(06-03-2019 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 04:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I would not be surprised if they bow out of SEC football when this contract is up, unless the SEC thinks the exposure for playing on CBS is worth it enough to give them a steep discount.

Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense. The Sports Director for CBS is already in the press saying that CBS wants to get the SEC deal signed early. It is their only dominating time slot for sports broadcasting when it comes to the ratings so I'm sure they want to walk away if they can't get a discount.

At the Spring meeting ways to increase CBS's inventory were being discussed.

Keep up with the schadenfreude though it is entertaining. And there are other very interested parties. Look for the range of a new contract to be in the 275-315 million range per year.

I wasn't discussing what I would do, or what you would do. I was discussing what they did, and at that time they literally said they were not interested in altering their agreement because they could not afford to pay the current market value. And that number has only gone up since then. My hypothesis that they may not renew, unless the SEC gives a discount, was not that the SEC was not worth it, but that they may decide rights fees of five times what they pay now, their past actions show they had decided they could not afford it.

If they change their tune so be it, but at the time, it was most definitely their attitude, and the original comment about it didn't matter who the SEC added they would not have paid more, is correct. I know you get overly protective anytime someone says something you perceive as a slight toward the sEC (see above conversation with Cuserock), but not everything is a slight.

What I get overly reactive to is a lie, the manipulation of events that the board may not remember, and the atrociously overly optimistic spin of all things ACC dating back to my entire time on this board. There's a reason it was tagged the Rainbows and Unicorns crowd. Things are what they are. Tweaking the storyline with a word like "afford" is as dis-ingenious as it gets when it was not part of the discussions back in 2010-1. The only thing CBS stated was that they were getting nothing new out of the additions and didn't see why they should pay more. In the world of quid pro quo business dealings this is a perfectly rational position. What they gave up, was more than we could have expected. They gave up their exclusivity to the 2:30 CTZ slot for the Game of the Week to permit the SECN to air a T3 game. That was a gesture of good will.

No major business ever uses the words "can't afford". It is the kiss of death on stock sales. Even if they can't afford it they never state it.

Now what CBS may or may not do this time around or how flush or not they may be, they nevertheless are in the industry and they are quite aware of the costs of programming. If they want to remain the top Saturday time slot for Fall Sports then the inflation of programming that has occurred in the past 11 to 12 years will have to be factored in and a bonus for the product that produces the top time slot is also an industry standard.

If CBS doesn't want it FOX has been chomping at the bit to gain a Southeastern audience and ABC is waiting in the wings. So the SEC wouldn't be worrying about losing the time slot, or the exclusivity of a national platform.

That's why I called it schadenfreude and that was giving the benefit of the doubt over intentional prevarication.

Instead of trashing ACC fans you should look at what they have endured on this board since you have been here. I believe you were here long enough to remember when all the Naysayers were promoting the demise of the ACC, when Maryland left. ACC fans were "overly optimistic" that the league would stay together. The ACC stayed together.

Then when other conferences signed GOR's the board was talking about the ACC not being able to sign a GOR because everyone was looking to leave. Then suddenly it was announced that the ACC schools signed a long term GOR.

Then, when it was announced that ESPN was exploring starting up an ACCN, we heard for 3 years that ESPN would never do a network for the ACC because it wouldnt make any money. Then we heard it was taking so long because ESPN is stringing the ACC along. All the while most normal ACC fans were "overly optimistic" when they were saying that it was coming and that it was taking so long because of buying back tv inventory that was already sold. ACC fans were accused then of spinning the so-called facts..

Now its June 4th and the network is set to debut next month and now all the naysayers are saying that it cant possibly be as profitable as the SECN or BIGN, and that its going to fail. Well excuse us if we dont buy that narrative. ALL of the naysayers have been dead wrong before, so I dont understand why folks think that their theories are infallible. Or why folks get so upset when others dont except their theories when they have been so wrong before.

I know you asked esayman, but just wanted to add..

(06-04-2019 09:38 AM)cubucks Wrote:  Is it true that Notre Dame can jump a full member of the ACC in the pecking order of bowl games? Even if the full member has a better record?


Not any more than one full member can jump another. There are tiers based on record that teams fall in, and that tier of bowl has a sort of order in which they can choose, and can only go up or down one win to pick a team. ND has limits on when bowls can choose them.

Is it true Notre Dame does not have to share any money they make when and if they make the CFP?

To my recollection, ND doesn't share in the ACC bowl payouts either. That really has no affect.

The only true affect they have is if they take a higher bowl they keep the money as opposed to pooling it. But as ND alone added $2 million per team to the TV contract per team ($28 million) that is well worth the tradeoff.

You are ok with a partial member getting a better deal than full members when it comes to bowl games?

There's isn't really better, aside from like any other blue blood, they are more appealing to bowls. That said, having ND as an option also improved the ACC's selection of bowls. Again, it evens out at the minimum.

(06-04-2019 09:38 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 05:34 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Lots of folks pointing to the Big Ten's high media payouts as grounds for expansion being successful. I wager that they'd be even higher had they snagged some bigger fish.

You wanted Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse and Boston College in your original post, correct?

I'll take Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska every day of the week over that.

The ACC sold their soul to the devil for 5 games as far as I'm concerned.

I typically like your posts, Fighting Muskie ,but, this is just arrogant on your part. Simply my opinion that I'm throwing out there.

For what it's worth, Nebraska is the greatest of fits of anything that was possible. I am thrilled they are in this conference.

Is there another conference you would like to see Ohio State in? I know I'm happy where they are.

Really? What exactly is the ACC losing here? The ACC added an excellent university with great Olympic sports and a national following. Toss in five guaranteed football games a year with one of the most storied programs ever. For what? Access to a few bowl games? Hardly the devil’s work here, and we don’t need to get into the sins of the Big Ten universities administrations.

Overwhelming amount of Big Ten fans on Notre Dame: “they need to join a conference.”

Big Ten fans: feelings hurt ND passes them over.

Appreciate your opinions, esayem!

Is it true that Notre Dame can jump a full member of the ACC in the pecking order of bowl games? Even if the full member has a better record?

Is it true Notre Dame does not have to share any money they make when and if they make the CFP?

You are ok with a partial member getting a better deal than full members when it comes to bowl games?

This is not a Big 10 fans are hurt deal! That's a common argument that I just laugh at. I was just making my original comment based on the crappy deal full time members got for 5 games. Maybe I'm missing something in the deal? And I'll eat my words.

And if you want to bring up the scandals at Penn State, MSU and Ohio State, go right ahead. You all already ran two threads on this recently.

Look around and I'm sure you'll see plenty of full member ACC schools who hate the deal.

Stories like these are a dime a dozen on the internet.

https://chopchat.com/2016/05/14/notre-da...re-league/

I can write a blog too! That is the state of internet “journalism”.

If Notre Dame joins a conference for football, it will be the ACC. That security helped solidify the conference. With Notre Dame away games appearing on the ACC network, that helps the conference. They are a legit top tier brand and they draw viewers even when they’re subpar.

If the get selected for the Camping World RV Bowl over UNC because the RV Bowl wanted them more, that’s fine, that is the way ALL bowl games should be constructed minus the few traditional games. I am of the opinion that contract bowl games for conferences waters down the bowl season anyway.

I love having Notre Dame locked-in, it solidifies the conference. I think they should play Pitt and Louisville twice a year in hoops, but I don’t make those decisions.

(06-04-2019 10:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 04:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I would not be surprised if they bow out of SEC football when this contract is up, unless the SEC thinks the exposure for playing on CBS is worth it enough to give them a steep discount.

Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense. The Sports Director for CBS is already in the press saying that CBS wants to get the SEC deal signed early. It is their only dominating time slot for sports broadcasting when it comes to the ratings so I'm sure they want to walk away if they can't get a discount.

At the Spring meeting ways to increase CBS's inventory were being discussed.

Keep up with the schadenfreude though it is entertaining. And there are other very interested parties. Look for the range of a new contract to be in the 275-315 million range per year.

I wasn't discussing what I would do, or what you would do. I was discussing what they did, and at that time they literally said they were not interested in altering their agreement because they could not afford to pay the current market value. And that number has only gone up since then. My hypothesis that they may not renew, unless the SEC gives a discount, was not that the SEC was not worth it, but that they may decide rights fees of five times what they pay now, their past actions show they had decided they could not afford it.

If they change their tune so be it, but at the time, it was most definitely their attitude, and the original comment about it didn't matter who the SEC added they would not have paid more, is correct. I know you get overly protective anytime someone says something you perceive as a slight toward the sEC (see above conversation with Cuserock), but not everything is a slight.

What I get overly reactive to is a lie, the manipulation of events that the board may not remember, and the atrociously overly optimistic spin of all things ACC dating back to my entire time on this board. There's a reason it was tagged the Rainbows and Unicorns crowd. Things are what they are. Tweaking the storyline with a word like "afford" is as dis-ingenious as it gets when it was not part of the discussions back in 2010-1. The only thing CBS stated was that they were getting nothing new out of the additions and didn't see why they should pay more. In the world of quid pro quo business dealings this is a perfectly rational position. What they gave up, was more than we could have expected. They gave up their exclusivity to the 2:30 CTZ slot for the Game of the Week to permit the SECN to air a T3 game. That was a gesture of good will.

No major business ever uses the words "can't afford". It is the kiss of death on stock sales. Even if they can't afford it they never state it.

Now what CBS may or may not do this time around or how flush or not they may be, they nevertheless are in the industry and they are quite aware of the costs of programming. If they want to remain the top Saturday time slot for Fall Sports then the inflation of programming that has occurred in the past 11 to 12 years will have to be factored in and a bonus for the product that produces the top time slot is also an industry standard.

If CBS doesn't want it FOX has been chomping at the bit to gain a Southeastern audience and ABC is waiting in the wings. So the SEC wouldn't be worrying about losing the time slot, or the exclusivity of a national platform.

That's why I called it schadenfreude and that was giving the benefit of the doubt over intentional prevarication.

Instead of trashing ACC fans you should look at what they have endured on this board since you have been here. I believe you were here long enough to remember when all the Naysayers were promoting the demise of the ACC, when Maryland left. ACC fans were "overly optimistic" that the league would stay together. The ACC stayed together.

Then when other conferences signed GOR's the board was talking about the ACC not being able to sign a GOR because everyone was looking to leave. Then suddenly it was announced that the ACC schools signed a long term GOR.

Then, when it was announced that ESPN was exploring starting up an ACCN, we heard for 3 years that ESPN would never do a network for the ACC because it wouldnt make any money. Then we heard it was taking so long because ESPN is stringing the ACC along. All the while most normal ACC fans were "overly optimistic" when they were saying that it was coming and that it was taking so long because of buying back tv inventory that was already sold. ACC fans were accused then of spinning the so-called facts..

Now its June 4th and the network is set to debut next month and now all the naysayers are saying that it cant possibly be as profitable as the SECN or BIGN, and that its going to fail. Well excuse us if we dont buy that narrative. ALL of the naysayers have been dead wrong before, so I dont understand why folks think that their theories are infallible. Or why folks get so upset when others dont except their theories when they have been so wrong before.

We'll see. But you have been no more embattled in that regard than the Old Big East was, or the Big 12, and now the PAC shares that skepticism. It is what it is. And in spite of it all nothing has changed with the status quo except this year the ACC managed to payout the same amount as the PAC, 29.5 million per school which did change 1 statistic, you were no longer solely in 5th place on media revenue.

So I'd say there have been 7 years worth of squawking about your possible demise, and that of the Big 12's, and 7 years worth of wonderful pie in the sky claims by the ACC posters predicting significant gains and constant claims of stability by Big 12 posters, and constant claims of SEC and Big 10 posters to the contrary and absolutely nothing has changed substantively.

During that time frame the SEC caught and passed the Big 10 in media revenue and the Big 10 has caught an passed the SEC in media revenue. Everyone else has stayed the same until the ACC caught but did not pass the PAC this past year.

Why has this been the case? Because 7 years is nothing in the lifespan of a conference or business. The contracts that locked it all in place have not changed with the exception of the major leap forward FOX gave the Big 10.

Well we are now entering a major contract period where the Big 12, PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all have major new contracts forthcoming. There is one conference that is absent from that lineup because all 3 tiers of revenue are tied up with one network until 2037 and that's problematic for the ACC. Does it mean catastrophe? No. I think many of us, self included, have acknowledged for some time now that you are stable. But the other of the P4 will all be getting new main contracts for T1 programming and historically T3 product simply doesn't have the yield, even when in a conference network. And the dynamics of T3 conference networks aren't going to magically work any differently for the ACC than they do for the PAC, B1G, or SEC. It will still be a matter of subscriptions x advertising rates which determine your revenue.

To say you'll make within 4 or 5 years what the Big 10 and SEC makes is not being a naysayer. But to say that you are going to double those is without question pie in sky thinking.

As to whether there are substantive changes in the P5 by 2025 remains to be seen. There could be massive change, or no change. It depends on the long term projections for Texas and Oklahoma relative to the top line schools in the Big 10 and SEC and whether the increases they could make in either are worth it to them. But if either or both move to either or both of the top two conferences the revenue gap will jump and the pieces of the realignment puzzle that could alter the standings in that new world simply aren't there. Notre Dame going all in would help the ACC. But if Texas and Oklahoma move there will be no catch up moves to be had.

From there the formation of leagues becomes a realistic possibility.

Now the argument against that is that the acquired leverage would not be in the networks interests so they might discourage that movement, or might simply do another special deal with Texas and Oklahoma to cement status quo. But cementing status quo means little likelihood for any conference to change their relative position to others.

But on the flip side of that argument it has been pointed out that simply moving Texas and Oklahoma to either of the Big 10 or SEC multiplies their content value enough to make those moves profitable for networks, especially if the remaining 8 schools wind up in a conference getting paid less than the Big 12.

So by 2025 we might very well be looking at a whole new landscape in college football and if so then from there we will be postulating new perspectives for what will happen next. Some of you will get to see what happens from there. Some of us likely won't. Because the new stressors will take 10 to 20 years to create more change.

It took 20 years for the SEC to move to 14 from 12. These changes happen at glacial speed with a sudden shock at the time of movement. So my point Cuseroc is that we are where we were at the end of 2012 and very little has changed in the pecking order of the P5. If the pressure that was added 7 years ago to the pressure that started building when the SWC disbanded leads to an Oklahoma and / or Texas move then the pressure on the PAC and the ACC will be ratcheted up and that pressure is really pressure on the SEC and Big 10 because if we wind up being the significant leaders in revenue then our conferences are going to change too whether we like it or not.

The problem with this board for the whole 7 years I've been here is that posters blame other conferences for the movement. That's absurd. None of these conferences would have changed had it not been for the changing dynamics within broadcasting and the revenue involved. But change is going to continue to come our way whether we like it or not and it is not being instigated by the Big 10 or SEC. We're just trying to hang onto our positions the same as you.

It is the corporations that are changing the landscape, and will continue to do so. They have the money and we take more of it to do what they want. We can't add a single school unless they pay for it.

The problem for the ACC is they sold out cheaply and completely and for a long duration to ESPN and now ESPN's landscape is being shaped by market and innovative forces. So it is not absurd on anyone's part to note that if the ACCN does pay out at Big 10 and SEC levels that between now and 2037 the SEC, Big 10, and maybe the key schools in the Big 12 will likely all make an additional 8 million or more due to contract renewals and if that happens then no ground will have been made up by the ACC prior to contract renewal in 2037. It is what it is.

I have profound reservations that by 2040 any of us would recognize the future landscape of college sports including whether conferences will even exist in any of the present configurations they are in.

And for the record I don't trash ACC fans, just ridiculous or false claims.

(06-04-2019 11:12 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 09:38 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 05:34 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Lots of folks pointing to the Big Ten's high media payouts as grounds for expansion being successful. I wager that they'd be even higher had they snagged some bigger fish.

You wanted Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse and Boston College in your original post, correct?

I'll take Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska every day of the week over that.

The ACC sold their soul to the devil for 5 games as far as I'm concerned.

I typically like your posts, Fighting Muskie ,but, this is just arrogant on your part. Simply my opinion that I'm throwing out there.

For what it's worth, Nebraska is the greatest of fits of anything that was possible. I am thrilled they are in this conference.

Is there another conference you would like to see Ohio State in? I know I'm happy where they are.

Really? What exactly is the ACC losing here? The ACC added an excellent university with great Olympic sports and a national following. Toss in five guaranteed football games a year with one of the most storied programs ever. For what? Access to a few bowl games? Hardly the devil’s work here, and we don’t need to get into the sins of the Big Ten universities administrations.

Overwhelming amount of Big Ten fans on Notre Dame: “they need to join a conference.”

Big Ten fans: feelings hurt ND passes them over.

Appreciate your opinions, esayem!

Is it true that Notre Dame can jump a full member of the ACC in the pecking order of bowl games? Even if the full member has a better record?

Is it true Notre Dame does not have to share any money they make when and if they make the CFP?

You are ok with a partial member getting a better deal than full members when it comes to bowl games?

This is not a Big 10 fans are hurt deal! That's a common argument that I just laugh at. I was just making my original comment based on the crappy deal full time members got for 5 games. Maybe I'm missing something in the deal? And I'll eat my words.

And if you want to bring up the scandals at Penn State, MSU and Ohio State, go right ahead. You all already ran two threads on this recently.

Look around and I'm sure you'll see plenty of full member ACC schools who hate the deal.

Stories like these are a dime a dozen on the internet.

https://chopchat.com/2016/05/14/notre-da...re-league/

I can write a blog too! That is the state of internet “journalism”.

If Notre Dame joins a conference for football, it will be the ACC. That security helped solidify the conference. With Notre Dame away games appearing on the ACC network, that helps the conference. They are a legit top tier brand and they draw viewers even when they’re subpar.

If the get selected for the Camping World RV Bowl over UNC because the RV Bowl wanted them more, that’s fine, that is the way ALL bowl games should be constructed minus the few traditional games. I am of the opinion that contract bowl games for conferences waters down the bowl season anyway.

I love having Notre Dame locked-in, it solidifies the conference. I think they should play Pitt and Louisville twice a year in hoops, but I don’t make those decisions.

I'll just eat my words and apologize to both, teams of the ACC and Notre Dame.

It's really none of my business and I should have never mentioned it.

I don't represent the BIG conference when I speak. Comments towards me and the Big 10 conference as a whole go in one ear and out the other.

I do my best to never post false claims on here and if I did, I apologize!

Take care!

ACC! NOTRE DAME!

(06-04-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 10:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense. The Sports Director for CBS is already in the press saying that CBS wants to get the SEC deal signed early. It is their only dominating time slot for sports broadcasting when it comes to the ratings so I'm sure they want to walk away if they can't get a discount.

At the Spring meeting ways to increase CBS's inventory were being discussed.

Keep up with the schadenfreude though it is entertaining. And there are other very interested parties. Look for the range of a new contract to be in the 275-315 million range per year.

I wasn't discussing what I would do, or what you would do. I was discussing what they did, and at that time they literally said they were not interested in altering their agreement because they could not afford to pay the current market value. And that number has only gone up since then. My hypothesis that they may not renew, unless the SEC gives a discount, was not that the SEC was not worth it, but that they may decide rights fees of five times what they pay now, their past actions show they had decided they could not afford it.

If they change their tune so be it, but at the time, it was most definitely their attitude, and the original comment about it didn't matter who the SEC added they would not have paid more, is correct. I know you get overly protective anytime someone says something you perceive as a slight toward the sEC (see above conversation with Cuserock), but not everything is a slight.

What I get overly reactive to is a lie, the manipulation of events that the board may not remember, and the atrociously overly optimistic spin of all things ACC dating back to my entire time on this board. There's a reason it was tagged the Rainbows and Unicorns crowd. Things are what they are. Tweaking the storyline with a word like "afford" is as dis-ingenious as it gets when it was not part of the discussions back in 2010-1. The only thing CBS stated was that they were getting nothing new out of the additions and didn't see why they should pay more. In the world of quid pro quo business dealings this is a perfectly rational position. What they gave up, was more than we could have expected. They gave up their exclusivity to the 2:30 CTZ slot for the Game of the Week to permit the SECN to air a T3 game. That was a gesture of good will.

No major business ever uses the words "can't afford". It is the kiss of death on stock sales. Even if they can't afford it they never state it.

Now what CBS may or may not do this time around or how flush or not they may be, they nevertheless are in the industry and they are quite aware of the costs of programming. If they want to remain the top Saturday time slot for Fall Sports then the inflation of programming that has occurred in the past 11 to 12 years will have to be factored in and a bonus for the product that produces the top time slot is also an industry standard.

If CBS doesn't want it FOX has been chomping at the bit to gain a Southeastern audience and ABC is waiting in the wings. So the SEC wouldn't be worrying about losing the time slot, or the exclusivity of a national platform.

That's why I called it schadenfreude and that was giving the benefit of the doubt over intentional prevarication.

Instead of trashing ACC fans you should look at what they have endured on this board since you have been here. I believe you were here long enough to remember when all the Naysayers were promoting the demise of the ACC, when Maryland left. ACC fans were "overly optimistic" that the league would stay together. The ACC stayed together.

Then when other conferences signed GOR's the board was talking about the ACC not being able to sign a GOR because everyone was looking to leave. Then suddenly it was announced that the ACC schools signed a long term GOR.

Then, when it was announced that ESPN was exploring starting up an ACCN, we heard for 3 years that ESPN would never do a network for the ACC because it wouldnt make any money. Then we heard it was taking so long because ESPN is stringing the ACC along. All the while most normal ACC fans were "overly optimistic" when they were saying that it was coming and that it was taking so long because of buying back tv inventory that was already sold. ACC fans were accused then of spinning the so-called facts..

Now its June 4th and the network is set to debut next month and now all the naysayers are saying that it cant possibly be as profitable as the SECN or BIGN, and that its going to fail. Well excuse us if we dont buy that narrative. ALL of the naysayers have been dead wrong before, so I dont understand why folks think that their theories are infallible. Or why folks get so upset when others dont except their theories when they have been so wrong before.

We'll see. But you have been no more embattled in that regard than the Old Big East was, or the Big 12, and now the PAC shares that skepticism. It is what it is. And in spite of it all nothing has changed with the status quo except this year the ACC managed to payout the same amount as the PAC, 29.5 million per school which did change 1 statistic, you were no longer solely in 5th place on media revenue.

So I'd say there have been 7 years worth of squawking about your possible demise, and that of the Big 12's, and 7 years worth of wonderful pie in the sky claims by the ACC posters predicting significant gains and constant claims of stability by Big 12 posters, and constant claims of SEC and Big 10 posters to the contrary and absolutely nothing has changed substantively.

During that time frame the SEC caught and passed the Big 10 in media revenue and the Big 10 has caught an passed the SEC in media revenue. Everyone else has stayed the same until the ACC caught but did not pass the PAC this past year.

Why has this been the case? Because 7 years is nothing in the lifespan of a conference or business. The contracts that locked it all in place have not changed with the exception of the major leap forward FOX gave the Big 10.

Well we are now entering a major contract period where the Big 12, PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all have major new contracts forthcoming. There is one conference that is absent from that lineup because all 3 tiers of revenue are tied up with one network until 2037 and that's problematic for the ACC. Does it mean catastrophe? No. I think many of us, self included, have acknowledged for some time now that you are stable. But the other of the P4 will all be getting new main contracts for T1 programming and historically T3 product simply doesn't have the yield, even when in a conference network. And the dynamics of T3 conference networks aren't going to magically work any differently for the ACC than they do for the PAC, B1G, or SEC. It will still be a matter of subscriptions x advertising rates which determine your revenue.

To say you'll make within 4 or 5 years what the Big 10 and SEC makes is not being a naysayer. But to say that you are going to double those is without question pie in sky thinking.

As to whether there are substantive changes in the P5 by 2025 remains to be seen. There could be massive change, or no change. It depends on the long term projections for Texas and Oklahoma relative to the top line schools in the Big 10 and SEC and whether the increases they could make in either are worth it to them. But if either or both move to either or both of the top two conferences the revenue gap will jump and the pieces of the realignment puzzle that could alter the standings in that new world simply aren't there. Notre Dame going all in would help the ACC. But if Texas and Oklahoma move there will be no catch up moves to be had.

From there the formation of leagues becomes a realistic possibility.

Now the argument against that is that the acquired leverage would not be in the networks interests so they might discourage that movement, or might simply do another special deal with Texas and Oklahoma to cement status quo. But cementing status quo means little likelihood for any conference to change their relative position to others.

But on the flip side of that argument it has been pointed out that simply moving Texas and Oklahoma to either of the Big 10 or SEC multiplies their content value enough to make those moves profitable for networks, especially if the remaining 8 schools wind up in a conference getting paid less than the Big 12.

So by 2025 we might very well be looking at a whole new landscape in college football and if so then from there we will be postulating new perspectives for what will happen next. Some of you will get to see what happens from there. Some of us likely won't. Because the new stressors will take 10 to 20 years to create more change.

It took 20 years for the SEC to move to 14 from 12. These changes happen at glacial speed with a sudden shock at the time of movement. So my point Cuseroc is that we are where we were at the end of 2012 and very little has changed in the pecking order of the P5. If the pressure that was added 7 years ago to the pressure that started building when the SWC disbanded leads to an Oklahoma and / or Texas move then the pressure on the PAC and the ACC will be ratcheted up and that pressure is really pressure on the SEC and Big 10 because if we wind up being the significant leaders in revenue then our conferences are going to change too whether we like it or not.

The problem with this board for the whole 7 years I've been here is that posters blame other conferences for the movement. That's absurd. None of these conferences would have changed had it not been for the changing dynamics within broadcasting and the revenue involved. But change is going to continue to come our way whether we like it or not and it is not being instigated by the Big 10 or SEC. We're just trying to hang onto our positions the same as you.

It is the corporations that are changing the landscape, and will continue to do so. They have the money and we take more of it to do what they want. We can't add a single school unless they pay for it.

The problem for the ACC is they sold out cheaply and completely and for a long duration to ESPN and now ESPN's landscape is being shaped by market and innovative forces. So it is not absurd on anyone's part to note that if the ACCN does pay out at Big 10 and SEC levels that between now and 2037 the SEC, Big 10, and maybe the key schools in the Big 12 will likely all make an additional 8 million or more due to contract renewals and if that happens then no ground will have been made up by the ACC prior to contract renewal in 2037. It is what it is.

I have profound reservations that by 2040 any of us would recognize the future landscape of college sports including whether conferences will even exist in any of the present configurations they are in.

And for the record I don't trash ACC fans, just ridiculous or false claims.

I agree with this, except I would say that what ACC fans endured was far worse after Maryland left. You had witers/bloggers making up stuff about ACC schools leaving and even sharing what we thought, at the time, were intimate details about negotiations behind the scenes. All this to make a name for themselves and trying to destabilize the ACC because their school was rejected by the ACC. Nothing on that level has happened to the B12 or Pac12.

(06-04-2019 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 10:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I wasn't discussing what I would do, or what you would do. I was discussing what they did, and at that time they literally said they were not interested in altering their agreement because they could not afford to pay the current market value. And that number has only gone up since then. My hypothesis that they may not renew, unless the SEC gives a discount, was not that the SEC was not worth it, but that they may decide rights fees of five times what they pay now, their past actions show they had decided they could not afford it.

If they change their tune so be it, but at the time, it was most definitely their attitude, and the original comment about it didn't matter who the SEC added they would not have paid more, is correct. I know you get overly protective anytime someone says something you perceive as a slight toward the sEC (see above conversation with Cuserock), but not everything is a slight.

What I get overly reactive to is a lie, the manipulation of events that the board may not remember, and the atrociously overly optimistic spin of all things ACC dating back to my entire time on this board. There's a reason it was tagged the Rainbows and Unicorns crowd. Things are what they are. Tweaking the storyline with a word like "afford" is as dis-ingenious as it gets when it was not part of the discussions back in 2010-1. The only thing CBS stated was that they were getting nothing new out of the additions and didn't see why they should pay more. In the world of quid pro quo business dealings this is a perfectly rational position. What they gave up, was more than we could have expected. They gave up their exclusivity to the 2:30 CTZ slot for the Game of the Week to permit the SECN to air a T3 game. That was a gesture of good will.

No major business ever uses the words "can't afford". It is the kiss of death on stock sales. Even if they can't afford it they never state it.

Now what CBS may or may not do this time around or how flush or not they may be, they nevertheless are in the industry and they are quite aware of the costs of programming. If they want to remain the top Saturday time slot for Fall Sports then the inflation of programming that has occurred in the past 11 to 12 years will have to be factored in and a bonus for the product that produces the top time slot is also an industry standard.

If CBS doesn't want it FOX has been chomping at the bit to gain a Southeastern audience and ABC is waiting in the wings. So the SEC wouldn't be worrying about losing the time slot, or the exclusivity of a national platform.

That's why I called it schadenfreude and that was giving the benefit of the doubt over intentional prevarication.

Instead of trashing ACC fans you should look at what they have endured on this board since you have been here. I believe you were here long enough to remember when all the Naysayers were promoting the demise of the ACC, when Maryland left. ACC fans were "overly optimistic" that the league would stay together. The ACC stayed together.

Then when other conferences signed GOR's the board was talking about the ACC not being able to sign a GOR because everyone was looking to leave. Then suddenly it was announced that the ACC schools signed a long term GOR.

Then, when it was announced that ESPN was exploring starting up an ACCN, we heard for 3 years that ESPN would never do a network for the ACC because it wouldnt make any money. Then we heard it was taking so long because ESPN is stringing the ACC along. All the while most normal ACC fans were "overly optimistic" when they were saying that it was coming and that it was taking so long because of buying back tv inventory that was already sold. ACC fans were accused then of spinning the so-called facts..

Now its June 4th and the network is set to debut next month and now all the naysayers are saying that it cant possibly be as profitable as the SECN or BIGN, and that its going to fail. Well excuse us if we dont buy that narrative. ALL of the naysayers have been dead wrong before, so I dont understand why folks think that their theories are infallible. Or why folks get so upset when others dont except their theories when they have been so wrong before.

We'll see. But you have been no more embattled in that regard than the Old Big East was, or the Big 12, and now the PAC shares that skepticism. It is what it is. And in spite of it all nothing has changed with the status quo except this year the ACC managed to payout the same amount as the PAC, 29.5 million per school which did change 1 statistic, you were no longer solely in 5th place on media revenue.

So I'd say there have been 7 years worth of squawking about your possible demise, and that of the Big 12's, and 7 years worth of wonderful pie in the sky claims by the ACC posters predicting significant gains and constant claims of stability by Big 12 posters, and constant claims of SEC and Big 10 posters to the contrary and absolutely nothing has changed substantively.

During that time frame the SEC caught and passed the Big 10 in media revenue and the Big 10 has caught an passed the SEC in media revenue. Everyone else has stayed the same until the ACC caught but did not pass the PAC this past year.

Why has this been the case? Because 7 years is nothing in the lifespan of a conference or business. The contracts that locked it all in place have not changed with the exception of the major leap forward FOX gave the Big 10.

Well we are now entering a major contract period where the Big 12, PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all have major new contracts forthcoming. There is one conference that is absent from that lineup because all 3 tiers of revenue are tied up with one network until 2037 and that's problematic for the ACC. Does it mean catastrophe? No. I think many of us, self included, have acknowledged for some time now that you are stable. But the other of the P4 will all be getting new main contracts for T1 programming and historically T3 product simply doesn't have the yield, even when in a conference network. And the dynamics of T3 conference networks aren't going to magically work any differently for the ACC than they do for the PAC, B1G, or SEC. It will still be a matter of subscriptions x advertising rates which determine your revenue.

To say you'll make within 4 or 5 years what the Big 10 and SEC makes is not being a naysayer. But to say that you are going to double those is without question pie in sky thinking.

As to whether there are substantive changes in the P5 by 2025 remains to be seen. There could be massive change, or no change. It depends on the long term projections for Texas and Oklahoma relative to the top line schools in the Big 10 and SEC and whether the increases they could make in either are worth it to them. But if either or both move to either or both of the top two conferences the revenue gap will jump and the pieces of the realignment puzzle that could alter the standings in that new world simply aren't there. Notre Dame going all in would help the ACC. But if Texas and Oklahoma move there will be no catch up moves to be had.

From there the formation of leagues becomes a realistic possibility.

Now the argument against that is that the acquired leverage would not be in the networks interests so they might discourage that movement, or might simply do another special deal with Texas and Oklahoma to cement status quo. But cementing status quo means little likelihood for any conference to change their relative position to others.

But on the flip side of that argument it has been pointed out that simply moving Texas and Oklahoma to either of the Big 10 or SEC multiplies their content value enough to make those moves profitable for networks, especially if the remaining 8 schools wind up in a conference getting paid less than the Big 12.

So by 2025 we might very well be looking at a whole new landscape in college football and if so then from there we will be postulating new perspectives for what will happen next. Some of you will get to see what happens from there. Some of us likely won't. Because the new stressors will take 10 to 20 years to create more change.

It took 20 years for the SEC to move to 14 from 12. These changes happen at glacial speed with a sudden shock at the time of movement. So my point Cuseroc is that we are where we were at the end of 2012 and very little has changed in the pecking order of the P5. If the pressure that was added 7 years ago to the pressure that started building when the SWC disbanded leads to an Oklahoma and / or Texas move then the pressure on the PAC and the ACC will be ratcheted up and that pressure is really pressure on the SEC and Big 10 because if we wind up being the significant leaders in revenue then our conferences are going to change too whether we like it or not.

The problem with this board for the whole 7 years I've been here is that posters blame other conferences for the movement. That's absurd. None of these conferences would have changed had it not been for the changing dynamics within broadcasting and the revenue involved. But change is going to continue to come our way whether we like it or not and it is not being instigated by the Big 10 or SEC. We're just trying to hang onto our positions the same as you.

It is the corporations that are changing the landscape, and will continue to do so. They have the money and we take more of it to do what they want. We can't add a single school unless they pay for it.

The problem for the ACC is they sold out cheaply and completely and for a long duration to ESPN and now ESPN's landscape is being shaped by market and innovative forces. So it is not absurd on anyone's part to note that if the ACCN does pay out at Big 10 and SEC levels that between now and 2037 the SEC, Big 10, and maybe the key schools in the Big 12 will likely all make an additional 8 million or more due to contract renewals and if that happens then no ground will have been made up by the ACC prior to contract renewal in 2037. It is what it is.

I have profound reservations that by 2040 any of us would recognize the future landscape of college sports including whether conferences will even exist in any of the present configurations they are in.

And for the record I don't trash ACC fans, just ridiculous or false claims.

I agree with this, except I would say that what ACC fans endured was far worse after Maryland left. You had witers/bloggers making up stuff about ACC schools leaving and even sharing what we thought, at the time, were intimate details about negotiations behind the scenes. All this to make a name for themselves and trying to destabilize the ACC because their school was rejected by the ACC. Nothing on that level has happened to the B12 or Pac12.

I bet fans of Big 12 and Pac-12 teams who read this board might feel differently than you do. For example, I remember back when about half the threads on this board consisted of fans of non-power teams gleefully predicting that the Big 12 would fall apart and most of its members would have to beg for invitations to the MWC or CUSA.

(06-04-2019 11:38 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:12 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 09:38 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 05:34 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  You wanted Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse and Boston College in your original post, correct?

I'll take Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska every day of the week over that.

The ACC sold their soul to the devil for 5 games as far as I'm concerned.

I typically like your posts, Fighting Muskie ,but, this is just arrogant on your part. Simply my opinion that I'm throwing out there.

For what it's worth, Nebraska is the greatest of fits of anything that was possible. I am thrilled they are in this conference.

Is there another conference you would like to see Ohio State in? I know I'm happy where they are.

Really? What exactly is the ACC losing here? The ACC added an excellent university with great Olympic sports and a national following. Toss in five guaranteed football games a year with one of the most storied programs ever. For what? Access to a few bowl games? Hardly the devil’s work here, and we don’t need to get into the sins of the Big Ten universities administrations.

Overwhelming amount of Big Ten fans on Notre Dame: “they need to join a conference.”

Big Ten fans: feelings hurt ND passes them over.

Appreciate your opinions, esayem!

Is it true that Notre Dame can jump a full member of the ACC in the pecking order of bowl games? Even if the full member has a better record?

Is it true Notre Dame does not have to share any money they make when and if they make the CFP?

You are ok with a partial member getting a better deal than full members when it comes to bowl games?

This is not a Big 10 fans are hurt deal! That's a common argument that I just laugh at. I was just making my original comment based on the crappy deal full time members got for 5 games. Maybe I'm missing something in the deal? And I'll eat my words.

And if you want to bring up the scandals at Penn State, MSU and Ohio State, go right ahead. You all already ran two threads on this recently.

Look around and I'm sure you'll see plenty of full member ACC schools who hate the deal.

Stories like these are a dime a dozen on the internet.

https://chopchat.com/2016/05/14/notre-da...re-league/

I can write a blog too! That is the state of internet “journalism”.

If Notre Dame joins a conference for football, it will be the ACC. That security helped solidify the conference. With Notre Dame away games appearing on the ACC network, that helps the conference. They are a legit top tier brand and they draw viewers even when they’re subpar.

If the get selected for the Camping World RV Bowl over UNC because the RV Bowl wanted them more, that’s fine, that is the way ALL bowl games should be constructed minus the few traditional games. I am of the opinion that contract bowl games for conferences waters down the bowl season anyway.

I love having Notre Dame locked-in, it solidifies the conference. I think they should play Pitt and Louisville twice a year in hoops, but I don’t make those decisions.

I'll just eat my words and apologize to both, teams of the ACC and Notre Dame.

It's really none of my business and I should have never mentioned it.

I don't represent the BIG conference when I speak. Comments towards me and the Big 10 conference as a whole go in one ear and out the other.

I do my best to never post false claims on here and if I did, I apologize!

Take care!

ACC! NOTRE DAME!

Good Post!

(06-04-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 10:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What I get overly reactive to is a lie, the manipulation of events that the board may not remember, and the atrociously overly optimistic spin of all things ACC dating back to my entire time on this board. There's a reason it was tagged the Rainbows and Unicorns crowd. Things are what they are. Tweaking the storyline with a word like "afford" is as dis-ingenious as it gets when it was not part of the discussions back in 2010-1. The only thing CBS stated was that they were getting nothing new out of the additions and didn't see why they should pay more. In the world of quid pro quo business dealings this is a perfectly rational position. What they gave up, was more than we could have expected. They gave up their exclusivity to the 2:30 CTZ slot for the Game of the Week to permit the SECN to air a T3 game. That was a gesture of good will.

No major business ever uses the words "can't afford". It is the kiss of death on stock sales. Even if they can't afford it they never state it.

Now what CBS may or may not do this time around or how flush or not they may be, they nevertheless are in the industry and they are quite aware of the costs of programming. If they want to remain the top Saturday time slot for Fall Sports then the inflation of programming that has occurred in the past 11 to 12 years will have to be factored in and a bonus for the product that produces the top time slot is also an industry standard.

If CBS doesn't want it FOX has been chomping at the bit to gain a Southeastern audience and ABC is waiting in the wings. So the SEC wouldn't be worrying about losing the time slot, or the exclusivity of a national platform.

That's why I called it schadenfreude and that was giving the benefit of the doubt over intentional prevarication.

Instead of trashing ACC fans you should look at what they have endured on this board since you have been here. I believe you were here long enough to remember when all the Naysayers were promoting the demise of the ACC, when Maryland left. ACC fans were "overly optimistic" that the league would stay together. The ACC stayed together.

Then when other conferences signed GOR's the board was talking about the ACC not being able to sign a GOR because everyone was looking to leave. Then suddenly it was announced that the ACC schools signed a long term GOR.

Then, when it was announced that ESPN was exploring starting up an ACCN, we heard for 3 years that ESPN would never do a network for the ACC because it wouldnt make any money. Then we heard it was taking so long because ESPN is stringing the ACC along. All the while most normal ACC fans were "overly optimistic" when they were saying that it was coming and that it was taking so long because of buying back tv inventory that was already sold. ACC fans were accused then of spinning the so-called facts..

Now its June 4th and the network is set to debut next month and now all the naysayers are saying that it cant possibly be as profitable as the SECN or BIGN, and that its going to fail. Well excuse us if we dont buy that narrative. ALL of the naysayers have been dead wrong before, so I dont understand why folks think that their theories are infallible. Or why folks get so upset when others dont except their theories when they have been so wrong before.

We'll see. But you have been no more embattled in that regard than the Old Big East was, or the Big 12, and now the PAC shares that skepticism. It is what it is. And in spite of it all nothing has changed with the status quo except this year the ACC managed to payout the same amount as the PAC, 29.5 million per school which did change 1 statistic, you were no longer solely in 5th place on media revenue.

So I'd say there have been 7 years worth of squawking about your possible demise, and that of the Big 12's, and 7 years worth of wonderful pie in the sky claims by the ACC posters predicting significant gains and constant claims of stability by Big 12 posters, and constant claims of SEC and Big 10 posters to the contrary and absolutely nothing has changed substantively.

During that time frame the SEC caught and passed the Big 10 in media revenue and the Big 10 has caught an passed the SEC in media revenue. Everyone else has stayed the same until the ACC caught but did not pass the PAC this past year.

Why has this been the case? Because 7 years is nothing in the lifespan of a conference or business. The contracts that locked it all in place have not changed with the exception of the major leap forward FOX gave the Big 10.

Well we are now entering a major contract period where the Big 12, PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all have major new contracts forthcoming. There is one conference that is absent from that lineup because all 3 tiers of revenue are tied up with one network until 2037 and that's problematic for the ACC. Does it mean catastrophe? No. I think many of us, self included, have acknowledged for some time now that you are stable. But the other of the P4 will all be getting new main contracts for T1 programming and historically T3 product simply doesn't have the yield, even when in a conference network. And the dynamics of T3 conference networks aren't going to magically work any differently for the ACC than they do for the PAC, B1G, or SEC. It will still be a matter of subscriptions x advertising rates which determine your revenue.

To say you'll make within 4 or 5 years what the Big 10 and SEC makes is not being a naysayer. But to say that you are going to double those is without question pie in sky thinking.

As to whether there are substantive changes in the P5 by 2025 remains to be seen. There could be massive change, or no change. It depends on the long term projections for Texas and Oklahoma relative to the top line schools in the Big 10 and SEC and whether the increases they could make in either are worth it to them. But if either or both move to either or both of the top two conferences the revenue gap will jump and the pieces of the realignment puzzle that could alter the standings in that new world simply aren't there. Notre Dame going all in would help the ACC. But if Texas and Oklahoma move there will be no catch up moves to be had.

From there the formation of leagues becomes a realistic possibility.

Now the argument against that is that the acquired leverage would not be in the networks interests so they might discourage that movement, or might simply do another special deal with Texas and Oklahoma to cement status quo. But cementing status quo means little likelihood for any conference to change their relative position to others.

But on the flip side of that argument it has been pointed out that simply moving Texas and Oklahoma to either of the Big 10 or SEC multiplies their content value enough to make those moves profitable for networks, especially if the remaining 8 schools wind up in a conference getting paid less than the Big 12.

So by 2025 we might very well be looking at a whole new landscape in college football and if so then from there we will be postulating new perspectives for what will happen next. Some of you will get to see what happens from there. Some of us likely won't. Because the new stressors will take 10 to 20 years to create more change.

It took 20 years for the SEC to move to 14 from 12. These changes happen at glacial speed with a sudden shock at the time of movement. So my point Cuseroc is that we are where we were at the end of 2012 and very little has changed in the pecking order of the P5. If the pressure that was added 7 years ago to the pressure that started building when the SWC disbanded leads to an Oklahoma and / or Texas move then the pressure on the PAC and the ACC will be ratcheted up and that pressure is really pressure on the SEC and Big 10 because if we wind up being the significant leaders in revenue then our conferences are going to change too whether we like it or not.

The problem with this board for the whole 7 years I've been here is that posters blame other conferences for the movement. That's absurd. None of these conferences would have changed had it not been for the changing dynamics within broadcasting and the revenue involved. But change is going to continue to come our way whether we like it or not and it is not being instigated by the Big 10 or SEC. We're just trying to hang onto our positions the same as you.

It is the corporations that are changing the landscape, and will continue to do so. They have the money and we take more of it to do what they want. We can't add a single school unless they pay for it.

The problem for the ACC is they sold out cheaply and completely and for a long duration to ESPN and now ESPN's landscape is being shaped by market and innovative forces. So it is not absurd on anyone's part to note that if the ACCN does pay out at Big 10 and SEC levels that between now and 2037 the SEC, Big 10, and maybe the key schools in the Big 12 will likely all make an additional 8 million or more due to contract renewals and if that happens then no ground will have been made up by the ACC prior to contract renewal in 2037. It is what it is.

I have profound reservations that by 2040 any of us would recognize the future landscape of college sports including whether conferences will even exist in any of the present configurations they are in.

And for the record I don't trash ACC fans, just ridiculous or false claims.

I agree with this, except I would say that what ACC fans endured was far worse after Maryland left. You had witers/bloggers making up stuff about ACC schools leaving and even sharing what we thought, at the time, were intimate details about negotiations behind the scenes. All this to make a name for themselves and trying to destabilize the ACC because their school was rejected by the ACC. Nothing on that level has happened to the B12 or Pac12.

I bet fans of Big 12 and Pac-12 teams who read this board might feel differently than you do. For example, I remember back when about half the threads on this board consisted of fans of non-power teams gleefully predicting that the Big 12 would fall apart and most of its members would have to beg for invitations to the MWC or CUSA.

Maybe so, but theres a big difference between folks being gleeful as they predict your demise and Someone who claims to be in the know, and quoting sources, and sharing intimate details that were picked up by national respected news sources, plus having fans of P5 leagues and G5 leagues gleefully laughing at your demise.

(06-04-2019 01:39 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 10:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Instead of trashing ACC fans you should look at what they have endured on this board since you have been here. I believe you were here long enough to remember when all the Naysayers were promoting the demise of the ACC, when Maryland left. ACC fans were "overly optimistic" that the league would stay together. The ACC stayed together.

Then when other conferences signed GOR's the board was talking about the ACC not being able to sign a GOR because everyone was looking to leave. Then suddenly it was announced that the ACC schools signed a long term GOR.

Then, when it was announced that ESPN was exploring starting up an ACCN, we heard for 3 years that ESPN would never do a network for the ACC because it wouldnt make any money. Then we heard it was taking so long because ESPN is stringing the ACC along. All the while most normal ACC fans were "overly optimistic" when they were saying that it was coming and that it was taking so long because of buying back tv inventory that was already sold. ACC fans were accused then of spinning the so-called facts..

Now its June 4th and the network is set to debut next month and now all the naysayers are saying that it cant possibly be as profitable as the SECN or BIGN, and that its going to fail. Well excuse us if we dont buy that narrative. ALL of the naysayers have been dead wrong before, so I dont understand why folks think that their theories are infallible. Or why folks get so upset when others dont except their theories when they have been so wrong before.

We'll see. But you have been no more embattled in that regard than the Old Big East was, or the Big 12, and now the PAC shares that skepticism. It is what it is. And in spite of it all nothing has changed with the status quo except this year the ACC managed to payout the same amount as the PAC, 29.5 million per school which did change 1 statistic, you were no longer solely in 5th place on media revenue.

So I'd say there have been 7 years worth of squawking about your possible demise, and that of the Big 12's, and 7 years worth of wonderful pie in the sky claims by the ACC posters predicting significant gains and constant claims of stability by Big 12 posters, and constant claims of SEC and Big 10 posters to the contrary and absolutely nothing has changed substantively.

During that time frame the SEC caught and passed the Big 10 in media revenue and the Big 10 has caught an passed the SEC in media revenue. Everyone else has stayed the same until the ACC caught but did not pass the PAC this past year.

Why has this been the case? Because 7 years is nothing in the lifespan of a conference or business. The contracts that locked it all in place have not changed with the exception of the major leap forward FOX gave the Big 10.

Well we are now entering a major contract period where the Big 12, PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all have major new contracts forthcoming. There is one conference that is absent from that lineup because all 3 tiers of revenue are tied up with one network until 2037 and that's problematic for the ACC. Does it mean catastrophe? No. I think many of us, self included, have acknowledged for some time now that you are stable. But the other of the P4 will all be getting new main contracts for T1 programming and historically T3 product simply doesn't have the yield, even when in a conference network. And the dynamics of T3 conference networks aren't going to magically work any differently for the ACC than they do for the PAC, B1G, or SEC. It will still be a matter of subscriptions x advertising rates which determine your revenue.

To say you'll make within 4 or 5 years what the Big 10 and SEC makes is not being a naysayer. But to say that you are going to double those is without question pie in sky thinking.

As to whether there are substantive changes in the P5 by 2025 remains to be seen. There could be massive change, or no change. It depends on the long term projections for Texas and Oklahoma relative to the top line schools in the Big 10 and SEC and whether the increases they could make in either are worth it to them. But if either or both move to either or both of the top two conferences the revenue gap will jump and the pieces of the realignment puzzle that could alter the standings in that new world simply aren't there. Notre Dame going all in would help the ACC. But if Texas and Oklahoma move there will be no catch up moves to be had.

From there the formation of leagues becomes a realistic possibility.

Now the argument against that is that the acquired leverage would not be in the networks interests so they might discourage that movement, or might simply do another special deal with Texas and Oklahoma to cement status quo. But cementing status quo means little likelihood for any conference to change their relative position to others.

But on the flip side of that argument it has been pointed out that simply moving Texas and Oklahoma to either of the Big 10 or SEC multiplies their content value enough to make those moves profitable for networks, especially if the remaining 8 schools wind up in a conference getting paid less than the Big 12.

So by 2025 we might very well be looking at a whole new landscape in college football and if so then from there we will be postulating new perspectives for what will happen next. Some of you will get to see what happens from there. Some of us likely won't. Because the new stressors will take 10 to 20 years to create more change.

It took 20 years for the SEC to move to 14 from 12. These changes happen at glacial speed with a sudden shock at the time of movement. So my point Cuseroc is that we are where we were at the end of 2012 and very little has changed in the pecking order of the P5. If the pressure that was added 7 years ago to the pressure that started building when the SWC disbanded leads to an Oklahoma and / or Texas move then the pressure on the PAC and the ACC will be ratcheted up and that pressure is really pressure on the SEC and Big 10 because if we wind up being the significant leaders in revenue then our conferences are going to change too whether we like it or not.

The problem with this board for the whole 7 years I've been here is that posters blame other conferences for the movement. That's absurd. None of these conferences would have changed had it not been for the changing dynamics within broadcasting and the revenue involved. But change is going to continue to come our way whether we like it or not and it is not being instigated by the Big 10 or SEC. We're just trying to hang onto our positions the same as you.

It is the corporations that are changing the landscape, and will continue to do so. They have the money and we take more of it to do what they want. We can't add a single school unless they pay for it.

The problem for the ACC is they sold out cheaply and completely and for a long duration to ESPN and now ESPN's landscape is being shaped by market and innovative forces. So it is not absurd on anyone's part to note that if the ACCN does pay out at Big 10 and SEC levels that between now and 2037 the SEC, Big 10, and maybe the key schools in the Big 12 will likely all make an additional 8 million or more due to contract renewals and if that happens then no ground will have been made up by the ACC prior to contract renewal in 2037. It is what it is.

I have profound reservations that by 2040 any of us would recognize the future landscape of college sports including whether conferences will even exist in any of the present configurations they are in.

And for the record I don't trash ACC fans, just ridiculous or false claims.

I agree with this, except I would say that what ACC fans endured was far worse after Maryland left. You had witers/bloggers making up stuff about ACC schools leaving and even sharing what we thought, at the time, were intimate details about negotiations behind the scenes. All this to make a name for themselves and trying to destabilize the ACC because their school was rejected by the ACC. Nothing on that level has happened to the B12 or Pac12.

I bet fans of Big 12 and Pac-12 teams who read this board might feel differently than you do. For example, I remember back when about half the threads on this board consisted of fans of non-power teams gleefully predicting that the Big 12 would fall apart and most of its members would have to beg for invitations to the MWC or CUSA.

Maybe so, but theres a big difference between folks being gleeful as they predict your demise and Someone who claims to be in the know, and quoting sources, and sharing intimate details that were picked up by national respected news sources, plus having fans of P5 leagues and G5 leagues gleefully laughing at your demise.

Eh. People who are full of crap and claiming to be quoting inside sources that reflect negatively on a team or conference they don't like are always going to be part of the landscape on internet sites, especially sites like this one that attract a lot of comments from people who resent the best-known programs and the power conferences. Another example: There was a thread on this board several weeks back started by a non-power fan gloating because, so he claimed, the AAC's new TV contract would pay them more money than the Pac-12 makes. It took about a dozen comments for someone to point out that the new AAC media contract in total only pays more than the Pac-12's conference network, and not even close to the total Pac-12 media money. And that factual correction was then pretty much ignored by most of the rest of the commenters.

I'm sure we could find similar examples relative to every other P5 conference. The ACC is neither more nor less a target of that stuff than other P5 conferences.

(06-04-2019 11:12 AM)esayem Wrote:  If Notre Dame joins a conference for football, it will be the ACC. That security helped solidify the conference. With Notre Dame away games appearing on the ACC network, that helps the conference. They are a legit top tier brand and they draw viewers even when they’re subpar.

Aside from token games the first couple of years to help with getting deals in place, I don't think you will see many, if any, ND football games on the network. Nearly every game they play is on Network TV, barely even "falling" to ESPN. Unless it is required that each team plays X number of games per season on the network (and so far none of the other conference networks have that requirement), I think those games will be few an far between. Especially remembering ND home games are not in question, which means every ND on the ACC TV package is a "conference game" so to peak. No buy games that may otherwise fall to a lower tier. Those are the only games from the blue blood schools that ever appear on conference network seemingly, vs. FCS and regional buy games. .

(06-04-2019 01:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 01:39 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  We'll see. But you have been no more embattled in that regard than the Old Big East was, or the Big 12, and now the PAC shares that skepticism. It is what it is. And in spite of it all nothing has changed with the status quo except this year the ACC managed to payout the same amount as the PAC, 29.5 million per school which did change 1 statistic, you were no longer solely in 5th place on media revenue.

So I'd say there have been 7 years worth of squawking about your possible demise, and that of the Big 12's, and 7 years worth of wonderful pie in the sky claims by the ACC posters predicting significant gains and constant claims of stability by Big 12 posters, and constant claims of SEC and Big 10 posters to the contrary and absolutely nothing has changed substantively.

During that time frame the SEC caught and passed the Big 10 in media revenue and the Big 10 has caught an passed the SEC in media revenue. Everyone else has stayed the same until the ACC caught but did not pass the PAC this past year.

Why has this been the case? Because 7 years is nothing in the lifespan of a conference or business. The contracts that locked it all in place have not changed with the exception of the major leap forward FOX gave the Big 10.

Well we are now entering a major contract period where the Big 12, PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all have major new contracts forthcoming. There is one conference that is absent from that lineup because all 3 tiers of revenue are tied up with one network until 2037 and that's problematic for the ACC. Does it mean catastrophe? No. I think many of us, self included, have acknowledged for some time now that you are stable. But the other of the P4 will all be getting new main contracts for T1 programming and historically T3 product simply doesn't have the yield, even when in a conference network. And the dynamics of T3 conference networks aren't going to magically work any differently for the ACC than they do for the PAC, B1G, or SEC. It will still be a matter of subscriptions x advertising rates which determine your revenue.

To say you'll make within 4 or 5 years what the Big 10 and SEC makes is not being a naysayer. But to say that you are going to double those is without question pie in sky thinking.

As to whether there are substantive changes in the P5 by 2025 remains to be seen. There could be massive change, or no change. It depends on the long term projections for Texas and Oklahoma relative to the top line schools in the Big 10 and SEC and whether the increases they could make in either are worth it to them. But if either or both move to either or both of the top two conferences the revenue gap will jump and the pieces of the realignment puzzle that could alter the standings in that new world simply aren't there. Notre Dame going all in would help the ACC. But if Texas and Oklahoma move there will be no catch up moves to be had.

From there the formation of leagues becomes a realistic possibility.

Now the argument against that is that the acquired leverage would not be in the networks interests so they might discourage that movement, or might simply do another special deal with Texas and Oklahoma to cement status quo. But cementing status quo means little likelihood for any conference to change their relative position to others.

But on the flip side of that argument it has been pointed out that simply moving Texas and Oklahoma to either of the Big 10 or SEC multiplies their content value enough to make those moves profitable for networks, especially if the remaining 8 schools wind up in a conference getting paid less than the Big 12.

So by 2025 we might very well be looking at a whole new landscape in college football and if so then from there we will be postulating new perspectives for what will happen next. Some of you will get to see what happens from there. Some of us likely won't. Because the new stressors will take 10 to 20 years to create more change.

It took 20 years for the SEC to move to 14 from 12. These changes happen at glacial speed with a sudden shock at the time of movement. So my point Cuseroc is that we are where we were at the end of 2012 and very little has changed in the pecking order of the P5. If the pressure that was added 7 years ago to the pressure that started building when the SWC disbanded leads to an Oklahoma and / or Texas move then the pressure on the PAC and the ACC will be ratcheted up and that pressure is really pressure on the SEC and Big 10 because if we wind up being the significant leaders in revenue then our conferences are going to change too whether we like it or not.

The problem with this board for the whole 7 years I've been here is that posters blame other conferences for the movement. That's absurd. None of these conferences would have changed had it not been for the changing dynamics within broadcasting and the revenue involved. But change is going to continue to come our way whether we like it or not and it is not being instigated by the Big 10 or SEC. We're just trying to hang onto our positions the same as you.

It is the corporations that are changing the landscape, and will continue to do so. They have the money and we take more of it to do what they want. We can't add a single school unless they pay for it.

The problem for the ACC is they sold out cheaply and completely and for a long duration to ESPN and now ESPN's landscape is being shaped by market and innovative forces. So it is not absurd on anyone's part to note that if the ACCN does pay out at Big 10 and SEC levels that between now and 2037 the SEC, Big 10, and maybe the key schools in the Big 12 will likely all make an additional 8 million or more due to contract renewals and if that happens then no ground will have been made up by the ACC prior to contract renewal in 2037. It is what it is.

I have profound reservations that by 2040 any of us would recognize the future landscape of college sports including whether conferences will even exist in any of the present configurations they are in.

And for the record I don't trash ACC fans, just ridiculous or false claims.

I agree with this, except I would say that what ACC fans endured was far worse after Maryland left. You had witers/bloggers making up stuff about ACC schools leaving and even sharing what we thought, at the time, were intimate details about negotiations behind the scenes. All this to make a name for themselves and trying to destabilize the ACC because their school was rejected by the ACC. Nothing on that level has happened to the B12 or Pac12.

I bet fans of Big 12 and Pac-12 teams who read this board might feel differently than you do. For example, I remember back when about half the threads on this board consisted of fans of non-power teams gleefully predicting that the Big 12 would fall apart and most of its members would have to beg for invitations to the MWC or CUSA.

Maybe so, but theres a big difference between folks being gleeful as they predict your demise and Someone who claims to be in the know, and quoting sources, and sharing intimate details that were picked up by national respected news sources, plus having fans of P5 leagues and G5 leagues gleefully laughing at your demise.

Eh. People who are full of crap and claiming to be quoting inside sources that reflect negatively on a team or conference they don't like are always going to be part of the landscape on internet sites, especially sites like this one that attract a lot of comments from people who resent the best-known programs and the power conferences. Another example: There was a thread on this board several weeks back started by a non-power fan gloating because, so he claimed, the AAC's new TV contract would pay them more money than the Pac-12 makes. It took about a dozen comments for someone to point out that the new AAC media contract in total only pays more than the Pac-12's conference network, and not even close to the total Pac-12 media money. And that factual correction was then pretty much ignored by most of the rest of the commenters.

I'm sure we could find similar examples relative to every other P5 conference. The ACC is neither more nor less a target of that stuff than other P5 conferences.

You stick with your opinion and I'll stick with mine.

(06-04-2019 01:39 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 10:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Instead of trashing ACC fans you should look at what they have endured on this board since you have been here. I believe you were here long enough to remember when all the Naysayers were promoting the demise of the ACC, when Maryland left. ACC fans were "overly optimistic" that the league would stay together. The ACC stayed together.

Then when other conferences signed GOR's the board was talking about the ACC not being able to sign a GOR because everyone was looking to leave. Then suddenly it was announced that the ACC schools signed a long term GOR.

Then, when it was announced that ESPN was exploring starting up an ACCN, we heard for 3 years that ESPN would never do a network for the ACC because it wouldnt make any money. Then we heard it was taking so long because ESPN is stringing the ACC along. All the while most normal ACC fans were "overly optimistic" when they were saying that it was coming and that it was taking so long because of buying back tv inventory that was already sold. ACC fans were accused then of spinning the so-called facts..

Now its June 4th and the network is set to debut next month and now all the naysayers are saying that it cant possibly be as profitable as the SECN or BIGN, and that its going to fail. Well excuse us if we dont buy that narrative. ALL of the naysayers have been dead wrong before, so I dont understand why folks think that their theories are infallible. Or why folks get so upset when others dont except their theories when they have been so wrong before.

We'll see. But you have been no more embattled in that regard than the Old Big East was, or the Big 12, and now the PAC shares that skepticism. It is what it is. And in spite of it all nothing has changed with the status quo except this year the ACC managed to payout the same amount as the PAC, 29.5 million per school which did change 1 statistic, you were no longer solely in 5th place on media revenue.

So I'd say there have been 7 years worth of squawking about your possible demise, and that of the Big 12's, and 7 years worth of wonderful pie in the sky claims by the ACC posters predicting significant gains and constant claims of stability by Big 12 posters, and constant claims of SEC and Big 10 posters to the contrary and absolutely nothing has changed substantively.

During that time frame the SEC caught and passed the Big 10 in media revenue and the Big 10 has caught an passed the SEC in media revenue. Everyone else has stayed the same until the ACC caught but did not pass the PAC this past year.

Why has this been the case? Because 7 years is nothing in the lifespan of a conference or business. The contracts that locked it all in place have not changed with the exception of the major leap forward FOX gave the Big 10.

Well we are now entering a major contract period where the Big 12, PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all have major new contracts forthcoming. There is one conference that is absent from that lineup because all 3 tiers of revenue are tied up with one network until 2037 and that's problematic for the ACC. Does it mean catastrophe? No. I think many of us, self included, have acknowledged for some time now that you are stable. But the other of the P4 will all be getting new main contracts for T1 programming and historically T3 product simply doesn't have the yield, even when in a conference network. And the dynamics of T3 conference networks aren't going to magically work any differently for the ACC than they do for the PAC, B1G, or SEC. It will still be a matter of subscriptions x advertising rates which determine your revenue.

To say you'll make within 4 or 5 years what the Big 10 and SEC makes is not being a naysayer. But to say that you are going to double those is without question pie in sky thinking.

As to whether there are substantive changes in the P5 by 2025 remains to be seen. There could be massive change, or no change. It depends on the long term projections for Texas and Oklahoma relative to the top line schools in the Big 10 and SEC and whether the increases they could make in either are worth it to them. But if either or both move to either or both of the top two conferences the revenue gap will jump and the pieces of the realignment puzzle that could alter the standings in that new world simply aren't there. Notre Dame going all in would help the ACC. But if Texas and Oklahoma move there will be no catch up moves to be had.

From there the formation of leagues becomes a realistic possibility.

Now the argument against that is that the acquired leverage would not be in the networks interests so they might discourage that movement, or might simply do another special deal with Texas and Oklahoma to cement status quo. But cementing status quo means little likelihood for any conference to change their relative position to others.

But on the flip side of that argument it has been pointed out that simply moving Texas and Oklahoma to either of the Big 10 or SEC multiplies their content value enough to make those moves profitable for networks, especially if the remaining 8 schools wind up in a conference getting paid less than the Big 12.

So by 2025 we might very well be looking at a whole new landscape in college football and if so then from there we will be postulating new perspectives for what will happen next. Some of you will get to see what happens from there. Some of us likely won't. Because the new stressors will take 10 to 20 years to create more change.

It took 20 years for the SEC to move to 14 from 12. These changes happen at glacial speed with a sudden shock at the time of movement. So my point Cuseroc is that we are where we were at the end of 2012 and very little has changed in the pecking order of the P5. If the pressure that was added 7 years ago to the pressure that started building when the SWC disbanded leads to an Oklahoma and / or Texas move then the pressure on the PAC and the ACC will be ratcheted up and that pressure is really pressure on the SEC and Big 10 because if we wind up being the significant leaders in revenue then our conferences are going to change too whether we like it or not.

The problem with this board for the whole 7 years I've been here is that posters blame other conferences for the movement. That's absurd. None of these conferences would have changed had it not been for the changing dynamics within broadcasting and the revenue involved. But change is going to continue to come our way whether we like it or not and it is not being instigated by the Big 10 or SEC. We're just trying to hang onto our positions the same as you.

It is the corporations that are changing the landscape, and will continue to do so. They have the money and we take more of it to do what they want. We can't add a single school unless they pay for it.

The problem for the ACC is they sold out cheaply and completely and for a long duration to ESPN and now ESPN's landscape is being shaped by market and innovative forces. So it is not absurd on anyone's part to note that if the ACCN does pay out at Big 10 and SEC levels that between now and 2037 the SEC, Big 10, and maybe the key schools in the Big 12 will likely all make an additional 8 million or more due to contract renewals and if that happens then no ground will have been made up by the ACC prior to contract renewal in 2037. It is what it is.

I have profound reservations that by 2040 any of us would recognize the future landscape of college sports including whether conferences will even exist in any of the present configurations they are in.

And for the record I don't trash ACC fans, just ridiculous or false claims.

I agree with this, except I would say that what ACC fans endured was far worse after Maryland left. You had witers/bloggers making up stuff about ACC schools leaving and even sharing what we thought, at the time, were intimate details about negotiations behind the scenes. All this to make a name for themselves and trying to destabilize the ACC because their school was rejected by the ACC. Nothing on that level has happened to the B12 or Pac12.

I bet fans of Big 12 and Pac-12 teams who read this board might feel differently than you do. For example, I remember back when about half the threads on this board consisted of fans of non-power teams gleefully predicting that the Big 12 would fall apart and most of its members would have to beg for invitations to the MWC or CUSA.

Maybe so, but theres a big difference between folks being gleeful as they predict your demise and Someone who claims to be in the know, and quoting sources, and sharing intimate details that were picked up by national respected news sources, plus having fans of P5 leagues and G5 leagues gleefully laughing at your demise.

WV fans were the worst: Multiple conspiracy theories, Team X and Y leaving the ACC, the presser to announce on Tuesday and the rest of the leftovers are going to lose their P5 status. Good times

Mark is correct. Most of the rumor mongers were WVU fans with a giant axe to grind with The ACC. Mostly The Dude and MCHver stirring the pot. Their minions would take whatever those two regurgitated as gospel.

The day The ACC GOR was announced, The Dude had reported that Virginia and Georgia Tech were leaving from The ACC any day. It was funny watching him back away from all his predictions.

I actually screenshot some of his predictions that he deleted. In hindsight they are hilarious.

Note from the Dude...lol

December 28, 2012

(06-04-2019 03:43 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Mark is correct. Most of the rumor mongers were WVU fans with a giant axe to grind with The ACC. Mostly The Dude and MCHver stirring the pot. Their minions would take whatever those two regurgitated as gospel.

The day The ACC GOR was announced, The Dude had reported that Virginia and Georgia Tech were leaving from The ACC any day. It was funny watching him back away from all his predictions.

I actually screenshot some of his predictions that he deleted. In hindsight they are hilarious.

Ah, almost forgot about the Dude. I remember the podcast where he finally admitted all of the **** he made up.

But, I don't recall him being on this board. Just people regurgitating his spiel. The worse on here was Buckaineer.

(06-04-2019 09:38 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 05:34 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Lots of folks pointing to the Big Ten's high media payouts as grounds for expansion being successful. I wager that they'd be even higher had they snagged some bigger fish.

You wanted Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse and Boston College in your original post, correct?

I'll take Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska every day of the week over that.

The ACC sold their soul to the devil for 5 games as far as I'm concerned.

I typically like your posts, Fighting Muskie ,but, this is just arrogant on your part. Simply my opinion that I'm throwing out there.

For what it's worth, Nebraska is the greatest of fits of anything that was possible. I am thrilled they are in this conference.

Is there another conference you would like to see Ohio State in? I know I'm happy where they are.

Really? What exactly is the ACC losing here? The ACC added an excellent university with great Olympic sports and a national following. Toss in five guaranteed football games a year with one of the most storied programs ever. For what? Access to a few bowl games? Hardly the devil’s work here, and we don’t need to get into the sins of the Big Ten universities administrations.

Overwhelming amount of Big Ten fans on Notre Dame: “they need to join a conference.”

Big Ten fans: feelings hurt ND passes them over.

Appreciate your opinions, esayem!

Is it true that Notre Dame can jump a full member of the ACC in the pecking order of bowl games? Even if the full member has a better record?

Is it true Notre Dame does not have to share any money they make when and if they make the CFP?

You are ok with a partial member getting a better deal than full members when it comes to bowl games?

This is not a Big 10 fans are hurt deal! That's a common argument that I just laugh at. I was just making my original comment based on the crappy deal full time members got for 5 games. Maybe I'm missing something in the deal? And I'll eat my words.

And if you want to bring up the scandals at Penn State, MSU and Ohio State, go right ahead. You all already ran two threads on this recently.

Look around and I'm sure you'll see plenty of full member ACC schools who hate the deal.

Stories like these are a dime a dozen on the internet.

https://chopchat.com/2016/05/14/notre-da...re-league/

Because.They.Are.Notre.Dame.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(06-04-2019 04:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 03:43 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Mark is correct. Most of the rumor mongers were WVU fans with a giant axe to grind with The ACC. Mostly The Dude and MCHver stirring the pot. Their minions would take whatever those two regurgitated as gospel.

The day The ACC GOR was announced, The Dude had reported that Virginia and Georgia Tech were leaving from The ACC any day. It was funny watching him back away from all his predictions.

I actually screenshot some of his predictions that he deleted. In hindsight they are hilarious.

Ah, almost forgot about the Dude. I remember the podcast where he finally admitted all of the **** he made up.

But, I don't recall him being on this board. Just people regurgitating his spiel. The worse on here was Buckaineer.

Bucky, who is still floating around the internet spewing his malarkey, was banned here about 6 years ago and remains so. What you guys are giving falls into one of two categories, old knee jerk reactions misdirected at people who weren't a party to the climate here 7 years ago, or you are just misusing an old excuse to accuse new people.

Whatever the ACC fans suffered six years ago is as old as proverbial dinosaur feces now and if you haven't gotten over it the problem is yours, not the board's.

The Big 12 at some of their sites are suffering the onslaught now and Bucky is part of it. Only now he's swinging for the fences at those who threaten the lifeline of his Eers, pitiful really. But Texas and Oklahoma have become the story line to the Big 10 or SEC the same way North Carolina and Virginia to the Big 10 and N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC were in 2011.

Nobody is talking the ACC's demise these days, at least not seriously and in the news. But plenty of bloggers and beat writers talk about Texas and Oklahoma.

That said this is the realignment forum and all its running on right now are speculations and gossip. It is what it is.

But if you claim that the ACCN is going to earn more than the Big 10 Network and the SECN you should expect some healthy skepticism.

BTN is running Notre Dame ST commercials.

(06-04-2019 06:26 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  BTN is running Notre Dame ST commercials.

I'm sure they're very happy with the check the domers cut for those.