Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="dwalks93, post: 1682039, member: 5598"] CL82 I really enjoy your posts and I think your point has merit. I completely agree the ACC's initial plan was no more complicated than to destroy the Big East. IMO the ACC wanted to eliminate the BE's automatic BCS bid and wanted to be the dominate conference on the east coast. However the ACC needed to [B]destroy and absorb[/B] the BE territory and that is where the ACC wheels came off. Destroying the BE was easy but, once it was fractured, the ACC did not recruit/retain critical programs. Where would the ACC be as far as a network if they had UConn, Rutgers, Maryland, and WVU? The above programs may not significantly increase the perception of the ACC's football competitiveness but they could have been the core of an ACC network in the mid-Atlantic and NE. The ACC took the "dollar in hand" approach. Allowed the ACC football schools to dictate short term payouts instead of strategic building is what will eventually lead to ACC programs with option leaving. I think the ACC still has valuable programs to sell but they can only sell their product to one distributor (ESPN) and ESPN sets the price. The ACC this year will probably make more media money than they ever have before...but it will be half of the SEC/BIG. Ironically many of the most attractive ACC programs will probably mimic any bubble market. Make as much money as you can in the short term and then get into a more stable profitable conference when possible. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach