ACC expansion | Page 12 | The Boneyard

ACC expansion

A follow up to my post above. I contacted the writer and he said he omitted UConn because he thought we were basically content in the Big East. Maybe thinking everyone hates us displays a little paranoia on my part. But after we’ve been through for 10 years, I think we’re entitled to a little paranoia. The writer seems sincere.
 
Last edited:
hank970 said:
If memory serves, the last Big East hybrid model didn't work out very well. The basketball-first schools resented the football-first schools, and vice versa. After a few of the disaffected football schools were invited to greener pastures and left, there was a messy divorce. USF, for one. probably wouldn't want to remarry. So yeah, your opening words, including the sentiment in parentheses, are valid.
Expand ...
Lots of water over the dam since the old Big East days. Maybe a lot has been learned and perhaps petulance can be put aside and those involved can act like grown ups. Sounds like a pretty strong alliance to me.
 
temery said:
A Twitter amount of food and drink. Is that a lot?
Expand ...
Barely anything at all. He eats like a bird apparently.
 
Rufus said:
The cost to the ACC comes in 7 years when Stanford, Cal and SMU all would be in line to receive full shares of the ACC contract money. That will be a net loss for all other ACC teams from that point forward. Further proof the ACC is going to eventually blow up.
Expand ...
Or that ESPN has committed to paying for a a full share for them in seven years.
 
All I have to say is Notre Dame. They care so much that the fine institutions on the west coast don't have a home to play in even the the MWC and AAC would gladly accept them, they are pushing the ACC to add them.

Well there's a fine northeast institution called UConn that doesn't have a home for their football team and nobody seems to care about that.

them and their pretentious program. I will never support that program.
 
Do they ever have to pay SMU? Or they’re just assuming it will blow up before then?
 
Those schools were in once ESPN agreed to pay for the additions. For ESPN, they got some new content on the cheap. For the rest of the ACC schools, they got little extra money. The extra money is enough to offset the new travel cost.

As usual, ESPN was behind the whole thing. UConn was once again left out of the it.

I am not sure if CT governor had any conversation with ESPN since we heard nothing, but the reality is they got out maneuvered by other state and former state officials again in this political money game.
 
WestCoastHusky said:
Those schools were in once ESPN agreed to pay for the additions. For ESPN, they got some new content on the cheap. For the rest of the ACC schools, they got little extra money. The extra money is enough to offset the new travel cost.

As usual, ESPN was behind the whole thing. UConn was once again left out of the it.

I am not sure if CT governor had any conversation with ESPN since we heard nothing, but the reality is they got out maneuvered by other state and former state officials again in this political money game.
Expand ...
I mean if your competition is willing to take an unpaid internship for 7 years and you want to collect a salary, were you out maneuvered?
 
OkaForPrez said:
I mean if your competition is willing to take an unpaid internship for 7 years and you want to collect a salary, were you out maneuvered?
Expand ...
Did we even make an offer? You can't be in the game if you are not even willing to try. SMU will be in long term, and they will get paid eventually. Do fans really care if the school get paid or not? Most fans just care about wins and losses at the end of the day. At end of the day, SMU is in a P4 and we are not.

All UConn needed was ESPN stating they are willing to pay for UConn. It is as simple as that. The fact a company sitting in the state of CT can't do this simple thing is amazing to me. CT governor could easily offer some kind of tax break or something similar if they wanted to.
 
WestCoastHusky said:
Those schools were in once ESPN agreed to pay for the additions. For ESPN, they got some new content on the cheap. For the rest of the ACC schools, they got little extra money. The extra money is enough to offset the new travel cost.

As usual, ESPN was behind the whole thing. UConn was once again left out of the it.

I am not sure if CT governor had any conversation with ESPN since we heard nothing, but the reality is they got out maneuvered by other state and former state officials again in this political money game.
Expand ...

ESPN got nothing on the cheap and really had no say - their contract specifies that they pay X for new members.

OkaForPrez said:
I mean if your competition is willing to take an unpaid internship for 7 years and you want to collect a salary, were you out maneuvered?
Expand ...

SMU will make more money from the ACC taking zero TV dollars than we will make in the Big East.
 
Fishy said:
ESPN got nothing on the cheap and really had no say - their contract specifies that they pay X for new members.



SMU will make more money from the ACC taking zero TV dollars than we will make in the Big East.
Expand ...
Wrong. Apple is going to pay the Big East 20 mil per school next contract. If not more.
 
nadav said:
Wrong. Apple is going to pay the Big East 20 mil per school next contract. If not more.
Expand ...
Lol...Our only saving grace is if Apple or someone step up and save our butt with the new Big East media deal.

We all know rule #1, and it is still in play.
 
nadav said:
Wrong. Apple is going to pay the Big East 20 mil per school next contract. If not more.
Expand ...
Meryl Streep Doubt GIF
 
Don't short sell the media's hand in these realignment movements...

I would bet that ESPN, behind the scenes, has been manuevring.

Brett McMurphy tweeted...

."W/potential future departures of FSU, Clemson & UNC - all who voted against expansion - ACC wanted to get P5 schools now opposed to G5 schools later to maintain required membership number".

What was considered a pipedream a month ago now seems to be talked about nationally as a fact. Shore up the conference in preparation for future departures....the script is set...bridges burned, yada, yada....I sort of think that the ACC ESPN contract will be changed thus making it less expensive for those who want to leave (Exit fee but GOR negated).

The ESPN gets their late evening slots, the ACC gets money and gets kept whole, and maybe, just maybe, ESPN gets to move an asset or two to another conference property.
 
Mike Aresco's take...

“I’ve talked about how destructive this whole P5 thing can be,” Aresco said. “It’s all about branding. It’s all about the P5 conferences. We heard, ‘Well, Stanford and Cal have no place to go.’ They had a place to go. It may not be the place they wanted to go ideally. But they weren’t orphans. They had a chance to go somewhere. There’s this desperation now because of P5 branding. That’s really what’s going on. … I understand the issue of money. It is based on TV deals. But guys are willing to go for virtually nothing because they feel like they have to have that – they feel that they need that branding.”
 
At this point I'm just rooting for the ACC to fail at everything. When FSU and Clemson bolt may the roof collapse on them all. Twenty years of aggravation from them and there's always a reason why they don't want us, while destroying what we had in the process by pillaging the old Big East. ACC, ESPN. Screw them all.
 
BugsyCT said:
At this point I'm just rooting for the ACC to fail at everything. When FSU and Clemson bolt may the roof collapse on them all. Twenty years of aggravation from them and there's always a reason why they don't want us, while destroying what we had in the process by pillaging the old Big East. ACC, ESPN. Screw them all.
Expand ...
Unless they invite us......:D
 
billybud said:
Mike Aresco's take...

“I’ve talked about how destructive this whole P5 thing can be,” Aresco said. “It’s all about branding. It’s all about the P5 conferences. We heard, ‘Well, Stanford and Cal have no place to go.’ They had a place to go. It may not be the place they wanted to go ideally. But they weren’t orphans. They had a chance to go somewhere. There’s this desperation now because of P5 branding. That’s really what’s going on. … I understand the issue of money. It is based on TV deals. But guys are willing to go for virtually nothing because they feel like they have to have that – they feel that they need that branding.”
Expand ...
Its the only thing he has ever been right about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
204
Guests online
1,278
Total visitors
1,482
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,962
Messages
4,376,850
Members
10,168
Latest member
CTFan142


.
..
Top Bottom