prime football schools to Boston in November on four days rest. Not scheduling conference games the week before SEC rivalries while the SEC is playing FCS foes. This has improved greatly in the last few seasons.

Agreed. And it does appear that this is being addressed at least in terms of the perceived powers. But it has also resulted in bad scheduling for others. But that is fine.

Quote:5) Get plugged in, stop getting blindsided, and have some vision. For being a supposed “ninja”, this conference gets left standing around with its dong in its hands while other conferences pull off moves .... (list of items which I will address separately)... None of those things were up to the individual schools…those were all conference moves. The ACC hasn’t pulled off a proactive, visionary move since 2003 expansion.

Agreed overall with this notion of ACC leadership needing more vision, but disagree to the extent that this is a conference office issue solely. The conference cannot move forward on "visionary" issues if individual institutions subvert the vision for its own good.

Interesting that you cite the clusterfluck 2003 expansion as the last proactive, visionary move since in my opinion it resulted in SEC-lite destroying the conference's basketball strength for perceived strength in football that never truly materialized.

Quote:Conference championship games.

Wasn't the ACC first with conference championship game in bb? Also, wasn't it third in terms of football conference championship game? And it certainly seemed to be a topic of interest for the ACC from 1996 onward, so they were at least talking about. Also in a recent thread all the Noles fans who participated in it have said that FSU was only interested in getting Miami back in 2003 and could have cared less about a football championship game back then. Where were you in that thread? I could have used the assist.

Quote:Conference networks.

Agreed. This is an instance where Swofford misled the individual institutions from 2008 and beyond. And likely should have been reason enough for the presidents to sack him. While I think a conference network for the ACC is more akin to a PAC network than a B1G (or now SEC) one, the lack of having one at all hurts perception.

Quote:PAC TV deal.

Was this the result of incompetence or bad timing? Perhaps both?

It can be debated that the difference between the ACC TV deal in July 2010 versus the PAC TV deal in May 2011 is Comcast cable networks merging with NBC Universal entertainment in January 2011 which resulted in NBCSports potentially becoming a threat to ESPN/FOX.

This resulted in the latter two having a reason to work together to prevent the former from getting its foot in the door so to speak with major college athletics.

Prior to this moment, the only truly split major conference national TV contracts involving both FOX and ESPN were the ones where ESPN only wanted Tier 1 content and the Tier 2 went to FOX. I believe this was the first contract to actually share Tier 1 content between the two. But I could be mistaken here.

Quote:Maryland’s exit.

Definitely appears they were taken by surprise here, but not sure what the conference could have done other than float Maryland $$$ to help resolve their debt the way the B1G did.

Quote:Big 12-SEC Sugar Bowl.

Not sure what the conference could have done here either. The Championship Bowl was a direct shot at the Rose Bowl since the B1G was making huge noise about the impending changes in the BCS structure and potential playoff. I think one only needs to review the BCS final standings from 2006-2011 to see why the ACC didn't get that partnership.

I maintain the real screw-up here was the Orange Bowl deal with the ACC giving up more than I believe it was necessary to the B1G and SEC for what was likely only ever going to be a match-up between the ACC champion or second place team against the SEC's and B1G's third or fourth place team.

However, while stating the above, the fact that the ACC got the Orange at all rather than it being folded into the other Event Bowls was at least a band-aid to the perception of the ACC.

Quote:Championship game deregulation reversal in the last minute.

Agreed here. The lack of vision here is that they never made clear what precisely they were attempting to accomplish with it. The B12 wanted the option of having a championship game without going to 12. But what did the ACC truly want to accomplish here? Can anyone point to anything that clearly shows what that was? I sure can't.

At least back in 2003 they knew what the end goal was, they just couldn't articulate well enough and didn't anticipate the depth of the anti-northern sentiment the vision was instilling in ACC country.

Cheers,
Neil

We don't disagree that much.

I will say that your point is a good one...in the sense that Swofford supposedly works at the behest of the institutions, in that sense the institutions are ultimately responsible.

My argument is against the idea that it doesn't much matter if the ACC leadership is good, bad, or ineffective, because conference leadership can't actually accomplish that much and it's all up to the individual institutions. That's obviously not true.

But the weakness and ineffectiveness of conference leadership does indeed fall at the feet of the institutions. The problem is, apparently many still don't see the weaknesses, or don't care, or the weaknesses serve them. We still have many people on here claiming all is fine.

All is not lost, and all is not fine. We have loud shouting on both ends of those unfortunately, neither of which is all that productive.

The one saving grace going forward might be this:

In 2010, the ACC was composed of BC, Maryland, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake, Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami.

In 2016, the ACC is composed of BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake, Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami. Notre Dame probably has some thoughts, too.

Maryland is gone; Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville have been added (along with Notre Dame). Also, I get the feeling that Duke has come around to the importance of football... so I doubt the current group makes the same mistakes as the old group.

(02-17-2016 12:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The one saving grace going forward might be this:

In 2010, the ACC was composed of BC, Maryland, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake, Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami.

In 2016, the ACC is composed of BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake, Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami. Notre Dame probably has some thoughts, too.

Maryland is gone; Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville have been added (along with Notre Dame). Also, I get the feeling that Duke has come around to the importance of football... so I doubt the current group makes the same mistakes as the old group.

There is reason to hope that is the case. Some things support that hope...Louisville over UConn, compensation for expenses for post-season, continued forbearance of a 9th conference game, smarter conference scheduling.

I think it's going to be hard to feel confident in that as long as Swofford continues to serve though. At this point, it's pretty hard to justify him staying on much longer, with the ACCN not imminent, and having his legs publicly cut off by the other conferences in deregulation.

It's hard to really come up with a compelling defense of his continued position other than tobacco road clout and old-thinking obstinance.

(02-17-2016 12:52 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The one saving grace going forward might be this:

In 2010, the ACC was composed of BC, Maryland, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake, Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami.

In 2016, the ACC is composed of BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake, Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami. Notre Dame probably has some thoughts, too.

Maryland is gone; Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville have been added (along with Notre Dame). Also, I get the feeling that Duke has come around to the importance of football... so I doubt the current group makes the same mistakes as the old group.

There is reason to hope that is the case. Some things support that hope...Louisville over UConn, compensation for expenses for post-season, continued forbearance of a 9th conference game, smarter conference scheduling.

I think it's going to be hard to feel confident in that as long as Swofford continues to serve though. At this point, it's pretty hard to justify him staying on much longer, with the ACCN not imminent, and having his legs publicly cut off by the other conferences in deregulation.

It's hard to really come up with a compelling defense of his continued position other than tobacco road clout and old-thinking obstinance.

"Tobacco Road" accounts for, what, a maximum of 5 votes? (Duke, UNC, NC State, UVa and Wake). Five out of 14 is 35%, or just over 1/3rd (enough to block some votes).

Now, if Notre Dame gets a vote, it's 5/15 or exactly 1/3rd.

However, if one of the "Tobacco Road" schools dissents (think Duke, NC State or Wake Forest, since they have the most to lose), then it drops to 4 out of 14, which is only 28% -- not enough to block much of anything.

(02-17-2016 12:14 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that much of it lies with the individual programs. And the ACC is always going to have a lower football ceiling because it has so many schools that simply aren't big time football programs with big time support. That doesn't mean those schools are worthless, or can't be good or better than they are in football, but there's no solution in "if Boston College can just turn into Ole Miss" or something like that. It is what it is.

Despite that, or maybe more to the point, because of that, it's all the more important that the conference does take a stronger role in strengthening it's position. And there is a lot more that can be done than has been/is being done...

1) While I don't expect it to be done publicly, the ACC leadership must privately absolutely own up to doing a poor job maximizing TV revenues in the 2010 contract, and commit to the schools that it will never fall into that trap again. I'm not talking about just the poor timing of the contract, I'm talking about the undeniable fact that the ACC left money on the table for other reasons in the last contract by...

a. Mandating Raycom as a partner. It is indisputable that by forcing an additional middle man into the equation cost the ACC money. There’s somebody else taking a piece of the pie, which reduces the value of the deal for ESPN. The ACC let, at worst nepotism, and at best, “old times sake” get in the way of money
b. Insisting on selling its entire rights package to one party. NO OTHER CONFERENCE HAS DONE THIS. Every single other conference splits it’s rights between 2-3 entities to max revenue. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the ACC was so hell bent on being all in with ESPN.
c. Passing on a network a couple years before wanting/needing a network

The ACC needs to look at member schools (privately) and say something along the lines of “We dropped the ball and got caught with our pants down. We really underestimated where the money was heading in college sports, and let other interests and ‘nice to haves’ get in the way of our number one priority with a network deal, and that is revenue to you. Be aware that going forward, we are focused on maximizing financial return, and we expect you all to be on the same page, whether that ruffles your sense of decorum or not.”

2) The ACC needs to put all its supposed brains together and come up with a sensible philosophy toward OOC scheduling. The conference has set itself up for failure more than any other conference, and the crazy out of conference scheduling has done more to harm this conference’s reputation than anything else. The scheduling into games where you will be double digit underdogs HAS TO END. Scheduling multiple likely losses per year out of conference HAS TO END. Playing road games at G5 schools (with some exceptions) needs to be highly curtailed. Virginia and others must be brought into line on this, and if they can’t, there needs to be punishment. They need to be the ones playing all the Thursday games on four days rest, they need to be eating the brutal road stretches. It really shouldn’t come to that.

3) Not totally unrelated to the previous point, the ACC should allow a partial “eat what you kill” policy toward bowl games. This gets at the unequal distribution issue without saying “FSU and Clemson just get more.” Schools that make the playoffs, make the major bowls, should absolutely reap more than schools who schedule themselves out of a bowl in the OOC. It allows the schools who can play to win close some of the gap with other conferences, and also discourages teams from scheduling stupidly.

4) Conference scheduling needs to be smart…not burning FSU-Clemson in the second week of the season…not sending your prime football schools to Boston in November on four days rest. Not scheduling conference games the week before SEC rivalries while the SEC is playing FCS foes. This has improved greatly in the last few seasons.

5) Get plugged in, stop getting blindsided, and have some vision. For being a supposed “ninja”, this conference gets left standing around with its dong in its hands while other conferences pull off moves. Conference champion ship games. Conference networks. PAC TV deal. Maryland’s exit. Big 12-SEC Sugar Bowl. Championship game deregulation reversal in the last minute. None of those things were up to the individual schools…those were all conference moves. The ACC hasn’t pulled off a proactive, visionary move since 2003 expansion. Instead, they’re constantly trying to make chicken salad out of lemons as other conferences run circles around them.
There’s many more I’m sure, but the ACC as a conference can DEFINITELY do things to better solidify its standing and improve its value.

1.
A. Agreed
B. Who knows?
C. This is just speculation on your part. There's no way of knowing whether a network is a good idea. Will it increase revenue? Yes. Does it make financial sense? Who knows? Networks cost a lot of money and expose conferences to far more uncertain payouts. There could very well be cheaper ways to increase revenues with the same level of risk. Why not pursue those opportunities instead?

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal. The B1G even has a ticket sale tax, where schools like OSU, PSU, and Michigan end up paying extra to schools like Northwestern. That keeps everyone competitive and makes more money for everyone involved.

Really, the ACC needs to tax free riding on the AD level, and payout equally to all the schools that are actively trying. Taxing free riding is just as easy to do, and far more effective.

4. The problem with playing Clemson-FSU late in the year is that someone has to lose. Would you rather have a 1 loss FSU/Clemson team lose early in the year or late?

5. You're 100% right on point #5.

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

I think it's very hard to show any benefits, in engagement or otherwise, as a result of getting your brains beat in. I'm not talking about Clemson-Auburn or UNC-South Carolina here. Those games should happen.

I'm talking about UVA-Oregon, Syracuse-LSU, Duke-Alabama, etc. And even more specifically, it's about loading up games like that along with games like ECU, BYU, ND etc in the same season.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal.

Sorry, you're just wrong here, unless your premise is that the SEC is not one of the strongest conferences.

The SEC does this with bowl revenue (thanks to Hokie Mark's site):

SEC

For bowl games with receipts of $4,000,000 - $5,999,999, the participating team retains $1.475 million (Ole Miss), plus a travel allowance determined by SEC.
For bowl games with receipts of $6 million or more, the participating team receives $2 million (Alabama and Mississippi State), plus a travel allowance determined by the SEC.
If an SEC team makes it to the championship game, it receives another $2.1 million, plus travel allowance.
The remainder of the revenue from these bowls is divided 15 ways – one share for each of the 14 SEC teams and one share for the conference office.
There is a separate distribution method for bowls with lower payouts

How is that weakening the SEC. There are two strongest conferences, and one of them provides just the exact thing I'm proposing.

RE SU-LSU: You're wrong. Ask any SU fan if they wish we hadn't played LSU. Ask them if the lead-up wasn't fun. I get that it didn't help your school, but your theory that it isn't fun for the schools involved is 100% wrong.

RE Strongest conference: I'd argue that the B1G is the strongest conference. In terms of football prestige, it's not far off the SEC (it might actually beat it), in terms of basketball prestige, it's way ahead of the SEC, in terms of money, it's probably ahead of the SEC, and in terms of general academic prestige, it's ahead of the SEC.

The SEC has a better product because it's recruiting is significantly better, but that has nothing to do with revenue sharing.

Look at the least equitable conferences. Historically they've been the Big XII and the BIG EAST. Look how that turned out. Admittedly, the lack of equality may have been the caused by their instability, but it's still not a good omen.

(02-17-2016 01:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:14 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that much of it lies with the individual programs. And the ACC is always going to have a lower football ceiling because it has so many schools that simply aren't big time football programs with big time support. That doesn't mean those schools are worthless, or can't be good or better than they are in football, but there's no solution in "if Boston College can just turn into Ole Miss" or something like that. It is what it is.

Despite that, or maybe more to the point, because of that, it's all the more important that the conference does take a stronger role in strengthening it's position. And there is a lot more that can be done than has been/is being done...

1) While I don't expect it to be done publicly, the ACC leadership must privately absolutely own up to doing a poor job maximizing TV revenues in the 2010 contract, and commit to the schools that it will never fall into that trap again. I'm not talking about just the poor timing of the contract, I'm talking about the undeniable fact that the ACC left money on the table for other reasons in the last contract by...

a. Mandating Raycom as a partner. It is indisputable that by forcing an additional middle man into the equation cost the ACC money. There’s somebody else taking a piece of the pie, which reduces the value of the deal for ESPN. The ACC let, at worst nepotism, and at best, “old times sake” get in the way of money
b. Insisting on selling its entire rights package to one party. NO OTHER CONFERENCE HAS DONE THIS. Every single other conference splits it’s rights between 2-3 entities to max revenue. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the ACC was so hell bent on being all in with ESPN.
c. Passing on a network a couple years before wanting/needing a network

The ACC needs to look at member schools (privately) and say something along the lines of “We dropped the ball and got caught with our pants down. We really underestimated where the money was heading in college sports, and let other interests and ‘nice to haves’ get in the way of our number one priority with a network deal, and that is revenue to you. Be aware that going forward, we are focused on maximizing financial return, and we expect you all to be on the same page, whether that ruffles your sense of decorum or not.”

2) The ACC needs to put all its supposed brains together and come up with a sensible philosophy toward OOC scheduling. The conference has set itself up for failure more than any other conference, and the crazy out of conference scheduling has done more to harm this conference’s reputation than anything else. The scheduling into games where you will be double digit underdogs HAS TO END. Scheduling multiple likely losses per year out of conference HAS TO END. Playing road games at G5 schools (with some exceptions) needs to be highly curtailed. Virginia and others must be brought into line on this, and if they can’t, there needs to be punishment. They need to be the ones playing all the Thursday games on four days rest, they need to be eating the brutal road stretches. It really shouldn’t come to that.

3) Not totally unrelated to the previous point, the ACC should allow a partial “eat what you kill” policy toward bowl games. This gets at the unequal distribution issue without saying “FSU and Clemson just get more.” Schools that make the playoffs, make the major bowls, should absolutely reap more than schools who schedule themselves out of a bowl in the OOC. It allows the schools who can play to win close some of the gap with other conferences, and also discourages teams from scheduling stupidly.

4) Conference scheduling needs to be smart…not burning FSU-Clemson in the second week of the season…not sending your prime football schools to Boston in November on four days rest. Not scheduling conference games the week before SEC rivalries while the SEC is playing FCS foes. This has improved greatly in the last few seasons.

5) Get plugged in, stop getting blindsided, and have some vision. For being a supposed “ninja”, this conference gets left standing around with its dong in its hands while other conferences pull off moves. Conference champion ship games. Conference networks. PAC TV deal. Maryland’s exit. Big 12-SEC Sugar Bowl. Championship game deregulation reversal in the last minute. None of those things were up to the individual schools…those were all conference moves. The ACC hasn’t pulled off a proactive, visionary move since 2003 expansion. Instead, they’re constantly trying to make chicken salad out of lemons as other conferences run circles around them.
There’s many more I’m sure, but the ACC as a conference can DEFINITELY do things to better solidify its standing and improve its value.

1.
A. Agreed
B. Who knows?
C. This is just speculation on your part. There's no way of knowing whether a network is a good idea. Will it increase revenue? Yes. Does it make financial sense? Who knows? Networks cost a lot of money and expose conferences to far more uncertain payouts. There could very well be cheaper ways to increase revenues with the same level of risk. Why not pursue those opportunities instead?

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal. The B1G even has a ticket sale tax, where schools like OSU, PSU, and Michigan end up paying extra to schools like Northwestern. That keeps everyone competitive and makes more money for everyone involved.

Really, the ACC needs to tax free riding on the AD level, and payout equally to all the schools that are actively trying. Taxing free riding is just as easy to do, and far more effective.

4. The problem with playing Clemson-FSU late in the year is that someone has to lose. Would you rather have a 1 loss FSU/Clemson team lose early in the year or late?

5. You're 100% right on point #5.

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

I think it's very hard to show any benefits, in engagement or otherwise, as a result of getting your brains beat in. I'm not talking about Clemson-Auburn or UNC-South Carolina here. Those games should happen.

I'm talking about UVA-Oregon, Syracuse-LSU, Duke-Alabama, etc. And even more specifically, it's about loading up games like that along with games like ECU, BYU, ND etc in the same season.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal.

Sorry, you're just wrong here, unless your premise is that the SEC is not one of the strongest conferences.

The SEC does this with bowl revenue (thanks to Hokie Mark's site):

SEC

For bowl games with receipts of $4,000,000 - $5,999,999, the participating team retains $1.475 million (Ole Miss), plus a travel allowance determined by SEC.
For bowl games with receipts of $6 million or more, the participating team receives $2 million (Alabama and Mississippi State), plus a travel allowance determined by the SEC.
If an SEC team makes it to the championship game, it receives another $2.1 million, plus travel allowance.
The remainder of the revenue from these bowls is divided 15 ways – one share for each of the 14 SEC teams and one share for the conference office.
There is a separate distribution method for bowls with lower payouts

How is that weakening the SEC. There are two strongest conferences, and one of them provides just the exact thing I'm proposing.

RE SU-LSU: You're wrong. Ask any SU fan if they wish we hadn't played LSU. Ask them if the lead-up wasn't fun. I get that it didn't help your school, but your theory that it isn't fun for the schools involved is 100% wrong.

RE Strongest conference: I'd argue that the B1G is the strongest conference. In terms of football prestige, it's not far off the SEC (it might actually beat it), in terms of basketball prestige, it's way ahead of the SEC, in terms of money, it's probably ahead of the SEC, and in terms of general academic prestige, it's ahead of the SEC.

The SEC has a better product because it's recruiting is significantly better, but that has nothing to do with revenue sharing.

Look at the least equitable conferences. Historically they've been the Big XII and the BIG EAST. Look how that turned out. Admittedly, the lack of equality may have been the caused by their instability, but it's still not a good omen.

The SEC is no better than the 4th "most equal" conference, and no worse than the second strongest.

I'm sorry, you just can't claim that a bowl compensation package like the SEC uses, which is what I'm advocating, is bad for the conference. The inequality you are talking about in the Big 12 and Big East was a different animal altogether, hardwired inequalities built into the distributions based on the name on the school. Eating what you kill for bowl games is purely rewarding, and if FSU or Clemson or Miami doesn't earn the game, then they get nothing extra.

(02-17-2016 01:33 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The SEC is no better than the 4th "most equal" conference, and no worse than the second strongest.

I'm sorry, you just can't claim that a bowl compensation package like the SEC uses, which is what I'm advocating, is bad for the conference. The inequality you are talking about in the Big 12 and Big East was a different animal altogether, hardwired inequalities built into the distributions based on the name on the school. Eating what you kill for bowl games is purely rewarding, and if FSU or Clemson or Miami doesn't earn the game, then they get nothing extra.

Do you know the definition of the word "outlier?"

And yes, inequality has killed (or almost killed) every conference not named the SEC. I get that you want FSU to have more, but it's not in the best interest of the conference - especially when there are WAY better ways to motivate schools to try harder.

EDIT: Would a "hardwired inequality built into the conference based off a school's name" consist of FSU literally joining a conference because it's an easy walk to a big game and then getting an extra payout each year for making said big game every year (or close to it)? Or is that some other kind of inequality?

(02-17-2016 01:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:14 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that much of it lies with the individual programs. And the ACC is always going to have a lower football ceiling because it has so many schools that simply aren't big time football programs with big time support. That doesn't mean those schools are worthless, or can't be good or better than they are in football, but there's no solution in "if Boston College can just turn into Ole Miss" or something like that. It is what it is.

Despite that, or maybe more to the point, because of that, it's all the more important that the conference does take a stronger role in strengthening it's position. And there is a lot more that can be done than has been/is being done...

1) While I don't expect it to be done publicly, the ACC leadership must privately absolutely own up to doing a poor job maximizing TV revenues in the 2010 contract, and commit to the schools that it will never fall into that trap again. I'm not talking about just the poor timing of the contract, I'm talking about the undeniable fact that the ACC left money on the table for other reasons in the last contract by...

a. Mandating Raycom as a partner. It is indisputable that by forcing an additional middle man into the equation cost the ACC money. There’s somebody else taking a piece of the pie, which reduces the value of the deal for ESPN. The ACC let, at worst nepotism, and at best, “old times sake” get in the way of money
b. Insisting on selling its entire rights package to one party. NO OTHER CONFERENCE HAS DONE THIS. Every single other conference splits it’s rights between 2-3 entities to max revenue. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the ACC was so hell bent on being all in with ESPN.
c. Passing on a network a couple years before wanting/needing a network

The ACC needs to look at member schools (privately) and say something along the lines of “We dropped the ball and got caught with our pants down. We really underestimated where the money was heading in college sports, and let other interests and ‘nice to haves’ get in the way of our number one priority with a network deal, and that is revenue to you. Be aware that going forward, we are focused on maximizing financial return, and we expect you all to be on the same page, whether that ruffles your sense of decorum or not.”

2) The ACC needs to put all its supposed brains together and come up with a sensible philosophy toward OOC scheduling. The conference has set itself up for failure more than any other conference, and the crazy out of conference scheduling has done more to harm this conference’s reputation than anything else. The scheduling into games where you will be double digit underdogs HAS TO END. Scheduling multiple likely losses per year out of conference HAS TO END. Playing road games at G5 schools (with some exceptions) needs to be highly curtailed. Virginia and others must be brought into line on this, and if they can’t, there needs to be punishment. They need to be the ones playing all the Thursday games on four days rest, they need to be eating the brutal road stretches. It really shouldn’t come to that.

3) Not totally unrelated to the previous point, the ACC should allow a partial “eat what you kill” policy toward bowl games. This gets at the unequal distribution issue without saying “FSU and Clemson just get more.” Schools that make the playoffs, make the major bowls, should absolutely reap more than schools who schedule themselves out of a bowl in the OOC. It allows the schools who can play to win close some of the gap with other conferences, and also discourages teams from scheduling stupidly.

4) Conference scheduling needs to be smart…not burning FSU-Clemson in the second week of the season…not sending your prime football schools to Boston in November on four days rest. Not scheduling conference games the week before SEC rivalries while the SEC is playing FCS foes. This has improved greatly in the last few seasons.

5) Get plugged in, stop getting blindsided, and have some vision. For being a supposed “ninja”, this conference gets left standing around with its dong in its hands while other conferences pull off moves. Conference champion ship games. Conference networks. PAC TV deal. Maryland’s exit. Big 12-SEC Sugar Bowl. Championship game deregulation reversal in the last minute. None of those things were up to the individual schools…those were all conference moves. The ACC hasn’t pulled off a proactive, visionary move since 2003 expansion. Instead, they’re constantly trying to make chicken salad out of lemons as other conferences run circles around them.
There’s many more I’m sure, but the ACC as a conference can DEFINITELY do things to better solidify its standing and improve its value.

1.
A. Agreed
B. Who knows?
C. This is just speculation on your part. There's no way of knowing whether a network is a good idea. Will it increase revenue? Yes. Does it make financial sense? Who knows? Networks cost a lot of money and expose conferences to far more uncertain payouts. There could very well be cheaper ways to increase revenues with the same level of risk. Why not pursue those opportunities instead?

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal. The B1G even has a ticket sale tax, where schools like OSU, PSU, and Michigan end up paying extra to schools like Northwestern. That keeps everyone competitive and makes more money for everyone involved.

Really, the ACC needs to tax free riding on the AD level, and payout equally to all the schools that are actively trying. Taxing free riding is just as easy to do, and far more effective.

4. The problem with playing Clemson-FSU late in the year is that someone has to lose. Would you rather have a 1 loss FSU/Clemson team lose early in the year or late?

5. You're 100% right on point #5.

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

I think it's very hard to show any benefits, in engagement or otherwise, as a result of getting your brains beat in. I'm not talking about Clemson-Auburn or UNC-South Carolina here. Those games should happen.

I'm talking about UVA-Oregon, Syracuse-LSU, Duke-Alabama, etc. And even more specifically, it's about loading up games like that along with games like ECU, BYU, ND etc in the same season.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal.

Sorry, you're just wrong here, unless your premise is that the SEC is not one of the strongest conferences.

The SEC does this with bowl revenue (thanks to Hokie Mark's site):

SEC

For bowl games with receipts of $4,000,000 - $5,999,999, the participating team retains $1.475 million (Ole Miss), plus a travel allowance determined by SEC.
For bowl games with receipts of $6 million or more, the participating team receives $2 million (Alabama and Mississippi State), plus a travel allowance determined by the SEC.
If an SEC team makes it to the championship game, it receives another $2.1 million, plus travel allowance.
The remainder of the revenue from these bowls is divided 15 ways – one share for each of the 14 SEC teams and one share for the conference office.
There is a separate distribution method for bowls with lower payouts

How is that weakening the SEC. There are two strongest conferences, and one of them provides just the exact thing I'm proposing.

RE SU-LSU: You're wrong. Ask any SU fan if they wish we hadn't played LSU. Ask them if the lead-up wasn't fun. I get that it didn't help your school, but your theory that it isn't fun for the schools involved is 100% wrong.

RE Strongest conference: I'd argue that the B1G is the strongest conference. In terms of football prestige, it's not far off the SEC (it might actually beat it), in terms of basketball prestige, it's way ahead of the SEC, in terms of money, it's probably ahead of the SEC, and in terms of general academic prestige, it's ahead of the SEC.

The SEC has a better product because it's recruiting is significantly better, but that has nothing to do with revenue sharing.

Look at the least equitable conferences. Historically they've been the Big XII and the BIG EAST. Look how that turned out. Admittedly, the lack of equality may have been the caused by their instability, but it's still not a good omen.

I'm sure SU fans are glad they played LSU, especially because playing them kind of close was the highlight of the season.

That doesn't change the fact that scheduling games like that ON THE REGULAR, plus additional tough games, is NOT the way a program builds. It's been proven again and again and again. Do you think SU and UVA fans enjoyed their seasons, because of the LSU, etc losses, more than Duke, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, etc schools are enjoying their seasons?

Bad programs build to the next level by scheduling winnable games out of conference, not losses out of conference. Of course when a program is pathetic, ADs try to chase the dragon by bringing in a big name to beat their school up to sell some tickets. But that is at the expense of an actually healthy program. Nobody in the last 30 years has elevated their program out of the basement by playing multiple out of conference games as underdogs.

Obviously, the higher a program's level, the higher they can schedule. Nobody thinks Baylor should STILL be playing their OOC schedule.

Lou...don't worry...Cuse is scheduling easier in the future. They are adopting a 3-1 most years. 3-->winnable OOC games, 1-->national game versus a power team. The goal is 7 home games but occasionally 6 home games will happen.

It won't be perfectly followed but that is what I'm told is the basic guide going forward.

(02-17-2016 01:45 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 01:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:14 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's true that much of it lies with the individual programs. And the ACC is always going to have a lower football ceiling because it has so many schools that simply aren't big time football programs with big time support. That doesn't mean those schools are worthless, or can't be good or better than they are in football, but there's no solution in "if Boston College can just turn into Ole Miss" or something like that. It is what it is.

Despite that, or maybe more to the point, because of that, it's all the more important that the conference does take a stronger role in strengthening it's position. And there is a lot more that can be done than has been/is being done...

1) While I don't expect it to be done publicly, the ACC leadership must privately absolutely own up to doing a poor job maximizing TV revenues in the 2010 contract, and commit to the schools that it will never fall into that trap again. I'm not talking about just the poor timing of the contract, I'm talking about the undeniable fact that the ACC left money on the table for other reasons in the last contract by...

a. Mandating Raycom as a partner. It is indisputable that by forcing an additional middle man into the equation cost the ACC money. There’s somebody else taking a piece of the pie, which reduces the value of the deal for ESPN. The ACC let, at worst nepotism, and at best, “old times sake” get in the way of money
b. Insisting on selling its entire rights package to one party. NO OTHER CONFERENCE HAS DONE THIS. Every single other conference splits it’s rights between 2-3 entities to max revenue. There’s never been a clear explanation on why the ACC was so hell bent on being all in with ESPN.
c. Passing on a network a couple years before wanting/needing a network

The ACC needs to look at member schools (privately) and say something along the lines of “We dropped the ball and got caught with our pants down. We really underestimated where the money was heading in college sports, and let other interests and ‘nice to haves’ get in the way of our number one priority with a network deal, and that is revenue to you. Be aware that going forward, we are focused on maximizing financial return, and we expect you all to be on the same page, whether that ruffles your sense of decorum or not.”

2) The ACC needs to put all its supposed brains together and come up with a sensible philosophy toward OOC scheduling. The conference has set itself up for failure more than any other conference, and the crazy out of conference scheduling has done more to harm this conference’s reputation than anything else. The scheduling into games where you will be double digit underdogs HAS TO END. Scheduling multiple likely losses per year out of conference HAS TO END. Playing road games at G5 schools (with some exceptions) needs to be highly curtailed. Virginia and others must be brought into line on this, and if they can’t, there needs to be punishment. They need to be the ones playing all the Thursday games on four days rest, they need to be eating the brutal road stretches. It really shouldn’t come to that.

3) Not totally unrelated to the previous point, the ACC should allow a partial “eat what you kill” policy toward bowl games. This gets at the unequal distribution issue without saying “FSU and Clemson just get more.” Schools that make the playoffs, make the major bowls, should absolutely reap more than schools who schedule themselves out of a bowl in the OOC. It allows the schools who can play to win close some of the gap with other conferences, and also discourages teams from scheduling stupidly.

4) Conference scheduling needs to be smart…not burning FSU-Clemson in the second week of the season…not sending your prime football schools to Boston in November on four days rest. Not scheduling conference games the week before SEC rivalries while the SEC is playing FCS foes. This has improved greatly in the last few seasons.

5) Get plugged in, stop getting blindsided, and have some vision. For being a supposed “ninja”, this conference gets left standing around with its dong in its hands while other conferences pull off moves. Conference champion ship games. Conference networks. PAC TV deal. Maryland’s exit. Big 12-SEC Sugar Bowl. Championship game deregulation reversal in the last minute. None of those things were up to the individual schools…those were all conference moves. The ACC hasn’t pulled off a proactive, visionary move since 2003 expansion. Instead, they’re constantly trying to make chicken salad out of lemons as other conferences run circles around them.
There’s many more I’m sure, but the ACC as a conference can DEFINITELY do things to better solidify its standing and improve its value.

1.
A. Agreed
B. Who knows?
C. This is just speculation on your part. There's no way of knowing whether a network is a good idea. Will it increase revenue? Yes. Does it make financial sense? Who knows? Networks cost a lot of money and expose conferences to far more uncertain payouts. There could very well be cheaper ways to increase revenues with the same level of risk. Why not pursue those opportunities instead?

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal. The B1G even has a ticket sale tax, where schools like OSU, PSU, and Michigan end up paying extra to schools like Northwestern. That keeps everyone competitive and makes more money for everyone involved.

Really, the ACC needs to tax free riding on the AD level, and payout equally to all the schools that are actively trying. Taxing free riding is just as easy to do, and far more effective.

4. The problem with playing Clemson-FSU late in the year is that someone has to lose. Would you rather have a 1 loss FSU/Clemson team lose early in the year or late?

5. You're 100% right on point #5.

2. I tend to agree, but there also needs to be some interest. Hard OOC games have obvious downsides, but they also keep fans engaged. There needs to be a balance.

I think it's very hard to show any benefits, in engagement or otherwise, as a result of getting your brains beat in. I'm not talking about Clemson-Auburn or UNC-South Carolina here. Those games should happen.

I'm talking about UVA-Oregon, Syracuse-LSU, Duke-Alabama, etc. And even more specifically, it's about loading up games like that along with games like ECU, BYU, ND etc in the same season.

3. This is a terrible idea. The strongest conferences tend to be the most equal.

Sorry, you're just wrong here, unless your premise is that the SEC is not one of the strongest conferences.

The SEC does this with bowl revenue (thanks to Hokie Mark's site):

SEC

For bowl games with receipts of $4,000,000 - $5,999,999, the participating team retains $1.475 million (Ole Miss), plus a travel allowance determined by SEC.
For bowl games with receipts of $6 million or more, the participating team receives $2 million (Alabama and Mississippi State), plus a travel allowance determined by the SEC.
If an SEC team makes it to the championship game, it receives another $2.1 million, plus travel allowance.
The remainder of the revenue from these bowls is divided 15 ways – one share for each of the 14 SEC teams and one share for the conference office.
There is a separate distribution method for bowls with lower payouts

How is that weakening the SEC. There are two strongest conferences, and one of them provides just the exact thing I'm proposing.

RE SU-LSU: You're wrong. Ask any SU fan if they wish we hadn't played LSU. Ask them if the lead-up wasn't fun. I get that it didn't help your school, but your theory that it isn't fun for the schools involved is 100% wrong.

RE Strongest conference: I'd argue that the B1G is the strongest conference. In terms of football prestige, it's not far off the SEC (it might actually beat it), in terms of basketball prestige, it's way ahead of the SEC, in terms of money, it's probably ahead of the SEC, and in terms of general academic prestige, it's ahead of the SEC.

The SEC has a better product because it's recruiting is significantly better, but that has nothing to do with revenue sharing.

Look at the least equitable conferences. Historically they've been the Big XII and the BIG EAST. Look how that turned out. Admittedly, the lack of equality may have been the caused by their instability, but it's still not a good omen.

I'm sure SU fans are glad they played LSU, especially because playing them kind of close was the highlight of the season.

That doesn't change the fact that scheduling games like that ON THE REGULAR, plus additional tough games, is NOT the way a program builds. It's been proven again and again and again. Do you think SU and UVA fans enjoyed their seasons, because of the LSU, etc losses, more than Duke, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, etc schools are enjoying their seasons?

Bad programs build to the next level by scheduling winnable games out of conference, not losses out of conference. Of course when a program is pathetic, ADs try to chase the dragon by bringing in a big name to beat their school up to sell some tickets. But that is at the expense of an actually healthy program. Nobody in the last 30 years has elevated their program out of the basement by playing multiple out of conference games as underdogs.

Obviously, the higher a program's level, the higher they can schedule. Nobody thinks Baylor should STILL be playing their OOC schedule.

Syracuse won 4 games this year. Had we played (insert a terrible school here), we probably would have won 5, and our season would have consisted of a 4 game winning streak against WF, directional Michigan, Rhode Island, and (insert terrible school here), and a win against BC. Nobody would have been more excited.

The biggest win in the program's history was in 1984 against a #1 ranked Nebraska team, when a bad SU team shocked the world by beating them in the Dome. Under your plan, that game would have never been played, and there's a chance that SU would not have had the '87-'01 stretch of being really, really good.

I don't completely disagree with your basic point that the ACC has a tendency to over-schedule. You're directionally right. It's one thing to complain about playing PSU and ND in the same season OOC (like SU did a couple of years ago), but you're taking soft scheduling too far. Saying that schools like SU can't schedule any good OOC games (LSU was our only OOC game with a pulse when we scheduled them) would doom everyone in the Atlantic not named FSU, Clemson, and possibly Louisville to being Illinois, Indiana, Vanderbilt, Kansas State (at best), Iowa State, and so on.

(02-17-2016 01:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Lou...don't worry...Cuse is scheduling easier in the future. They are adopting a 3-1 most years. 3-->winnable OOC games, 1-->national game versus a power team. The goal is 7 home games but occasionally 6 home games will happen.

It won't be perfectly followed but that is what I'm told is the basic guide going forward.

I looked at future schedules, and they seem to be taking a more reasonable plan forward. I have to think that was also probably considered to be important when it was going to come to luring a coach as well.