Boilerbuilder wrote:

boomerdsooner wrote: $50 mil? Why on God's greenish/brownish earth would member schools agree to that? 

Idiots.

^^^BINGO^^^ What were they thinking?

DUCKe wrote:

I thought your guys agreed to a hefty GOR along those same lines, are they idiots too?

Boilerbuilder wrote:

boomerdsooner wrote: $50 mil? Why on God's greenish/brownish earth would member schools agree to that? 

Idiots.

^^^BINGO^^^ What were they thinking?

This was brought to your attention months ago.  

This is what FSU is po'd about.

12233 wrote: I recently posted a prediction that the ACC would hold its members together and save the conference by creating an ACC TV Network similar to BTN and the PAC-12 Network. I was dead wrong.

I just learned the ACC's most recent contract with ESPN gives the majority of the conference's tier 3 rights to ESPN. That's a deadly arrangement. First of all, it prevents the ACC from forming a TV network. The vast majority of programming on conference networks is made up of tier 3 sports.

Perhaps even more important, individual schools are not able to sell their own tier 3 packages. For example, no ACC school can set up a deal like OU has with Fox. That deal is entirely based on OU's tier 3 sports.

It's no wonder the ACC set their exit fee at $50 million. They have no other way of retaining their members. Without the revenues from a conference TV network and without the individual schools being able to package and sell their own tier 3 rights, I don't see how the ACC can compete in the long run.

DUCKe wrote:

It would seem that few of those involved share your keen contractual insight.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com...14,0,73646.post

12233 wrote:

PhiAggie wrote: Yes, they sold all tiers, but I thought it was always assumed ESPN would create a tier 3 network for those rights. If I recall correctly, they sold the rights and not the actual programming, meaning, if ESPN decided it wanted to air content in addition to what they are airing now, compensation would have to be discussed.

Members were mad that there weren't definitive details discussed about this with timetables. FSU led the way because of their potential deal with Sun Sports if I recall correctly, similar to UFs tier 3 deal that the SEC is trying to kill to get our network up and running. Money across all tiers is greater, long term, in ACC.

Burke Magnus, ESPN's Sr. VP for College Sports Programming, makes it clear what ESPN owns. Here's what he said:
 
"ESPN retains exclusive rights to all ACC football and men's BB games. Additionally, ESPN retains the first selection rights to women's BB and all other ACC sports. Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN is retained by the member institutions."

In other words, if ESPN chooses to set up an ACC Network, they can broadcast any ACC athletic event they wish without any further compensation to the ACC. Everything was included and paid for in ESPN's broadcast rights contract with the ACC.

Sooner Cal wrote: The exit fee idea is a bad one for both colleges and fans. Locking yourself in to lock others in is dumb as hell. The only potential beneficiary of such idiocy are the schools that nobody wants. The successful schools get to subsidize the bad ones. I'm not all that surprised that Boren and Joe C. agreed to such a deal. Neither has real business experience. OU football, with it's lengthy waiting list for season tickets, isn't a normal business. But it hasn't always been that way and things could change fairly quickly. The inability to adapt to a change without incurring a huge charge isn't good.

Just imagine what might happen if charitable deductions are limited or eliminated for tax purposes. What if businesses couldn't deduct the cost of those luxury suites and tickets? All of that could happen. Then I guess we just pay the coaches less.

SoonernVolved1 wrote: More like, Hello & Welcome to the Big 12: Fl. State, Miami, Ga. Tech, Clemson, Duke/NC State & UL/Pitt!

12233 wrote:

DUCKe wrote:

It would seem that few of those involved share your keen contractual insight.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com...14,0,73646.post

12233 wrote:

PhiAggie wrote: Yes, they sold all tiers, but I thought it was always assumed ESPN would create a tier 3 network for those rights. If I recall correctly, they sold the rights and not the actual programming, meaning, if ESPN decided it wanted to air content in addition to what they are airing now, compensation would have to be discussed.

Members were mad that there weren't definitive details discussed about this with timetables. FSU led the way because of their potential deal with Sun Sports if I recall correctly, similar to UFs tier 3 deal that the SEC is trying to kill to get our network up and running. Money across all tiers is greater, long term, in ACC.

Burke Magnus, ESPN's Sr. VP for College Sports Programming, makes it clear what ESPN owns. Here's what he said:
 
"ESPN retains exclusive rights to all ACC football and men's BB games. Additionally, ESPN retains the first selection rights to women's BB and all other ACC sports. Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN is retained by the member institutions."

In other words, if ESPN chooses to set up an ACC Network, they can broadcast any ACC athletic event they wish without any further compensation to the ACC. Everything was included and paid for in ESPN's broadcast rights contract with the ACC.

Read your own article. In the third paragraph it states" ESPN OWNS THE LEAGUE"S TELEVISION RIGHTS."

The success of every college TV network depends first and foremost on live football. BTN airs over 40 live games a year. The PAC-12  broadcasts even more. The ACC doesn't own the broadcast rights to a single football game for the next 13 years. ESPN owns them all. Maybe even worse for a powerful basketball conference like the ACC, they have sold the rights to every BB game through 2026-'27. Once again ESPN owns them all. So what will the ACC broadcast on their TV network...non-revenue sports? Sorry, ESPN owns all of them,too.

The ACC can form a conference TV network if they wish, but they would be at the mercy of ESPN. The only thing the ACC has to contribute to their own conference network is the broadcast of  some non-revenue sports that ESPN chooses not to carry and some coaches shows.

As the owner of all of the ACC's broadcast rights, ESPN will automatically be the majority partner in any ACC network and will dictate the financial terms. I think it's safe to say the lion's share of the revenue will go the party that owns the broadcast rights...and that would be ESPN.

By the way, DUCKe, your sarcasm was unnecessary and not appreciated.

mrmOU wrote: Goodbye ACC.

DUCKe wrote:

I apologise for the sarcasm 12233.

And I read that article to also include this link to the Street & Smiths Sports Business Journal article that it was based upon. This is the link I probably should have provided in the first place, as it far better states how the ACC hopes to go about the creation of a conference network.

I fully understand why you might want their venture to fail, but that is hardly the given you have made it out to be.

 

12233 wrote:

DUCKe wrote:

It would seem that few of those involved share your keen contractual insight.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com...14,0,73646.post

12233 wrote:

PhiAggie wrote: Yes, they sold all tiers, but I thought it was always assumed ESPN would create a tier 3 network for those rights. If I recall correctly, they sold the rights and not the actual programming, meaning, if ESPN decided it wanted to air content in addition to what they are airing now, compensation would have to be discussed.

Members were mad that there weren't definitive details discussed about this with timetables. FSU led the way because of their potential deal with Sun Sports if I recall correctly, similar to UFs tier 3 deal that the SEC is trying to kill to get our network up and running. Money across all tiers is greater, long term, in ACC.

Burke Magnus, ESPN's Sr. VP for College Sports Programming, makes it clear what ESPN owns. Here's what he said:
 
"ESPN retains exclusive rights to all ACC football and men's BB games. Additionally, ESPN retains the first selection rights to women's BB and all other ACC sports. Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN is retained by the member institutions."

In other words, if ESPN chooses to set up an ACC Network, they can broadcast any ACC athletic event they wish without any further compensation to the ACC. Everything was included and paid for in ESPN's broadcast rights contract with the ACC.

Read your own article. In the third paragraph it states" ESPN OWNS THE LEAGUE"S TELEVISION RIGHTS."

The success of every college TV network depends first and foremost on live football. BTN airs over 40 live games a year. The PAC-12  broadcasts even more. The ACC doesn't own the broadcast rights to a single football game for the next 13 years. ESPN owns them all. Maybe even worse for a powerful basketball conference like the ACC, they have sold the rights to every BB game through 2026-'27. Once again ESPN owns them all. So what will the ACC broadcast on their TV network...non-revenue sports? Sorry, ESPN owns all of them,too.

The ACC can form a conference TV network if they wish, but they would be at the mercy of ESPN. The only thing the ACC has to contribute to their own conference network is the broadcast of  some non-revenue sports that ESPN chooses not to carry and some coaches shows.

As the owner of all of the ACC's broadcast rights, ESPN will automatically be the majority partner in any ACC network and will dictate the financial terms. I think it's safe to say the lion's share of the revenue will go the party that owns the broadcast rights...and that would be ESPN.

By the way, DUCKe, your sarcasm was unnecessary and not appreciated.

12233 wrote:

DUCKe wrote:

I apologise for the sarcasm 12233.

And I read that article to also include this link to the Street & Smiths Sports Business Journal article that it was based upon. This is the link I probably should have provided in the first place, as it far better states how the ACC hopes to go about the creation of a conference network.

I fully understand why you might want their venture to fail, but that is hardly the given you have made it out to be.

 

12233 wrote:

DUCKe wrote:

It would seem that few of those involved share your keen contractual insight.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com...14,0,73646.post

12233 wrote:

PhiAggie wrote: Yes, they sold all tiers, but I thought it was always assumed ESPN would create a tier 3 network for those rights. If I recall correctly, they sold the rights and not the actual programming, meaning, if ESPN decided it wanted to air content in addition to what they are airing now, compensation would have to be discussed.

Members were mad that there weren't definitive details discussed about this with timetables. FSU led the way because of their potential deal with Sun Sports if I recall correctly, similar to UFs tier 3 deal that the SEC is trying to kill to get our network up and running. Money across all tiers is greater, long term, in ACC.

Burke Magnus, ESPN's Sr. VP for College Sports Programming, makes it clear what ESPN owns. Here's what he said:
 
"ESPN retains exclusive rights to all ACC football and men's BB games. Additionally, ESPN retains the first selection rights to women's BB and all other ACC sports. Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN is retained by the member institutions."

In other words, if ESPN chooses to set up an ACC Network, they can broadcast any ACC athletic event they wish without any further compensation to the ACC. Everything was included and paid for in ESPN's broadcast rights contract with the ACC.

Read your own article. In the third paragraph it states" ESPN OWNS THE LEAGUE"S TELEVISION RIGHTS."

The success of every college TV network depends first and foremost on live football. BTN airs over 40 live games a year. The PAC-12  broadcasts even more. The ACC doesn't own the broadcast rights to a single football game for the next 13 years. ESPN owns them all. Maybe even worse for a powerful basketball conference like the ACC, they have sold the rights to every BB game through 2026-'27. Once again ESPN owns them all. So what will the ACC broadcast on their TV network...non-revenue sports? Sorry, ESPN owns all of them,too.

The ACC can form a conference TV network if they wish, but they would be at the mercy of ESPN. The only thing the ACC has to contribute to their own conference network is the broadcast of  some non-revenue sports that ESPN chooses not to carry and some coaches shows.

As the owner of all of the ACC's broadcast rights, ESPN will automatically be the majority partner in any ACC network and will dictate the financial terms. I think it's safe to say the lion's share of the revenue will go the party that owns the broadcast rights...and that would be ESPN.

By the way, DUCKe, your sarcasm was unnecessary and not appreciated.

Apology accepted. Thanks. It doesn't matter whether I want the venture to fail. What matters is, it would take a miracle for it to succeed. As your article points out, the primary reason the ACC is interested in a network is to keep up financially with the B1G, Pac-12 and SEC. But how can the ACC keep up financially when they have nothing to sell?

Please excuse the simplicity of my analogy, but if a shoe store sells all of its shoes and has no remaining inventory, it can't sell any more shoes. The ACC sold all of its shoes to ESPN and has nothing left to sell. Look at the circumstances outlined rather vividly in your article:

- The ACC's media rights are tied up with ESPN until 2026-'27.(All the shoes have been sold).

- ESPN would have to play a major role in any ACC channel since the network owns the league's rights.

- BTN broadcasts over 40 football games a year, plus 105 men's BB games and 55 women's BB games. To keep up financially, the ACC would need to do something close to the same numbers. But the ACC has sold ALL their games through 2026-27 to ESPN. The ACC  doesn't own a single game.

- The ACC doesn't even own their digital rights. They sold those to Raycom.

- The ACC can't even seriously THINK about starting a network without total support from ESPN.  If ESPN participates in a network with the ACC, ESPN will get the lion's share of the money, because ESPN owns ALL OF THE MEANINGFUL PROGRAMMING.

- If most of the money goes to ESPN, how will that help the ACC keep up with the other conferences?

- ESPN has partnered with the SEC to form a network that will kick off in 2014. As your article points out, ESPN is reluctant to form a network with the ACC, because it would directly compete with the SEC network throughout the south, and especially in the three key states where both leagues have teams...Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.

- The likelihood that the ACC can form a TV network that will bring them anywhere close to the money being generated by BTN is a pipe dream. The ACC administration sold everything they owned in the last round of negotiations with ESPN. They gave up EVERYTHING in an effort to make their new contract with ESPN as lucrative as possible. Their strategy of selling everything is understandable, but it was a huge mistake. It left the ACC with nothing to contribute to their own network. And it left the individual schools with nothing to package and sell on their own. The ACC sold all their shoes and their shelves are empty.  



-

drmouse wrote: but, but, the acc got ND so they are saved.   ND would never let a conference they are in fold up.

Boilerbuilder wrote:

mrmOU wrote: Goodbye ACC.

This article pretty much confirms that, also discusses Big 12 expansion.....

http://www.sportsmancave.com/e...-the-war-drums/

DUCKe wrote:
The flaw in your analogy is that ESPN gave all of the shoes that did not fit back to the shoe store, for free.

"Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN is retained by the member institutions."

Therein lies the rub, the ACC had put themselves at the mercy of ESPN and were granted leniency. It's fair to say a prescedent has allready been established that ESPN may be a little more willing to cooperate with them than what you have indicated.

Whether it is in the best interests of ESPN for the ACC to remain intact, I do not know.

12233 wrote:

DUCKe wrote:

I apologise for the sarcasm 12233.

And I read that article to also include this link to the Street & Smiths Sports Business Journal article that it was based upon. This is the link I probably should have provided in the first place, as it far better states how the ACC hopes to go about the creation of a conference network.

I fully understand why you might want their venture to fail, but that is hardly the given you have made it out to be.

 

12233 wrote:

DUCKe wrote:

It would seem that few of those involved share your keen contractual insight.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com...14,0,73646.post

12233 wrote:

PhiAggie wrote: Yes, they sold all tiers, but I thought it was always assumed ESPN would create a tier 3 network for those rights. If I recall correctly, they sold the rights and not the actual programming, meaning, if ESPN decided it wanted to air content in addition to what they are airing now, compensation would have to be discussed.

Members were mad that there weren't definitive details discussed about this with timetables. FSU led the way because of their potential deal with Sun Sports if I recall correctly, similar to UFs tier 3 deal that the SEC is trying to kill to get our network up and running. Money across all tiers is greater, long term, in ACC.

Burke Magnus, ESPN's Sr. VP for College Sports Programming, makes it clear what ESPN owns. Here's what he said:
 
"ESPN retains exclusive rights to all ACC football and men's BB games. Additionally, ESPN retains the first selection rights to women's BB and all other ACC sports. Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN is retained by the member institutions."

In other words, if ESPN chooses to set up an ACC Network, they can broadcast any ACC athletic event they wish without any further compensation to the ACC. Everything was included and paid for in ESPN's broadcast rights contract with the ACC.

Read your own article. In the third paragraph it states" ESPN OWNS THE LEAGUE"S TELEVISION RIGHTS."

The success of every college TV network depends first and foremost on live football. BTN airs over 40 live games a year. The PAC-12  broadcasts even more. The ACC doesn't own the broadcast rights to a single football game for the next 13 years. ESPN owns them all. Maybe even worse for a powerful basketball conference like the ACC, they have sold the rights to every BB game through 2026-'27. Once again ESPN owns them all. So what will the ACC broadcast on their TV network...non-revenue sports? Sorry, ESPN owns all of them,too.

The ACC can form a conference TV network if they wish, but they would be at the mercy of ESPN. The only thing the ACC has to contribute to their own conference network is the broadcast of  some non-revenue sports that ESPN chooses not to carry and some coaches shows.

As the owner of all of the ACC's broadcast rights, ESPN will automatically be the majority partner in any ACC network and will dictate the financial terms. I think it's safe to say the lion's share of the revenue will go the party that owns the broadcast rights...and that would be ESPN.

By the way, DUCKe, your sarcasm was unnecessary and not appreciated.

Apology accepted. Thanks. It doesn't matter whether I want the venture to fail. What matters is, it would take a miracle for it to succeed. As your article points out, the primary reason the ACC is interested in a network is to keep up financially with the B1G, Pac-12 and SEC. But how can the ACC keep up financially when they have nothing to sell?

Please excuse the simplicity of my analogy, but if a shoe store sells all of its shoes and has no remaining inventory, it can't sell any more shoes. The ACC sold all of its shoes to ESPN and has nothing left to sell. Look at the circumstances outlined rather vividly in your article:

- The ACC's media rights are tied up with ESPN until 2026-'27.(All the shoes have been sold).

- ESPN would have to play a major role in any ACC channel since the network owns the league's rights.

- BTN broadcasts over 40 football games a year, plus 105 men's BB games and 55 women's BB games. To keep up financially, the ACC would need to do something close to the same numbers. But the ACC has sold ALL their games through 2026-27 to ESPN. The ACC  doesn't own a single game.

- The ACC doesn't even own their digital rights. They sold those to Raycom.

- The ACC can't even seriously THINK about starting a network without total support from ESPN.  If ESPN participates in a network with the ACC, ESPN will get the lion's share of the money, because ESPN owns ALL OF THE MEANINGFUL PROGRAMMING.

- If most of the money goes to ESPN, how will that help the ACC keep up with the other conferences?

- ESPN has partnered with the SEC to form a network that will kick off in 2014. As your article points out, ESPN is reluctant to form a network with the ACC, because it would directly compete with the SEC network throughout the south, and especially in the three key states where both leagues have teams...Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.

- The likelihood that the ACC can form a TV network that will bring them anywhere close to the money being generated by BTN is a pipe dream. The ACC administration sold everything they owned in the last round of negotiations with ESPN. They gave up EVERYTHING in an effort to make their new contract with ESPN as lucrative as possible. Their strategy of selling everything is understandable, but it was a huge mistake. It left the ACC with nothing to contribute to their own network. And it left the individual schools with nothing to package and sell on their own. The ACC sold all their shoes and their shelves are empty.  



-

ESPN has already done exactly what you say that they will not do, and they have done it with every single ACC game that they have not televised. Barring empathic abilities beyond my comprehension, I do not see how you can be so sure that they will reverse course.
I think you may be letting that which you perceive to be in your own best interest, cloud your judgment on this matter.

Then again, if ESPN feels that the survival of the ACC might not be in their best interests, all bets are off.

12233 wrote:

DUCKe wrote:
The flaw in your analogy is that ESPN gave all of the shoes that did not fit back to the shoe store, for free.

"Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN is retained by the member institutions."

Therein lies the rub, the ACC had put themselves at the mercy of ESPN and were granted leniency. It's fair to say a prescedent has allready been established that ESPN may be a little more willing to cooperate with them than what you have indicated.

Whether it is in the best interests of ESPN for the ACC to remain intact, I do not know.

12233 wrote:

DUCKe wrote:

I apologise for the sarcasm 12233.

And I read that article to also include this link to the Street & Smiths Sports Business Journal article that it was based upon. This is the link I probably should have provided in the first place, as it far better states how the ACC hopes to go about the creation of a conference network.

I fully understand why you might want their venture to fail, but that is hardly the given you have made it out to be.

 

12233 wrote:

DUCKe wrote:

It would seem that few of those involved share your keen contractual insight.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com...14,0,73646.post

12233 wrote:

PhiAggie wrote: Yes, they sold all tiers, but I thought it was always assumed ESPN would create a tier 3 network for those rights. If I recall correctly, they sold the rights and not the actual programming, meaning, if ESPN decided it wanted to air content in addition to what they are airing now, compensation would have to be discussed.

Members were mad that there weren't definitive details discussed about this with timetables. FSU led the way because of their potential deal with Sun Sports if I recall correctly, similar to UFs tier 3 deal that the SEC is trying to kill to get our network up and running. Money across all tiers is greater, long term, in ACC.

Burke Magnus, ESPN's Sr. VP for College Sports Programming, makes it clear what ESPN owns. Here's what he said:
 
"ESPN retains exclusive rights to all ACC football and men's BB games. Additionally, ESPN retains the first selection rights to women's BB and all other ACC sports. Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN is retained by the member institutions."

In other words, if ESPN chooses to set up an ACC Network, they can broadcast any ACC athletic event they wish without any further compensation to the ACC. Everything was included and paid for in ESPN's broadcast rights contract with the ACC.

Read your own article. In the third paragraph it states" ESPN OWNS THE LEAGUE"S TELEVISION RIGHTS."

The success of every college TV network depends first and foremost on live football. BTN airs over 40 live games a year. The PAC-12  broadcasts even more. The ACC doesn't own the broadcast rights to a single football game for the next 13 years. ESPN owns them all. Maybe even worse for a powerful basketball conference like the ACC, they have sold the rights to every BB game through 2026-'27. Once again ESPN owns them all. So what will the ACC broadcast on their TV network...non-revenue sports? Sorry, ESPN owns all of them,too.

The ACC can form a conference TV network if they wish, but they would be at the mercy of ESPN. The only thing the ACC has to contribute to their own conference network is the broadcast of  some non-revenue sports that ESPN chooses not to carry and some coaches shows.

As the owner of all of the ACC's broadcast rights, ESPN will automatically be the majority partner in any ACC network and will dictate the financial terms. I think it's safe to say the lion's share of the revenue will go the party that owns the broadcast rights...and that would be ESPN.

By the way, DUCKe, your sarcasm was unnecessary and not appreciated.

Apology accepted. Thanks. It doesn't matter whether I want the venture to fail. What matters is, it would take a miracle for it to succeed. As your article points out, the primary reason the ACC is interested in a network is to keep up financially with the B1G, Pac-12 and SEC. But how can the ACC keep up financially when they have nothing to sell?

Please excuse the simplicity of my analogy, but if a shoe store sells all of its shoes and has no remaining inventory, it can't sell any more shoes. The ACC sold all of its shoes to ESPN and has nothing left to sell. Look at the circumstances outlined rather vividly in your article:

- The ACC's media rights are tied up with ESPN until 2026-'27.(All the shoes have been sold).

- ESPN would have to play a major role in any ACC channel since the network owns the league's rights.

- BTN broadcasts over 40 football games a year, plus 105 men's BB games and 55 women's BB games. To keep up financially, the ACC would need to do something close to the same numbers. But the ACC has sold ALL their games through 2026-27 to ESPN. The ACC  doesn't own a single game.

- The ACC doesn't even own their digital rights. They sold those to Raycom.

- The ACC can't even seriously THINK about starting a network without total support from ESPN.  If ESPN participates in a network with the ACC, ESPN will get the lion's share of the money, because ESPN owns ALL OF THE MEANINGFUL PROGRAMMING.

- If most of the money goes to ESPN, how will that help the ACC keep up with the other conferences?

- ESPN has partnered with the SEC to form a network that will kick off in 2014. As your article points out, ESPN is reluctant to form a network with the ACC, because it would directly compete with the SEC network throughout the south, and especially in the three key states where both leagues have teams...Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.

- The likelihood that the ACC can form a TV network that will bring them anywhere close to the money being generated by BTN is a pipe dream. The ACC administration sold everything they owned in the last round of negotiations with ESPN. They gave up EVERYTHING in an effort to make their new contract with ESPN as lucrative as possible. Their strategy of selling everything is understandable, but it was a huge mistake. It left the ACC with nothing to contribute to their own network. And it left the individual schools with nothing to package and sell on their own. The ACC sold all their shoes and their shelves are empty.  



-

It remains to be seen what ESPN gives back. No one knows yet. They don't have to give back anything and, as you know, ESPN is not exactly a charitable organization. Why would ESPN  form a partnership with the ACC on a network, give back a bunch of programming and then compensate the ACC for providing the programming ESPN just gave back? That makes no sense at all.

Regardless, ESPN is not likely to give back any football games, or any of the meaningful BB games. That will leave the ACC with nothing to contribute to their own network but some coaches shows and whatever programming that's worth so little, ESPN returned it for nothing.

IMO, even if the ACC is able to convince ESPN to partner with them on a network, the conference will not make nearly enough to keep up with the other major conferences. ESPN will keep most of the network's profits because they have all the Nike Zoom Ites ($400 a pair) and the ACC has nothing but a few pair of Hush Puppies.

If you wish, you're welcome to the last word. Been fun. Enjoyed the debate. You are a worthy opponent.