Never mentioned expansion or anyone changing conferences. I decided a couple months ago that it was fairly pointless to talk in circles, rewording the same opinion over and over again on thread after thread that pops up on the topic. I've seen that a few of you have chosen to go the other direction on that, continuing to push a position as fact that is just as much speculation and opinion as the next guy. Knock yourself out. That's what a message board is all about. I just got bored with it.

---------------------------------------------
--- RedLight wrote:

If nobody cares about ND's ranked basketball team then how come I keep seeing them on ESPN? Obviously somebody cares. Of course any path forward that does not include State in the SEC is a failure, right?

---------------------------------------------
--- Nate97 wrote:

If you think Notre Dame football is ever going to be on some second tier cable/sat channel then I don't know what to tell you. No one cares about their other sports.

---------------------------------------------
--- packman1981 wrote:

I will add 2 words at this time. Then rethink your posts.....................Notre Dame !!!

'81

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

MegaPack wrote: So you're saying Notre Dame non football ratings have been good for the big east and could sustain a network? A quick search shows the 5 ot ND - Louisville game had 30% fewer viewers than a Kentucky - Vandy game in the same time slot from the previous year.
ND has had the same sweetheaert non football deal in the big east since 1995. How is the big east doing?
ND football is a huge national brand. The rest, not so much.

---------------------------------------------
--- YouPeople wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- MegaPack wrote:

Yes, non football Notre Dame games have been gangbusters for the big east the last 15 years. They are rolling in the dough.

---------------------------------------------

Yea because you don't follow or care about them that must mean nobody else does. Lol.

---------------------------------------------

I said ND basketball offers at the very least the same size fan attraction as most any other ACC team and even more than some.  What the Big East has done with them is immaterial to what can be done with them in the ACC.

It will be the D-unc-K (dunk) network..........

Pack87 wrote: I don't watch much of the Big 10 network, do they show many non-revenue sports, (ie, baseball, soccer, etc.) or do they show mostly replays of football and basketball.  I think you need some of both, but wouldn't just want a network that shows the least popular (after ESPN picks) games live and then shows only reruns.  I would almost rather watch Gilligan's Island on TV Land than watch a game I already know the score of. (Except maybe a big win against Duke or UNC)

I'm from Iowa and a lot of my relatives were upset when the Big Ten network was started because the games that were broadcast on network tv got moved to the Big Ten Network.  They had to buy the sports pack on Directv to be able to watch Iowa play.  Yesterdays Duke vs BC game that was on WRAL would probably be moved to the ACC Network.  The Big Ten Network does show non-profit sports live sometimes too.  It works well for them since wrestling is so popular.  Iowa draws 15,000+ fans to their wrestling matches and Penn State draws 6,000+.

As long as Swoff and his in laws are out of this equation, I am OK with it.  AD and Chanchlors had better watch out for this thug.

^ +1

DrWire wrote: ACC should buy Raycom

The Swoff already placed his son as an executive at Raycom and gave them a sweetheart deal in the last tv contract

flair1,

Please tell me you are joking !!!

'81

Nope

packman1981 wrote: flair1,

Please tell me you are joking !!!

'81

Well, crapola on a bun !!!

'81

Proof of ACC sweetheart deal with Raycom:
www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jo...For-Raycom.aspx
“It would be our preference,” Swofford told Skipper, “if ESPN could construct something that would keep us in business with Raycom.”

“So we did,” Skipper said

Mention of John's son in article:
The back-and-forth conversations with both bidders put Haines in the middle of the negotiations. ESPN and Fox knew how close Raycom was to the ACC. For example, Swofford’s son, Chad, is Raycom’s director of new media and has been with the company five years.

More info:
www.carolinasucks.com/forums/l...php?t27880.html

It's a cute conspiracy theory, but the ACC has had a relationship with Raycom/Jefferson Pilot for decades and decades.  The ACC and ESPN needed someone to handle the distribution of over the air broadcasts that wouldn't be a conflict of interest with the broadcasting of SEC games, so Raycom was the obvious choice.

WakeForestIndy wrote: It's a cute conspiracy theory, but the ACC has had a relationship with Raycom/Jefferson Pilot for decades and decades.  The ACC and ESPN needed someone to handle the distribution of over the air broadcasts that wouldn't be a conflict of interest with the broadcasting of SEC games, so Raycom was the obvious choice.

And Swofford's son was the obvious choice for Raycom.

Lol.

I imagine this fallacy will be prevalent for a certain segment of our fanbase for as long as the fallacy of Swofford, as AD of UNC, leading the charge to add probation to Danny Ford's Clemson.

Flair, what other options did the ACC have with 2nd tier content and how much money did the ACC leave on the table by having Raycom be the distributor of that content? Multiple times you've brought up this claim that the ACC gave Raycom a "sweetheart" deal, well let's hear it.

And once again, Swofford doesn't work by himself in these situations. Not only did the ACC hire one of the most respected TV execs in Barry Frank to lead negotiations, but member schools represenatives are also involved at all points with the negotiations. In fact, our very own Debbie Yow has served on the ACC TV negotiations committee. So maybe you'd like to email Debbie to get to the bottom of this.

www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Ha...200412062401-17

Everybody and the dude taking out the trash would be kerliner grads. It would be Kerliner all day and night. The others would be screwed. All the cardigans will love flippin on the flatty to watch a replay of the Dudley Bradley steal and Handsupaburro beat the hell out of ppl on his way to stardom.

No Sir this would be the suck!

Yay, a network to watch non-stop unc-chEAT women's soccer and countless Duke-Carolina basketball re-runs!!!!!   


I'll hold off on calling my cable provider.

ChemE96 wrote: Yay, a network to watch non-stop unc-chEAT women's soccer and countless Duke-Carolina basketball re-runs!!!!!   


I'll hold off on calling my cable provider.

Your cable provider will put this on the basic tier and will raise your bill for the trouble.

wrcwolf wrote: Lol.

I imagine this fallacy will be prevalent for a certain segment of our fanbase for as long as the fallacy of Swofford, as AD of UNC, leading the charge to add probation to Danny Ford's Clemson.

Flair, what other options did the ACC have with 2nd tier content and how much money did the ACC leave on the table by having Raycom be the distributor of that content? Multiple times you've brought up this claim that the ACC gave Raycom a "sweetheart" deal, well let's hear it.

And once again, Swofford doesn't work by himself in these situations. Not only did the ACC hire one of the most respected TV execs in Barry Frank to lead negotiations, but member schools represenatives are also involved at all points with the negotiations. In fact, our very own Debbie Yow has served on the ACC TV negotiations committee. So maybe you'd like to email Debbie to get to the bottom of this.

www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Ha...200412062401-17

To be clear, I have no idea if there was anything wrong done or if it didn't work out for the ACC if there was, but when Swofford tells ESPN that he wants Raycom and all parties know this, then the incentive to get the BEST deal goes down and likely leads to the ACC getting something less.  Still might be good, but without true competition from Raycom knowing that they may loose their meal ticket, it might not have been their best offer.

Not the case at all. At least not with ESPN. Have no clue what Fox offered the ACC for 2nd tier rights. Why I asked Flair to come clean with his claim. He has no clue either, but I figured I'd ask anyways.

The ACC was selling it's entire inventory (1st, 2nd and 3rd tier rights for football and basketball). There was no 1st tier rights package, 2nd tier package, basketball package, etc... ESPN and Fox were the only two bidders for the entire package. ESPN was going to sell this 2nd tier content to someone. Be that to another distributor or to individual TV channels, as they currently do with the SEC Network (WNCN in Raleigh). As the SBJ article indicated, ESPN didn't want to be the distributor for the ACC, so that package was being sold. Raycom makes perfect sense to be the ones they sell it to, don't you think? Current relationship with conference, very good distribution provider that more importantly, had already formed many ties throughout the ACC region with local TV channels. It actually makes perfect sense, but that doesn't fit the narrative of the boogeyman in Greensboro causing all of NC State's ailments in athletics.

If anyone can prove that another distributor or Fox would have paid more than $50 million/year for 2nd tier content at that time, I'll change my mind. Until then, it's more conspiracy garbage from a certain segment of NC State fans. It was reported that the NFL Network was possibly interested in some package from the ACC at the time. Maybe ESPN sells it to them. Of course, the howls from Raleigh would have been even bigger, "I don't even get the NFL Network on TWC, how'd they take the State vs UNC game off WRAL?". I can hear it now.

Like I said in my first post, ask our AD, Debbie Yow, about the Raycom package. As past chair of the ACC TV committee, I'm sure she has all the juicy details and likely signed off to this current deal in some fashion.

wrcwolf wrote: Not the case at all. At least not with ESPN. Have no clue what Fox offered the ACC for 2nd tier rights. Why I asked Flair to come clean with his claim. He has no clue either, but I figured I'd ask anyways.

The ACC was selling it's entire inventory (1st, 2nd and 3rd tier rights for football and basketball). There was no 1st tier rights package, 2nd tier package, basketball package, etc... ESPN and Fox were the only two bidders for the entire package. ESPN was going to sell this 2nd tier content to someone. Be that to another distributor or to individual TV channels, as they currently do with the SEC Network (WNCN in Raleigh). As the SBJ article indicated, ESPN didn't want to be the distributor for the ACC, so that package was being sold. Raycom makes perfect sense to be the ones they sell it to, don't you think? Current relationship with conference, very good distribution provider that more importantly, had already formed many ties throughout the ACC region with local TV channels. It actually makes perfect sense, but that doesn't fit the narrative of the boogeyman in Greensboro causing all of NC State's ailments in athletics.

If anyone can prove that another distributor or Fox would have paid more than $50 million/year for 2nd tier content at that time, I'll change my mind. Until then, it's more conspiracy garbage from a certain segment of NC State fans. It was reported that the NFL Network was possibly interested in some package from the ACC at the time. Maybe ESPN sells it to them. Of course, the howls from Raleigh would have been even bigger, "I don't even get the NFL Network on TWC, how'd they take the State vs UNC game off WRAL?". I can hear it now.

Like I said in my first post, ask our AD, Debbie Yow, about the Raycom package. As past chair of the ACC TV committee, I'm sure she has all the juicy details and likely signed off to this current deal in some fashion.

Did you happen to click the link in the businessinsider article I linked? Basically the Swoff said if ESPN could not include Raycom in the deal, there was no deal. By artifiically adding Raycom to a deal basically adds another mouth to feed without providing any real value. Maybe it is the ACC's loyalty to a longtime partner, maybe it is a way to help his son, but this deal did not maximize value to the the individual ACC schools. Therefore it is what I still call a 'sweetheart' deal.

- "Basically the Swoff said if ESPN could not include Raycom in the deal, there was no deal."

Extract the sentences from the SBJ article that made you come to this conclusion.

- "By artificially adding Raycom to a deal basically adds another mouth to feed without providing real value"

No clue what this means. You do understand that Raycom pays ESPN $50 million/year for the 2nd tier package, not the other way around? ESPN adds that money to the total ACC package and then the ACC divides it amongst the members. As I mentioned before, ESPN was going to sell ths content to someone. If you can show me that the ACC left money on the table by pushing Raycom to be ESPN's 2nd tier distributor and I'll join your conspiracy fight. You can't. You have no clue if that deal was maximized or not.

wrcwolf wrote: - "Basically the Swoff said if ESPN could not include Raycom in the deal, there was no deal."

Extract the sentences from the SBJ article that made you come to this conclusion.

- "By artificially adding Raycom to a deal basically adds another mouth to feed without providing real value"

No clue what this means. You do understand that Raycom pays ESPN $50 million/year for the 2nd tier package, not the other way around? ESPN adds that money to the total ACC package and then the ACC divides it amongst the members. As I mentioned before, ESPN was going to sell ths content to someone. If you can show me that the ACC left money on the table by pushing Raycom to be ESPN's 2nd tier distributor and I'll join your conspiracy fight. You can't. You have no clue if that deal was maximized or not.

When the commisisioner asks you nicely something like this, then a thinly veiled direct order.

“It would be our preference,” Swofford told Skipper, “if ESPN could construct something that would keep us in business with Raycom.”

“So we did,” Skipper said.

That's your smoking gun? Good lord.

wrc...swofford caused all the acc's problems...didn't you know?

Well I have never seem any article that said the ACC got over paid or got a good deal with their TV contract after the other conferences got their money.  Ever article usually makes some comment that the ACC got low-balled.

3rd conf in fb viewers
2nd conf in bb viewers

5th conf in tv revenues

I know I know viewers because of espn tie in.  But IMHO the ACC  got  low-balled.  And as a result the ACC may loose some teams and slide farther down in TV revenue or may not exist in 5 or 10 years.