Probably a crazy question...

[nelsonmuntz]

If UConn and Rutgers were to be the 15th and 16th members of the ACC, I would say leave in a heartbeat. But I don't see UConn ever being invited to join the ACC unless the ACC has been raided itself, at which point the decision is not clear cut.

 

[Hoophound]

If UConn and Rutgers were to be the 15th and 16th members of the ACC, I would say leave in a heartbeat. But I don't see UConn ever being invited to join the ACC unless the ACC has been raided itself, at which point the decision is not clear cut.

I find it hard to believe that the acc isn't talking about expanding ahead of NBE tv negotiations. Last chance to cripple the NBE before there is no going back.

 

[UConnDan97]

I find it hard to believe that the acc isn't talking about expanding ahead of NBE tv negotiations. Last chance to cripple the NBE before there is no going back.

It's like a runner's kick in a marathon: they don't have to do that until about 45 days are gone in the 60 day negotiation window with ESPN (who will clearly lowball us). At that point, the talk will begin, about 2 weeks in front of any NBC / FOX negotiations...

 

[pj]

At some point ESPN has to ask if crippling the NBE isn't more expensive than buying it.

To get Syracuse and Pitt into the ACC, they had to not only add $17 mn each to Cuse and Pitt, but raise the other 12 ACC teams. They don't get any additional properties for the money they pay to bribe ACC teams.

If they bought the NBE rights, they at least get all the additional property.

The tension in the ACC shows that Fla State, Clemson, and probably others don't want more northern bball-rich fball-poor (as they believe) schools joining the ACC. I think they will veto expansion. The ACC will not cross Fla State and Clemson now, football holds all the cards.

Fla State and Clemson could be bribed, but that would be prohibitively expensive to ESPN.

I think the only conference with a major motive to expand is the Big 12, which wants 12 for a conference championship game. After that the next motive will be when the Big Ten TV contract comes up and they decide if they want to chase northeast media markets after a hard look at how much money it adds.

 

[freescooter]

If the ACC called, my only question would be "when do you want us? "

 

[zls44]

At some point ESPN has to ask if crippling the NBE isn't more expensive than buying it.

I ask again: what is your proof, other than a flippant statement by a BC AD, that they are actively conspiring to devalue a property they actively have rights to?

Proof. Actual, credible, proof. Not Clay Travis or Mean Gene. People who have a clue.

 

[pj]

I ask again: what is your proof, other than a flippant statement by a BC AD, that they are actively conspiring to devalue a property they actively have rights to?

Proof. Actual, credible, proof. Not Clay Travis or Mean Gene. People who have a clue.

Sensitive, aren't we?

Means: As the party controlling the vast majority of sports TV dollars, ESPN had the ability to bring the parties together on a deal. All of these football deals and conference realignments are TV driven, every conference exec has said so. It's not just Flipper, although he provides evidence that that's exactly what happened in this case.

Motive: They have ACC rights for 15 years, BE for 9 months. Increasing the value of the ACC and decreasing the value of the BE improves their position.

Opportunity: The ACC had a submarket contract which it wanted to renegotiate, and BE teams were looking to jump. This created the opportunity to broker a deal.

"Proof" doesn't exist, but a rational person doesn't need to wait for facts that only insiders have before forming a plausible speculation.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Yes, I take the ACC, gets us back with our BE friends and allows us to play BB vs UNC, Duke, Pitt and Syr every year. It also gets us back to our true main rival BC. Even if VT and FSU left, we would be in a better position.

Absolutely. The ACC would be UConn's best bet. . .period. For Football, for Basketball, for Soccer, for Baseball. A conference with North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, NC State, Miami, Syracuse, BC, Duke et al would be terrific.

In the unlikely event that teams jump ship and the ACC crumbles - and the BE would be in a position to add 3 teams . . . UNC, NC State or Virginia and Maryland. Syracuse, BC and Miami can join Conference USA.

 

[IMind]

I ask again: what is your proof, other than a flippant statement by a BC AD, that they are actively conspiring to devalue a property they actively have rights to?

Proof. Actual, credible, proof. Not Clay Travis or Mean Gene. People who have a clue.

I'm not arguing with you. You have a reasonable position... I, for one, think DeFilippo let the cat out of the bag... but I don't think there's definite proof... but just out of curiosity here's a question for you...

Hypothetically: If shortly after ESPNs exclusive negotiating period with the Big East ends... and we don't have a contract with ESPN. If when the Big East is on the cusp of getting a NBC deal the ACC suddenly offers one or two Big East teams conference membership... would that in your mind be proof that ESPN is manipulating the ACC, or just another coincidence?

 

[UConnDan97]

I'm not arguing with you. You have a reasonable position... I, for one, think DeFilippo let the cat out of the bag... but I don't think there's definite proof... but just out of curiosity here's a question for you...

Hypothetically: If shortly after ESPNs exclusive negotiating period with the Big East ends... and we don't have a contract with ESPN. If when the Big East is on the cusp of getting a NBC deal the ACC suddenly offers one or two Big East teams conference membership... would that in your mind be proof that ESPN is manipulating the ACC, or just another coincidence?

The documents that are out there and have been copied onto the Boneyard (by me on multiple occasions, along with others), not just pertaining to DeFillippo, but also to Nordenberg (Pitt), are more than enough to say that ESPN took on more than an advisory role in the situation. If ZLS doesn't want to buy that statement, and if he requires fingerprints and DNA evidence, so be it. But I highly doubt that ZLS will cave in, even if your scenario plays out (I should let him answer that for himself, I suppose, but that is my guess).

 

[Husky68]

I ask again: what is your proof, other than a flippant statement by a BC AD, that they are actively conspiring to devalue a property they actively have rights to?

Proof. Actual, credible, proof. Not Clay Travis or Mean Gene. People who have a clue.

Let me see if I understand this, you want an internet poster to provide actual, credible, proof that ESPN conspired to devalue a property. One of the few people in the room says its so and you fail to find that credible. Isn't that usually the only proof of something, "other guys in the room"?

As to devaluing a property it has right to, you understand that those rights end, correct? If you have a property:
1. that comes up to bid in a few months,
2. maybe has a C value to you,
3. if it went away it might increase your costs a little on other properties but if disappeared would not materially decrease your salable inventory of games,
4. the only downside of low balling a bid is that a competitor gets in with salable inventory and jacks up competition and what you have to pay for your inventory in the future (and since you have the most inventory your costs go up the most).

So why not help the C property lose its value if you don't want to pay for it and really don't want someone else to get it. Especially if you won't get caught unless one of the guys in the room spills the beans, and then you figure even if someone spills the beans, who in their right mind would believe him.

 

[CL82]

Depends, if you say no does Rutgers get to say yes? Louisville?

Who is 16? If it's Notre Dame or Louisville there is no choice.

That is the issue, isn't it. That was the engine that drove the Pitt and cuse departures.

 

[CL82]

Probably right. I guess that asking for logic or reasons on an internet board destroys the whole purpose of the board. By the way "it is what it is" is fast becoming my most hated cliche. Don't ask why, I just hate it.

I know what mean. It is over used but there isn't anything you can do about it. It is what it is.

 

[whaler11]

I know what mean. It is over used but there isn't anything you can do about it. It is what it is.

Pretty funny but I agree with John Greene. I worked with a guy 12 years ago who said it endlessly at a company where it was the perfect sentiment, but I hate it now.