(05-01-2013 04:57 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Not ACC math just letting you know how the numbers are inflated. Having Duke and Wake in the conference hurts attendance figures. It's the way that it is. The ACC doesn't have a 100k stadium to lift the numbers.

Can the SEC throw out Vandy and Kentucky too?

Vandy maybe. Kentucky at least avgs near 50. SEC is loaded with large stadiums so taking those two out won't matter much.

(05-01-2013 05:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 04:57 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Not ACC math just letting you know how the numbers are inflated. Having Duke and Wake in the conference hurts attendance figures. It's the way that it is. The ACC doesn't have a 100k stadium to lift the numbers.

Can the SEC throw out Vandy and Kentucky too?

Vandy maybe. Kentucky at least avgs near 50. SEC is loaded with large stadiums so taking those two out won't matter much.

Last year UK averaged 50k. More typical is mid-60s. This was their worst year in attendance in about 15 years. 1997-2011, a 15 year period, they averaged just slightly more than UCLA.

(05-01-2013 05:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 04:57 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Not ACC math just letting you know how the numbers are inflated. Having Duke and Wake in the conference hurts attendance figures. It's the way that it is. The ACC doesn't have a 100k stadium to lift the numbers.

Can the SEC throw out Vandy and Kentucky too?

Vandy maybe. Kentucky at least avgs near 50. SEC is loaded with large stadiums so taking those two out won't matter much.

Average attendance jumps over 80k without those two.

The SEC has large stadiums because they can fill them. That's why A&M, LSU, and others are expanding to ~100k

SEC isn't the only conference with large stadiums, but they are football first..have always been. 8 stadiums above 80k and only 1 under 55k. ACC only has 2 above 80 and 4 below 55k. The conferences are different and the missions are different. ACC wasn't built on football.

(05-01-2013 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

There are only 4 AQ schools who haven't been ranked in the final AP poll in the BCS era: Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina and Duke. Definite pattern there.

Interesting find. Thanks.

(05-01-2013 03:37 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

Why do you always have to add nonsense to your points to make them? Tell us, wise one, how the ACC would be doomed without a Notre Dame scheduling agreement.

The Notre Dame agreement added a significant amount to the ACC media deal payout, enough to boost it over $20m per school on average. Without that money boost, and the promise of higher home attendance when ND visits ACC stadiums, there probably wasn't enough money to get ACC schools outside of the Carolina/VA core to sign the GoR, and without the GoR the ACC gets dismembered.

A year before the BCS started..1997..still one of the most painful years in UNC athletics history. UNC goes 11-1 and finished ranked #6 in the Final AP poll. Mack Brown decides to go to Texas. UNC still hasn't recovered from that. 3 months prior, Dean Smith retired from UNC as the all-time winningest basketball coach in men's division 1 history.

(05-01-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 03:37 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

Why do you always have to add nonsense to your points to make them? Tell us, wise one, how the ACC would be doomed without a Notre Dame scheduling agreement.

The Notre Dame agreement added a significant amount to the ACC media deal payout, enough to boost it over $20m per school on average. Without that money boost, and the promise of higher home attendance when ND visits ACC stadiums, there probably wasn't enough money to get ACC schools outside of the Carolina/VA core to sign the GoR, and without the GoR the ACC gets dismembered.

The ND agreement didn't boost it over 20. ND only added a little over a million. The extra came as a "bonus" for signing the GOR so ESPN didn't have to keep renegotiating contracts. I'm guessing the ACC used it as leverage.

With the GoR in place now the ACC, ESPN & Raycom can get down to the business of setting up the ACC Network. The lower tier Football Games are a part of it but with College Baseball with schools like Florida State, Miami, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame and Louisville it will be very solid.

Not to mention the matchups in Basketball...it should get good distribution throughout the Mid-Atlantic through New England...I feel the demand in our metro area is going to be very high.

e

(05-01-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 03:37 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do nlot deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

Why do you always have to add nonsense to your points to make them? Tell us, wise one, how the ACC would be doomed without a Notre Dame scheduling agreement.

The Notre Dame agreement added a significant amount to the ACC media deal payout, enough to boost it over $20m per school on average. Without that money boost, and the promise of hi



gher hnome attendance when ND visits ACC stadiums, there probably wasn't enough money to gennt ACC schools outside of the Carolina/VA core to sign the GoR, and without the GoR the ACC gets dismembered. Notre

The ND agreement didn't boost it over 20. ND only added a little over a million. The extra came as a "bonus" for signing the GOR so ESPN didn't have to keep renegotiating contracts. I'm guessing the ACC used it as leverage.

Not sure why ESPN would pay a bonus for signing a GoR. Heck if a GoR was worth that much why has the SEC not signed one? Notre Dame was instrumental in getting the GoR thus saving the AcC.

(05-01-2013 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  e

(05-01-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 03:37 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

Why do you always have to add nonsense to your points to make them? Tell us, wise one, how the ACC would be doomed without a Notre Dame scheduling agreement.

The Notre Dame agreement added a significant amount to the ACC media deal payout, enough to boost it over $20m per school on average. Without that money boost, and the promise of hi



gher hnome attendance when ND visits ACC stadiums, there probably wasn't enough money to gennt ACC schools outside of the Carolina/VA core to sign the GoR, and without the GoR the ACC gets dismembered. Notre

The ND agreement didn't boost it over 20. ND only added a little over a million. The extra came as a "bonus" for signing the GOR so ESPN didn't have to keep renegotiating contracts. I'm guessing the ACC used it as leverage.

Not sure why ESPN would pay a bonus for signing a GoR. Heck if a GoR was worth that much why has the SEC not signed one? Notre Dame was instrumental in getting the GoR thus saving the AcC.

The GOR was done so they can move forward on the network. ESPN didn't want to hear it unless they had a commitment from the schools. So the ACC said well we'll do a GOR if you give us a bump to make us comparable with the rest and you help us get a network. ESPN has been underpaying the ACC for years so that evens it out. As for saving the ACC, what makes you think anyone else was leaving? There was no indication of that.

SEC will only sign a GOR if a school decides to leave. Until a team has the guts to bolt, the SEC doesn't need it.

(05-01-2013 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  e

(05-01-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 03:37 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

Why do you always have to add nonsense to your points to make them? Tell us, wise one, how the ACC would be doomed without a Notre Dame scheduling agreement.

The Notre Dame agreement added a significant amount to the ACC media deal payout, enough to boost it over $20m per school on average. Without that money boost, and the promise of hi



gher hnome attendance when ND visits ACC stadiums, there probably wasn't enough money to gennt ACC schools outside of the Carolina/VA core to sign the GoR, and without the GoR the ACC gets dismembered. Notre

The ND agreement didn't boost it over 20. ND only added a little over a million. The extra came as a "bonus" for signing the GOR so ESPN didn't have to keep renegotiating contracts. I'm guessing the ACC used it as leverage.

Not sure why ESPN would pay a bonus for signing a GoR. Heck if a GoR was worth that much why has the SEC not signed one? Notre Dame was instrumental in getting the GoR thus saving the AcC.

Quo, I would suggest to you to read the following article link. It addresses and answers some of the very issues that you have raised in this thread, and why these issues are not legitimate, including why ESPN would pay a bonus to the Acc for signing a GOR. Its really very educational for you and others who doubt the Acc's market value and strengths. Here is a snippet below:


What really hasn’t been discussed is what did ESPN see in the ACC that said to them let’s invest in the Atlantic Coast Conference? Here’s my take on this…

First and the biggest reason ESPN was willing work with the ACC was they were tired of renegotiating TV contracts. There were multiple quote to this effect…

In an interview with the Democrat, Florida State president Eric Barron said the new pact was necessary to proceed with long-term re-negotiations with ESPN. He said the network executives were growing “tired of conference realignment because they’re being asked to pay more for what they already own. Every year, they’re being asked to renegotiate their contracts.”

and from CBS Sportsline a quote from ESPN executive Burk Magnus.

The commissioners, fans, media, everyone — even ESPN — is tired of conference realignment.

“The best evidence I can posit to you now,” said Burke Magnus, senior vice president, college sports programming, “is that it has done nothing but cost us money.”

Depending on TV rights levels, ESPN has deals with every major conference. Consider the aggravation for ESPN had realignment occurred The Big 10 takes Virginia and Georgia Tech. The SEC gets NC State and Virginia Tech, and the BIg 12 ends up Clemson and Florida State. UNC and Duke end up somewhere. The Pac 12 gets nervous and adds a couple of more teams. That 5 deals that would need to be re-done if realignment armageddon had happened. Still though the ACC had to provide some value to ESPN.



Article

Cuseroc...if the World Wide Leader and Fox feels this way-(and I have a feeling Fox does)...Major Realignment is over for @ least 10 years & the AAC has Cincinnati & UConn for the long haul.

Its really just SEC and ACC that have been renegotiated. ACC 2 or 3 times.

Pac 12, Big 12, AACK!, CUSA were all new contracts.

I also think they were talking about the future too. So if the ACC imploded, they would have had to renotiate with the ACC, AAC, Big 12, Conf USA and maybe even the SEC again.

(05-01-2013 09:11 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  e

(05-01-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 03:37 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  Why do you always have to add nonsense to your points to make them? Tell us, wise one, how the ACC would be doomed without a Notre Dame scheduling agreement.

The Notre Dame agreement added a significant amount to the ACC media deal payout, enough to boost it over $20m per school on average. Without that money boost, and the promise of higher hnome attendance when ND visits ACC stadiums, there probably wasn't enough money to gennt ACC schools outside of the Carolina/VA core to sign the GoR, and without the GoR the ACC gets dismembered. Notre

The ND agreement didn't boost it over 20. ND only added a little over a million. The extra came as a "bonus" for signing the GOR so ESPN didn't have to keep renegotiating contracts. I'm guessing the ACC used it as leverage.

Not sure why ESPN would pay a bonus for signing a GoR. Heck if a GoR was worth that much why has the SEC not signed one? Notre Dame was instrumental in getting the GoR thus saving the AcC.

Quo, I would suggest to you to read the following article link. It addresses and answers some of the very issues that you have raised in this thread, and why these issues are not legitimate, including why ESPN would pay a bonus to the Acc for signing a GOR. Its really very educational for you and others who doubt the Acc's market value and strengths. Here is a snippet below:

Thanks for sharing the link. A some thoughts come to mind:

1) ESPN does seem to have tired of having to renegotiate these contracts. Point taken on my part.

2) But, as I have been saying, the reason the ACC was able to agree on a GoR was because the money increased to around $20 million. Without that extra money, schools outside of Carolina and VA would not be willing to sign one.

3) That raises the issue of why ESPN was willing to boost the money from $17m to $20m. I do not think that this was because of the desire on the part of ESPN to have the ACC sign a GoR. Being "tired" or renegotiating is one thing, being willing to pay more than $40 million more per year for more than a decade is another.

ESPN was willing to pay more because of a tangible change in ACC value: The agreement by Notre Dame to play 5 ACC football games a year being the dominant factor. That coup boosted ACC value considerably, to a level where schools like FSU were willing to sign a GoR.

(05-01-2013 10:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:11 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  e

(05-01-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Notre Dame agreement added a significant amount to the ACC media deal payout, enough to boost it over $20m per school on average. Without that money boost, and the promise of higher hnome attendance when ND visits ACC stadiums, there probably wasn't enough money to gennt ACC schools outside of the Carolina/VA core to sign the GoR, and without the GoR the ACC gets dismembered. Notre

The ND agreement didn't boost it over 20. ND only added a little over a million. The extra came as a "bonus" for signing the GOR so ESPN didn't have to keep renegotiating contracts. I'm guessing the ACC used it as leverage.

Not sure why ESPN would pay a bonus for signing a GoR. Heck if a GoR was worth that much why has the SEC not signed one? Notre Dame was instrumental in getting the GoR thus saving the AcC.

Quo, I would suggest to you to read the following article link. It addresses and answers some of the very issues that you have raised in this thread, and why these issues are not legitimate, including why ESPN would pay a bonus to the Acc for signing a GOR. Its really very educational for you and others who doubt the Acc's market value and strengths. Here is a snippet below:

Thanks for sharing the link. A some thoughts come to mind:

1) ESPN does seem to have tired of having to renegotiate these contracts. Point taken on my part.

2) But, as I have been saying, the reason the ACC was able to agree on a GoR was because the money increased to around $20 million. Without that extra money, schools outside of Carolina and VA would not be willing to sign one.

3) That raises the issue of why ESPN was willing to boost the money from $17m to $20m. I do not think that this was because of the desire on the part of ESPN to have the ACC sign a GoR. Being "tired" or renegotiating is one thing, being willing to pay more than $40 million more per year for more than a decade is another.

ESPN was willing to pay more because of a tangible change in ACC value: The agreement by Notre Dame to play 5 ACC football games a year being the dominant factor. That coup boosted ACC value considerably, to a level where schools like FSU were willing to sign a GoR.

Quo, the GOR is tied to the potential for a network not the 20 mil. ESPN told the league they didn't even want to go further in talks unless it knew the league was stable.....thus the GOR is born

(05-01-2013 10:34 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:11 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  e

(05-01-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The ND agreement didn't boost it over 20. ND only added a little over a million. The extra came as a "bonus" for signing the GOR so ESPN didn't have to keep renegotiating contracts. I'm guessing the ACC used it as leverage.

Not sure why ESPN would pay a bonus for signing a GoR. Heck if a GoR was worth that much why has the SEC not signed one? Notre Dame was instrumental in getting the GoR thus saving the AcC.

Quo, I would suggest to you to read the following article link. It addresses and answers some of the very issues that you have raised in this thread, and why these issues are not legitimate, including why ESPN would pay a bonus to the Acc for signing a GOR. Its really very educational for you and others who doubt the Acc's market value and strengths. Here is a snippet below:

Thanks for sharing the link. A some thoughts come to mind:

1) ESPN does seem to have tired of having to renegotiate these contracts. Point taken on my part.

2) But, as I have been saying, the reason the ACC was able to agree on a GoR was because the money increased to around $20 million. Without that extra money, schools outside of Carolina and VA would not be willing to sign one.

3) That raises the issue of why ESPN was willing to boost the money from $17m to $20m. I do not think that this was because of the desire on the part of ESPN to have the ACC sign a GoR. Being "tired" or renegotiating is one thing, being willing to pay more than $40 million more per year for more than a decade is another.

ESPN was willing to pay more because of a tangible change in ACC value: The agreement by Notre Dame to play 5 ACC football games a year being the dominant factor. That coup boosted ACC value considerably, to a level where schools like FSU were willing to sign a GoR.

Quo, the GOR is tied to the potential for a network not the 20 mil. ESPN told the league they didn't even want to go further in talks unless it knew the league was stable.....thus the GOR is born

Got proof or is this just something that you think you can repeat over and over until everyone around here takes it as fact?

Acrually John Swoffoed pretty much said what Cuseroc just posted on the Tim Brando entire interview. Part of the deal was ESPN wanted schools locked in before doing this.

What he said was they didnt want to renegotiate new numbers. Said NOTHING about a new Network yet. It could mean that but you guys are still grasping when you say the Network is a done deal now.