Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="ScottVib, post: 5305984, member: 694"] I mean it's a popular narrative, I just happen to disagree, in my opinion, it's an ACC issue 2011 - As per BC's AD. ESPN wanted Syracuse & UConn; the projections they sent through was for Syracuse & UConn. When the ACC balked, they asked if there was any other combination that would maintain the same payout. The sides compromised on Syracuse & Pitt. 2012 - UConn was the team... the ACC, led this time by Florida State, balked looking for a "football" school and taking Louisville. The pro-rata clause meant the ACC could add whomever they wanted and ESPN had to take it. That doesn't mean that ESPN didn't have separate clauses (like the opt-out) that they could choose to act on or not, based on how they are feeling about the agreement. That said, just because ESPN accepted the other additions, doesn't mean that ESPN was trying to torpedo UConn's admission & even ESPN encouraging UConn (see 2011) doesn't mean the ACC had to accept it or that good business didn't keep ESPN & the ACC in bed together when the ACC did not. I suppose if you're of the opinion that ESPN should've offered above market rate to add the home-state school, or torpedo an otherwise beneficial contract for them over the inclusion of UConn, then perhaps you have an argument, but given they're a part of a publicly traded firm, it would be a hard justification when it was revealed that the ACC got a greater than pro-rata deal as a favor to the "home state team" [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach