(01-18-2021 06:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 06:32 PM)nole Wrote:  If SEC/BIG are making $50-$70 Million a year more per team........then the math starts to make it reasonable for them to buyout teams that would of otherwise been thought impossible. Maybe not TODAY...but 3, 5, 7, 10 years from now?

Change is coming. ACC will have a situation like the Big East.....they won't die, but they won't be on the main stage anymore. The only question is who gets stuck and who bails.

Swofford is the one who killed it.

It's amazing to me that people blame Swofford for having less to sell than the B10 or SEC. It's like a bordello, if most of your girls are fat and ugly they are not going to rack in the cash that prettier girls will. It's that simple.

The B10 has 6 bankable names in football, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa. The SEC has 8 bankable names, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, TAMU, and Tennessee.

The ACC only has 3 bankable names - Clemson, FSU, and Miami. Miami has not done **** since joining the ACC. FSU has gone into the septic tank twice in the last 15 years.

It's not even a contest regarding inventory to sell and still people want to blame Swofford or someone else other than their own decisions.

If you have an 82K seat stadium and you can't sell but about 65K tickets - that's on you. It's crazy to think that schools that seat 20-25K less per game are going to earn as much money as those seating 90-110K.

https://collegefootballnews.com/2019/07/...-analysis. Only Clemson, ND, and NC State have average attendance the last 5 years above 98% (Clemson is 100.11%). VT and FSU averaged 93% and Louisville 92%. Next is a three way tie between WF, GT and Miami at 86%. UNC, BC, and Syracuse are in the 70s. UVa is 65 and Duke is 68

ND and Clemson are ND and Clemson. NC State fans will not miss a tailgate for any reason. If your attendance is below 95% you have a problem that TV is not going to solve.

*Adding schools that don't make $$$.
If the ACC has only 3 bankable products, why did Swofford add other schools. More mouths to feed, less money. VERY few schools actually add $$. I agree with you there. Adding schools allowed him to renegotiate a HORRIBLE contract and he resigned another HORRIBLE contract. Nobody forced him to add schools to make the payout increases MUCH smaller compared to other conferences.

*ACC has 3rd highest TV ratings when you put football and basketball together, yet is 5th lowest payout. Yup, he won't get SEC money. But how is he so far behind EVERYONE?

*Refused to put the contract out to bid. Nobody forced him to just negotiate with ESPN....but he did and SURPRISE...he got worked.

*Forcing raycom in the deal....yup...his BS for his son. Cost the ACC everything.


ACC fan base gets so upset when Swofford is critized. He killed this conference. Just reality.

(01-18-2021 08:21 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 06:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 06:32 PM)nole Wrote:  If SEC/BIG are making $50-$70 Million a year more per team........then the math starts to make it reasonable for them to buyout teams that would of otherwise been thought impossible. Maybe not TODAY...but 3, 5, 7, 10 years from now?

Change is coming. ACC will have a situation like the Big East.....they won't die, but they won't be on the main stage anymore. The only question is who gets stuck and who bails.

Swofford is the one who killed it.

It's amazing to me that people blame Swofford for having less to sell than the B10 or SEC. It's like a bordello, if most of your girls are fat and ugly they are not going to rack in the cash that prettier girls will. It's that simple.

The B10 has 6 bankable names in football, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa. The SEC has 8 bankable names, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, TAMU, and Tennessee.

The ACC only has 3 bankable names - Clemson, FSU, and Miami. Miami has not done **** since joining the ACC. FSU has gone into the septic tank twice in the last 15 years.

It's not even a contest regarding inventory to sell and still people want to blame Swofford or someone else other than their own decisions.

If you have an 82K seat stadium and you can't sell but about 65K tickets - that's on you. It's crazy to think that schools that seat 20-25K less per game are going to earn as much money as those seating 90-110K.

https://collegefootballnews.com/2019/07/...-analysis. Only Clemson, ND, and NC State have average attendance the last 5 years above 98% (Clemson is 100.11%). VT and FSU averaged 93% and Louisville 92%. Next is a three way tie between WF, GT and Miami at 86%. UNC, BC, and Syracuse are in the 70s. UVa is 65 and Duke is 68

ND and Clemson are ND and Clemson. NC State fans will not miss a tailgate for any reason. If your attendance is below 95% you have a problem that TV is not going to solve.

*Adding schools that don't make $$$.
If the ACC has only 3 bankable products, why did Swofford add other schools. More mouths to feed, less money. VERY few schools actually add $$. I agree with you there. Adding schools allowed him to renegotiate a HORRIBLE contract and he resigned another HORRIBLE contract. Nobody forced him to add schools to make the payout increases MUCH smaller compared to other conferences.

*ACC has 3rd highest TV ratings when you put football and basketball together, yet is 5th lowest payout. Yup, he won't get SEC money. But how is he so far behind EVERYONE?

*Refused to put the contract out to bid. Nobody forced him to just negotiate with ESPN....but he did and SURPRISE...he got worked.

*Forcing raycom in the deal....yup...his BS for his son. Cost the ACC everything.


ACC fan base gets so upset when Swofford is critized. He killed this conference. Just reality.

Folks get upset when you try to place all the blame on Swofford when the fact is that Swofford cannot make such decisions without the approval of the presidents.

When your former AD, Paul Dee, and NC State's AD was working with Gene Corrigan and Miami, Miami wanted to include BC and Syracuse. You wanted Miami and the ACC accommodated you and ESPN paid for it. Then FSU went into the tank and Miami never showed up and for half a decade the league banner is being carried by WF, BC, VT, and GT. Pitt and Syracuse were added to get ND and Penn State but MD backstabbed us.

You joined what had become a basketball conference. That allowed you to dominate the league and get an annual pass into a major bowl or play for a national championship. How many people will sit in the stands in Tallahassee if you are 8-4 in the SEC versus 10-2 in the ACC? How many SEC games do you think you would have won this year? You play in the P-5 conference that is the most inexpensive to compete in - even in the SEC you will suck hind teat behind Bama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, LSU, and TAMU when it comes to attendance because you need fans travelling to Doak to fill it up. That's not meant as an insult, just a mathematical fact.

You talk as if the added revenue comes free. It's not free. Operations that look only at income and not cost usually go broke. If money cured bad hires or stupid decisions Texas would not be on their 4th coach in 10 years.

If you and Miami had your programs in Clemson's shape, Swofford would have something better to pimp. But NC State will never raise and spend the extra $30 - $40 million a year to reach that level. Hiding a stupid football player at UNC is no longer easy. Duke and UVa drift further and further away from football culture every year. GT, Pitt, and BC will not thrive on a consistent basis in pro towns.

You have the best of all worlds right now and the ACC nor your revenue is responsible for the product on your field the last couple of years.

To be fair, some of the worst decisions were made before Swofford's tenure (e.g. whiffing on Penn State, not taking back South Carolina, waiting too long to expand to 12 teams, etc.).

However, plenty of bad decisions were made during Swofford's tenure as well. For instance:
- why was the 2010 TV contract (signed during a low point) so LONG?
- why were all TV rights combined into one contract?
- why did that contract include sub-contracting to Raycom? to Fox RSNs (now Sinclair)?
- why has the ACC signed extensions BEFORE the SEC the last 2 times?
- why were the divisions drawn without regard for TV ratings?
- why were they written into the by-laws, making it nearly impossible to change them?
- why did he let the Big XII get the $40 million contract bowl, but he had to give away the farm, settling for only $27.5M from the Orange Bowl just to get an opponent?
- why couldn't he even get divisionless conference championships passed?

(01-18-2021 08:52 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 08:21 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 06:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 06:32 PM)nole Wrote:  If SEC/BIG are making $50-$70 Million a year more per team........then the math starts to make it reasonable for them to buyout teams that would of otherwise been thought impossible. Maybe not TODAY...but 3, 5, 7, 10 years from now?

Change is coming. ACC will have a situation like the Big East.....they won't die, but they won't be on the main stage anymore. The only question is who gets stuck and who bails.

Swofford is the one who killed it.

It's amazing to me that people blame Swofford for having less to sell than the B10 or SEC. It's like a bordello, if most of your girls are fat and ugly they are not going to rack in the cash that prettier girls will. It's that simple.

The B10 has 6 bankable names in football, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa. The SEC has 8 bankable names, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, TAMU, and Tennessee.

The ACC only has 3 bankable names - Clemson, FSU, and Miami. Miami has not done **** since joining the ACC. FSU has gone into the septic tank twice in the last 15 years.

It's not even a contest regarding inventory to sell and still people want to blame Swofford or someone else other than their own decisions.

If you have an 82K seat stadium and you can't sell but about 65K tickets - that's on you. It's crazy to think that schools that seat 20-25K less per game are going to earn as much money as those seating 90-110K.

https://collegefootballnews.com/2019/07/...-analysis. Only Clemson, ND, and NC State have average attendance the last 5 years above 98% (Clemson is 100.11%). VT and FSU averaged 93% and Louisville 92%. Next is a three way tie between WF, GT and Miami at 86%. UNC, BC, and Syracuse are in the 70s. UVa is 65 and Duke is 68

ND and Clemson are ND and Clemson. NC State fans will not miss a tailgate for any reason. If your attendance is below 95% you have a problem that TV is not going to solve.

*Adding schools that don't make $$$.
If the ACC has only 3 bankable products, why did Swofford add other schools. More mouths to feed, less money. VERY few schools actually add $$. I agree with you there. Adding schools allowed him to renegotiate a HORRIBLE contract and he resigned another HORRIBLE contract. Nobody forced him to add schools to make the payout increases MUCH smaller compared to other conferences.

*ACC has 3rd highest TV ratings when you put football and basketball together, yet is 5th lowest payout. Yup, he won't get SEC money. But how is he so far behind EVERYONE?

*Refused to put the contract out to bid. Nobody forced him to just negotiate with ESPN....but he did and SURPRISE...he got worked.

*Forcing raycom in the deal....yup...his BS for his son. Cost the ACC everything.


ACC fan base gets so upset when Swofford is critized. He killed this conference. Just reality.

Folks get upset when you try to place all the blame on Swofford when the fact is that Swofford cannot make such decisions without the approval of the presidents.

No, but Swofford, knowing full well how things were going in regards from the shift from basketball to football in regards to the sports media deals and being the guy getting paid big money to you know......lead the conference, failed to lead the conference down the right path. Swofford never did what Slive did in regards to SEC basketball when he held a "Come to Jesus" meeting telling the conference it wasn't acceptable when they were getting so few tournament bids. Swofford just sat back and did absolutely nothing.......well, nothing other than assuring that Chad had a job and making basketball adds for a football problem.

If you are going to accept the benefits of being the supposed leader then you best be prepared to accept the lion's share of the criticism as well.

(01-18-2021 08:57 PM)Statefan Wrote:  When your former AD, Paul Dee, and NC State's AD was working with Gene Corrigan and Miami, Miami wanted to include BC and Syracuse. You wanted Miami and the ACC accommodated you and ESPN paid for it. Then FSU went into the tank and Miami never showed up and for half a decade the league banner is being carried by WF, BC, VT, and GT. Pitt and Syracuse were added to get ND and Penn State but MD backstabbed us.

You joined what had become a basketball conference. That allowed you to dominate the league and get an annual pass into a major bowl or play for a national championship. How many people will sit in the stands in Tallahassee if you are 8-4 in the SEC versus 10-2 in the ACC? How many SEC games do you think you would have won this year? You play in the P-5 conference that is the most inexpensive to compete in - even in the SEC you will suck hind teat behind Bama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, LSU, and TAMU when it comes to attendance because you need fans travelling to Doak to fill it up. That's not meant as an insult, just a mathematical fact.

You talk as if the added revenue comes free. It's not free. Operations that look only at income and not cost usually go broke. If money cured bad hires or stupid decisions Texas would not be on their 4th coach in 10 years.

If you and Miami had your programs in Clemson's shape, Swofford would have something better to pimp. But NC State will never raise and spend the extra $30 - $40 million a year to reach that level. Hiding a stupid football player at UNC is no longer easy. Duke and UVa drift further and further away from football culture every year. GT, Pitt, and BC will not thrive on a consistent basis in pro towns.

You have the best of all worlds right now and the ACC nor your revenue is responsible for the product on your field the last couple of years.

If NC State is unwilling to commit to winning the conference in football then NC State needs to forgo a portion of their conference revenue to go to the schools who are committed to winning, or NC State needs to voluntarily drop down to a conference that their cheap ass ways will allow them to compete.

(01-18-2021 09:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 08:52 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 08:21 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 06:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 06:32 PM)nole Wrote:  If SEC/BIG are making $50-$70 Million a year more per team........then the math starts to make it reasonable for them to buyout teams that would of otherwise been thought impossible. Maybe not TODAY...but 3, 5, 7, 10 years from now?

Change is coming. ACC will have a situation like the Big East.....they won't die, but they won't be on the main stage anymore. The only question is who gets stuck and who bails.

Swofford is the one who killed it.

It's amazing to me that people blame Swofford for having less to sell than the B10 or SEC. It's like a bordello, if most of your girls are fat and ugly they are not going to rack in the cash that prettier girls will. It's that simple.

The B10 has 6 bankable names in football, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa. The SEC has 8 bankable names, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, TAMU, and Tennessee.

The ACC only has 3 bankable names - Clemson, FSU, and Miami. Miami has not done **** since joining the ACC. FSU has gone into the septic tank twice in the last 15 years.

It's not even a contest regarding inventory to sell and still people want to blame Swofford or someone else other than their own decisions.

If you have an 82K seat stadium and you can't sell but about 65K tickets - that's on you. It's crazy to think that schools that seat 20-25K less per game are going to earn as much money as those seating 90-110K.

https://collegefootballnews.com/2019/07/...-analysis. Only Clemson, ND, and NC State have average attendance the last 5 years above 98% (Clemson is 100.11%). VT and FSU averaged 93% and Louisville 92%. Next is a three way tie between WF, GT and Miami at 86%. UNC, BC, and Syracuse are in the 70s. UVa is 65 and Duke is 68

ND and Clemson are ND and Clemson. NC State fans will not miss a tailgate for any reason. If your attendance is below 95% you have a problem that TV is not going to solve.

*Adding schools that don't make $$$.
If the ACC has only 3 bankable products, why did Swofford add other schools. More mouths to feed, less money. VERY few schools actually add $$. I agree with you there. Adding schools allowed him to renegotiate a HORRIBLE contract and he resigned another HORRIBLE contract. Nobody forced him to add schools to make the payout increases MUCH smaller compared to other conferences.

*ACC has 3rd highest TV ratings when you put football and basketball together, yet is 5th lowest payout. Yup, he won't get SEC money. But how is he so far behind EVERYONE?

*Refused to put the contract out to bid. Nobody forced him to just negotiate with ESPN....but he did and SURPRISE...he got worked.

*Forcing raycom in the deal....yup...his BS for his son. Cost the ACC everything.


ACC fan base gets so upset when Swofford is critized. He killed this conference. Just reality.

Folks get upset when you try to place all the blame on Swofford when the fact is that Swofford cannot make such decisions without the approval of the presidents.

No, but Swofford, knowing full well how things were going in regards from the shift from basketball to football in regards to the sports media deals and being the guy getting paid big money to you know......lead the conference, failed to lead the conference down the right path. Swofford never did what Slive did in regards to SEC basketball when he held a "Come to Jesus" meeting telling the conference it wasn't acceptable when they were getting so few tournament bids. Swofford just sat back and did absolutely nothing.......well, nothing other than assuring that Chad had a job and making basketball adds for a football problem.

If you are going to accept the benefits of being the supposed leader then you best be prepared to accept the lion's share of the criticism as well.

I agree that Swofford was the leader, but everything else that you said also applies to the presidents. And Swofford was pretty slick the way he slid that little detail in there with Raycom to protect his son, while the presidents were'nt looking.

(01-18-2021 08:57 PM)Statefan Wrote:  When your former AD, Paul Dee, and NC State's AD was working with Gene Corrigan and Miami, Miami wanted to include BC and Syracuse. You wanted Miami and the ACC accommodated you and ESPN paid for it. Then FSU went into the tank and Miami never showed up and for half a decade the league banner is being carried by WF, BC, VT, and GT. Pitt and Syracuse were added to get ND and Penn State but MD backstabbed us.

You joined what had become a basketball conference. That allowed you to dominate the league and get an annual pass into a major bowl or play for a national championship. How many people will sit in the stands in Tallahassee if you are 8-4 in the SEC versus 10-2 in the ACC? How many SEC games do you think you would have won this year? You play in the P-5 conference that is the most inexpensive to compete in - even in the SEC you will suck hind teat behind Bama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, LSU, and TAMU when it comes to attendance because you need fans travelling to Doak to fill it up. That's not meant as an insult, just a mathematical fact.

You talk as if the added revenue comes free. It's not free. Operations that look only at income and not cost usually go broke. If money cured bad hires or stupid decisions Texas would not be on their 4th coach in 10 years.

If you and Miami had your programs in Clemson's shape, Swofford would have something better to pimp. But NC State will never raise and spend the extra $30 - $40 million a year to reach that level. Hiding a stupid football player at UNC is no longer easy. Duke and UVa drift further and further away from football culture every year. GT, Pitt, and BC will not thrive on a consistent basis in pro towns.

You have the best of all worlds right now and the ACC nor your revenue is responsible for the product on your field the last couple of years.

Had this plan been successful, Swofford would be hailed as a hero, and the ACC would have been on the same dollar footing as the B1G and the SEC.
The plan was not successful and the ACC will be lucky to be 20% behind dollar wise even with a full time Notre Dame and will not completely dominate the east coast.
There was no other path to equality.

The ACC has a look-in this year and will be negotiated by the new commish. ACC stock is higher now than it has been at any point this century. Let's see what Phillips can do.

(01-18-2021 09:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To be fair, some of the worst decisions were made before Swofford's tenure (e.g. whiffing on Penn State, not taking back South Carolina, waiting too long to expand to 12 teams, etc.).

However, plenty of bad decisions were made during Swofford's tenure as well. For instance:
- why was the 2010 TV contract (signed during a low point) so LONG?
- why were all TV rights combined into one contract?
- why did that contract include sub-contracting to Raycom? to Fox RSNs (now Sinclair)?
- why has the ACC signed extensions BEFORE the SEC the last 2 times?
- why were the divisions drawn without regard for TV ratings?
- why were they written into the by-laws, making it nearly impossible to change them?
- why did he let the Big XII get the $40 million contract bowl, but he had to give away the farm, settling for only $27.5M from the Orange Bowl just to get an opponent?
- why couldn't he even get divisionless conference championships passed?

Swoff tried to get divisions eliminated but the B1G got in the way of that.

The ACC's academic snobbery is part to blame. In 2003, the ACC should have added Miami, VT and WVU in order to strengthen its football brand. We got Miami.....but remember we only got VT thanks to Virginia's Gov making UVa vote "yes" if only it included VT. That meant VT replaced Cuse. So Swoff was lucky to get the Hokies. How stupid was that? I get wanting to get the state of NY ....but Cuse football wasn't even close to VT in the early 2000s.

WVU would have been better than BC. They had history with VT and Maryland.

WVU/VT/Miami > BC/Cuse/Miami

(01-19-2021 08:58 AM)YouPeople Wrote:  The ACC's academic snobbery is part to blame. In 2003, the ACC should have added Miami, VT and WVU in order to strengthen its football brand. We got Miami.....but remember we only got VT thanks to Virginia's Gov making UVa vote "yes" if only it included VT. That meant VT replaced Cuse. So Swoff was lucky to get the Hokies. How stupid was that? I get wanting to get the state of NY ....but Cuse football wasn't even close to VT in the early 2000s.

WVU would have been better than BC. They had history with VT and Maryland.

WVU/VT/Miami > BC/Cuse/Miami

Virginia Tech and SU were very close at the time. I would give VT the edge, but it was by no means a no brainer at the time to add VT over SU. Hindsight makes it a no brainer. But SU was a bigger brand than WV at that time. And SU was top 12 most all time wins at that time while VT was not even in the top 15. I believe that VT just passed SU in the last 4 or 5 years. Twenty years of bad to mediocre fb can really change perceptions.

(01-19-2021 10:18 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-19-2021 08:58 AM)YouPeople Wrote:  The ACC's academic snobbery is part to blame. In 2003, the ACC should have added Miami, VT and WVU in order to strengthen its football brand. We got Miami.....but remember we only got VT thanks to Virginia's Gov making UVa vote "yes" if only it included VT. That meant VT replaced Cuse. So Swoff was lucky to get the Hokies. How stupid was that? I get wanting to get the state of NY ....but Cuse football wasn't even close to VT in the early 2000s.

WVU would have been better than BC. They had history with VT and Maryland.

WVU/VT/Miami > BC/Cuse/Miami

Virginia Tech and SU were very close at the time. I would give VT the edge, but it was by no means a no brainer at the time to add VT over SU. Hindsight makes it a no brainer. But SU was a bigger brand than WV at that time. And SU was top 12 most all time wins at that time while VT was not even in the top 15. I believe that VT just passed SU in the last 4 or 5 years. Twenty years of bad to mediocre fb can really change perceptions.

And Virginia Tech and West Virginia are worthwhile in football only. Demographically Virginia Tech adds nothing that Virginia (and back then Maryland) already had and West Virginia is an irrelevant state. Syracuse and Boston College expanded the ACC into the Northeast. If they had just VaT and WV, they'd still be just a Southeastern conference and not be able to distinguish themselves from the SEC. Virginia Tech's also worthless in men's basketball while Syracuse won the national championship in 2003 and certainly were a power before then.

Also the Big East essentially broke up because of Syracuse (and Pittsburgh). The Catholic 7 didn't care that Virginia Tech (or Miami) left, they brought in a ton of schools to replace them. Do you think all the other men's basketball schools come into the Big East if Syracuse left? Syracuse was as close to the head of the old Big East as you could get. Virginia Tech did play Florida State in the national championship game but they had just become a full member in the Big East for a few seasons (first was 2000-01). Maybe if the ACC had taken Syracuse instead of Virginia Tech in 2003 the breakup of the Catholic 7 and football members happens a decade earlier.

(01-19-2021 10:59 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-19-2021 10:18 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-19-2021 08:58 AM)YouPeople Wrote:  The ACC's academic snobbery is part to blame. In 2003, the ACC should have added Miami, VT and WVU in order to strengthen its football brand. We got Miami.....but remember we only got VT thanks to Virginia's Gov making UVa vote "yes" if only it included VT. That meant VT replaced Cuse. So Swoff was lucky to get the Hokies. How stupid was that? I get wanting to get the state of NY ....but Cuse football wasn't even close to VT in the early 2000s.

WVU would have been better than BC. They had history with VT and Maryland.

WVU/VT/Miami > BC/Cuse/Miami

Virginia Tech and SU were very close at the time. I would give VT the edge, but it was by no means a no brainer at the time to add VT over SU. Hindsight makes it a no brainer. But SU was a bigger brand than WV at that time. And SU was top 12 most all time wins at that time while VT was not even in the top 15. I believe that VT just passed SU in the last 4 or 5 years. Twenty years of bad to mediocre fb can really change perceptions.

And Virginia Tech and West Virginia are worthwhile in football only. Demographically Virginia Tech adds nothing that Virginia (and back then Maryland) already had and West Virginia is an irrelevant state. Syracuse and Boston College expanded the ACC into the Northeast. If they had just VaT and WV, they'd still be just a Southeastern conference and not be able to distinguish themselves from the SEC. Virginia Tech's also worthless in men's basketball while Syracuse won the national championship in 2003 and certainly were a power before then.

Also the Big East essentially broke up because of Syracuse (and Pittsburgh). The Catholic 7 didn't care that Virginia Tech (or Miami) left, they brought in a ton of schools to replace them. Do you think all the other men's basketball schools come into the Big East if Syracuse left? Syracuse was as close to the head of the old Big East as you could get. Virginia Tech did play Florida State in the national championship game but they had just become a full member in the Big East for a few seasons (first was 2000-01). Maybe if the ACC had taken Syracuse instead of Virginia Tech in 2003 the breakup of the Catholic 7 and football members happens a decade earlier.

I don't have an ax to grind with Syracuse at all. But we are talking about what changes would have led to a better football branding for the ACC. "Getting into the Northeast" didn't/doesn't do a thing for football branding at all. As you surely know, college football isn't a thing in NY or Mass.

With football being king, the question in retrospect is would having better football branding be worth more $$$ than TV sets in Boston and NY? I'm not sure. I mean...we see where the ACC ranks now. Is that a function of bad negotiating or did we add the right schools?

(01-19-2021 10:59 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-19-2021 10:18 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-19-2021 08:58 AM)YouPeople Wrote:  The ACC's academic snobbery is part to blame. In 2003, the ACC should have added Miami, VT and WVU in order to strengthen its football brand. We got Miami.....but remember we only got VT thanks to Virginia's Gov making UVa vote "yes" if only it included VT. That meant VT replaced Cuse. So Swoff was lucky to get the Hokies. How stupid was that? I get wanting to get the state of NY ....but Cuse football wasn't even close to VT in the early 2000s.

WVU would have been better than BC. They had history with VT and Maryland.

WVU/VT/Miami > BC/Cuse/Miami

Virginia Tech and SU were very close at the time. I would give VT the edge, but it was by no means a no brainer at the time to add VT over SU. Hindsight makes it a no brainer. But SU was a bigger brand than WV at that time. And SU was top 12 most all time wins at that time while VT was not even in the top 15. I believe that VT just passed SU in the last 4 or 5 years. Twenty years of bad to mediocre fb can really change perceptions.

And Virginia Tech and West Virginia are worthwhile in football only. Demographically Virginia Tech adds nothing that Virginia (and back then Maryland) already had and West Virginia is an irrelevant state. Syracuse and Boston College expanded the ACC into the Northeast. If they had just VaT and WV, they'd still be just a Southeastern conference and not be able to distinguish themselves from the SEC. Virginia Tech's also worthless in men's basketball while Syracuse won the national championship in 2003 and certainly were a power before then.

Also the Big East essentially broke up because of Syracuse (and Pittsburgh). The Catholic 7 didn't care that Virginia Tech (or Miami) left, they brought in a ton of schools to replace them. Do you think all the other men's basketball schools come into the Big East if Syracuse left? Syracuse was as close to the head of the old Big East as you could get. Virginia Tech did play Florida State in the national championship game but they had just become a full member in the Big East for a few seasons (first was 2000-01). Maybe if the ACC had taken Syracuse instead of Virginia Tech in 2003 the breakup of the Catholic 7 and football members happens a decade earlier.

Not taking anything away from VT. They are a great fb program. I do agree that the ACC made the right decision based on my own hindsight in choosing VT over SU. But this whole thing of VT being a no-brainer over SU at that time is where I take issue. The 2 programs were close. VT won 82 games the previous 10 years while SU won 79. Thats really close. VT gets the edge in the win colunm as well as playing in the championship game. But nobody knew that SU would catapult downhill the next 10 years while VT was still winning a lot of games.

Maybe Virginia Tech and Syracuse instead of Virginia Tech and Boston College was the right decision.

(01-19-2021 06:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-18-2021 08:57 PM)Statefan Wrote:  When your former AD, Paul Dee, and NC State's AD was working with Gene Corrigan and Miami, Miami wanted to include BC and Syracuse. You wanted Miami and the ACC accommodated you and ESPN paid for it. Then FSU went into the tank and Miami never showed up and for half a decade the league banner is being carried by WF, BC, VT, and GT. Pitt and Syracuse were added to get ND and Penn State but MD backstabbed us.

You joined what had become a basketball conference. That allowed you to dominate the league and get an annual pass into a major bowl or play for a national championship. How many people will sit in the stands in Tallahassee if you are 8-4 in the SEC versus 10-2 in the ACC? How many SEC games do you think you would have won this year? You play in the P-5 conference that is the most inexpensive to compete in - even in the SEC you will suck hind teat behind Bama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, LSU, and TAMU when it comes to attendance because you need fans travelling to Doak to fill it up. That's not meant as an insult, just a mathematical fact.

You talk as if the added revenue comes free. It's not free. Operations that look only at income and not cost usually go broke. If money cured bad hires or stupid decisions Texas would not be on their 4th coach in 10 years.

If you and Miami had your programs in Clemson's shape, Swofford would have something better to pimp. But NC State will never raise and spend the extra $30 - $40 million a year to reach that level. Hiding a stupid football player at UNC is no longer easy. Duke and UVa drift further and further away from football culture every year. GT, Pitt, and BC will not thrive on a consistent basis in pro towns.

You have the best of all worlds right now and the ACC nor your revenue is responsible for the product on your field the last couple of years.

Had this plan been successful, Swofford would be hailed as a hero, and the ACC would have been on the same dollar footing as the B1G and the SEC.
The plan was not successful and the ACC will be lucky to be 20% behind dollar wise even with a full time Notre Dame and will not completely dominate the east coast.
There was no other path to equality.

I agree if Swofford had been successful in getting ND and PSU, the ACC would be in much better situation. It was a long shot to begin with but UMCP’s depature completely ruined any chance to get PSU.

I don’t get why many people on this board still miss UMCP.

Look - all you new to the ACC or younger than a certain age or unfamiliar with Duke - listen and learn:

Duke screwed the ACC in 1962 with the 800 SAT rule. That lost our connection with the Orange Bowl. That prevented SC and Clemson from admitted kids that could get into UGa, Bama, TN, etc. MD and NC State were not hurt so much because you had to be engineering related to get into State College, and MD's and the NE's high school education system produced better trained kids for taking the SAT. Duke and UVa wanted to keep black enrollment to a minimum or none.

It's all that ******* simple.


Random, I miss the ******* at MD that same way I miss the relative I despise. NC State and UNC shared three conferences with them back to 1906. They were fun to hate. They were fun to talk **** to at the ACC Tournament. Half of all I know about the early days of the ACC come from people attached to MD in some way. MD was the founder of the SoCon, and the ACC.

MD's leadership in the ACC kept Duke's influence under some control. Most of you focus on UNC and are obsessed with them. God knows NC State people only see Carolina while Duke hides behind the seeming more visible actor. In many ways, Duke is the cancer in the ACC.

Duke has been anti-football since 1962 because they refused to admit black kids to stay in the top 20. They wanted to take everyone with them. Their policies are what led to SC leaving. Clemson swallowed hard and stayed. Duke would never have supported Florida nor Penn State. MD's old existential hatred of PSU could only be overcome by Duke's vote back in the day. GT was added because Clemson and UNC wanted access to Atlanta and at the time their basketball was horrible, just like VT's was in 2003.

It would be as if Indiana and Kentucky were the policy makers of the B10 and SEC. UNC and Duke partner like a pushmepullyou so that UNC keeps dominance over NC State. It's logical and it's about academic programs as much as football.

(01-19-2021 12:08 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Maybe Virginia Tech and Syracuse instead of Virginia Tech and Boston College was the right decision.

Boston College has been far more successful in the time frame than Syracuse.

The best thing that could happen to the ACC would be for Duke to be admitted to the Ivy League. Carolina and GT can still play them in football. Carolina, State, and WF can continue to the play them in basketball. But the magical one and done players with mystery dollars and shoe contracts, and new houses to live in, and big jewelry buys, goes away in the Ivy League. Of course the Ivy does not want them because they don't want to compete with what are effectively highly paid basketball players.