(12-16-2014 05:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry Jam, but your position regarding the Big 12 (and in reality the Pac as well) is not backed up but what actually happened.

Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to get another contract bowl (either a 7th or one within the six) where the best of the G5 champions would face off with either a B12 or Pac-12 team.

However, there was no equivalent value TV $$$ in such a set-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...off-access

Cheers,
Neil

So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

Jam, my post was to address your position that the ACC couldn't have gone to the B12 (or by inference the Pac) to try and get the "price" down for the SEC/BiG taking part of the Orange.

You specifically said the B12 had no interest since they had gotten what they wanted with the Sugar Bowl deal.

That stance is incorrect as the article I posted showed, both the B12 and PAC12 would have wanted to be a part of it.

Now, would the value have been the same at $55 million with those conferences instead of the SEC/BiG? Probably not.

But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million.

And the Orange needed to be a contract bowl as much as the ACC needed one as a conference in order to try and remain a step ahead of the other Event Bowls. So it really came down to how much was TV willing to payout. But even there, the Orange and the ACC had the option to go to FOX or another network.

I don't see why so many fans of North Carolina schools want to defend Swofford on this issue. I think he has done an admirable job overall, but on this one issue, he dropped the ball, imho.

And the facts seem to support that position. At least that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil

Bingo. He has done a great job in many areas, but he screwed up here, and with the TV contract (although he has done a good job of trying to dig out of that hole).

Swofford is all fail.

His entire argument is 'well we have a seat at the table'.


But as long as the ACC isn't serious about football and basically doesn't care.....it will excuse Swofford

(12-18-2014 08:18 PM)nole Wrote:  Swofford is all fail.

His entire argument is 'well we have a seat at the table'.


But as long as the ACC isn't serious about football and basically doesn't care.....it will excuse Swofford

What about ACC doesn't show they are serious about football?

The respectable TV ratings, the well attended ACCCG?

Maybe since 2012 bowl season is it the wins over these programs which all ranked in the top 10 when they played?

LSU
Georgia
Auburn
Ohio State
USC
Ohio State
Notre Dame
Georgia

No other conference comes close to OOC wins like that.

The addition of Louisville? The investment Duke has made to clearly improve their program? Is it the 3-0 BCS record that is troublesome?

Just because Miami is a dead program, doesn't mean the ACC hasn't come a long way the last 2 years.

No conference boasts more than a couple of elite teams, and OOC where it matters, the ACC is winning alot of the marquee games.

The statement that the ACC is a weak football conference is straight out of 2006.

You cannot say the acc has come a long way based on a small sample size (less than two seasons).

Vt is also down, not just Miami. Nc state, uva and unc are once again mediocre. Ditto for other new additions cuse and Pitt.

(12-19-2014 10:24 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  You cannot say the acc has come a long way based on a small sample size (less than two seasons).

Vt is also down, not just Miami. Nc state, uva and unc are once again mediocre. Ditto for other new additions cuse and Pitt.

Actually, yes you can. If you prefer, however, it might be more accurate to say that ACC football is showing some very encouraging signs of change over the last 2 years. Anyone who wants to be cautious based on getting burned in the past is certainly understandable, though.

3 years ago ACC football was 5th or maybe even 6th in just about every category. The fact that it has climbed up in several of them and has closed the gap in the rest* is a good sign.

* those who object to the revenue gap have to remember that, adjusted for inflation, the ACC used to get about HALF what the SEC got in TV money, whereas now they get 80 to 90% - MUCH closer. It would be unrealistic to expect to pass them in just 2 years...

And I can guarantee you that Louisville is Deadly serious about this "football" thing!!!
Wait until Bobby actually gets an offense.

FlossY Out...

(12-16-2014 05:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry Jam, but your position regarding the Big 12 (and in reality the Pac as well) is not backed up but what actually happened.

Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to get another contract bowl (either a 7th or one within the six) where the best of the G5 champions would face off with either a B12 or Pac-12 team.

However, there was no equivalent value TV $$$ in such a set-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...off-access

Cheers,
Neil

So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

Jam, my post was to address your position that the ACC couldn't have gone to the B12 (or by inference the Pac) to try and get the "price" down for the SEC/BiG taking part of the Orange.

You specifically said the B12 had no interest since they had gotten what they wanted with the Sugar Bowl deal.

That stance is incorrect as the article I posted showed, both the B12 and PAC12 would have wanted to be a part of it.

Now, would the value have been the same at $55 million with those conferences instead of the SEC/BiG? Probably not.

But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million.

And the Orange needed to be a contract bowl as much as the ACC needed one as a conference in order to try and remain a step ahead of the other Event Bowls. So it really came down to how much was TV willing to payout. But even there, the Orange and the ACC had the option to go to FOX or another network.

I don't see why so many fans of North Carolina schools want to defend Swofford on this issue. I think he has done an admirable job overall, but on this one issue, he dropped the ball, imho.

And the facts seem to support that position. At least that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil

the commish traded money for access to the gator & citrus bowls which had been off-limits ...

RESUME BUILDING DOS & DON'TS

(12-19-2014 05:23 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 05:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry Jam, but your position regarding the Big 12 (and in reality the Pac as well) is not backed up but what actually happened.

Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to get another contract bowl (either a 7th or one within the six) where the best of the G5 champions would face off with either a B12 or Pac-12 team.

However, there was no equivalent value TV $$$ in such a set-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...off-access

Cheers,
Neil

So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

Jam, my post was to address your position that the ACC couldn't have gone to the B12 (or by inference the Pac) to try and get the "price" down for the SEC/BiG taking part of the Orange.

You specifically said the B12 had no interest since they had gotten what they wanted with the Sugar Bowl deal.

That stance is incorrect as the article I posted showed, both the B12 and PAC12 would have wanted to be a part of it.

Now, would the value have been the same at $55 million with those conferences instead of the SEC/BiG? Probably not.

But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million.

And the Orange needed to be a contract bowl as much as the ACC needed one as a conference in order to try and remain a step ahead of the other Event Bowls. So it really came down to how much was TV willing to payout. But even there, the Orange and the ACC had the option to go to FOX or another network.

I don't see why so many fans of North Carolina schools want to defend Swofford on this issue. I think he has done an admirable job overall, but on this one issue, he dropped the ball, imho.

And the facts seem to support that position. At least that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil

the commish traded money for access to the gator & citrus bowls which had been off-limits ...

RESUME BUILDING DOS & DON'TS

Huh? You will have to fill us in on your thinking here.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-19-2014 06:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 05:23 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 05:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry Jam, but your position regarding the Big 12 (and in reality the Pac as well) is not backed up but what actually happened.

Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to get another contract bowl (either a 7th or one within the six) where the best of the G5 champions would face off with either a B12 or Pac-12 team.

However, there was no equivalent value TV $$$ in such a set-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...off-access

Cheers,
Neil

So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

Jam, my post was to address your position that the ACC couldn't have gone to the B12 (or by inference the Pac) to try and get the "price" down for the SEC/BiG taking part of the Orange.

You specifically said the B12 had no interest since they had gotten what they wanted with the Sugar Bowl deal.

That stance is incorrect as the article I posted showed, both the B12 and PAC12 would have wanted to be a part of it.

Now, would the value have been the same at $55 million with those conferences instead of the SEC/BiG? Probably not.

But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million.

And the Orange needed to be a contract bowl as much as the ACC needed one as a conference in order to try and remain a step ahead of the other Event Bowls. So it really came down to how much was TV willing to payout. But even there, the Orange and the ACC had the option to go to FOX or another network.

I don't see why so many fans of North Carolina schools want to defend Swofford on this issue. I think he has done an admirable job overall, but on this one issue, he dropped the ball, imho.

And the facts seem to support that position. At least that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil

the commish traded money for access to the gator & citrus bowls which had been off-limits ...

RESUME BUILDING DOS & DON'TS

Huh? You will have to fill us in on your thinking here.

Cheers,
Neil

here's what you need to understand ...
since none of us are privy to backroom dealing ...
the ACC treats its bowl opponent as equal partners in accordance with league ethos (guiding belief) ...

GIVE AS GOOD AS YOU GET

(12-20-2014 03:27 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 06:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 05:23 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 05:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

Jam, my post was to address your position that the ACC couldn't have gone to the B12 (or by inference the Pac) to try and get the "price" down for the SEC/BiG taking part of the Orange.

You specifically said the B12 had no interest since they had gotten what they wanted with the Sugar Bowl deal.

That stance is incorrect as the article I posted showed, both the B12 and PAC12 would have wanted to be a part of it.

Now, would the value have been the same at $55 million with those conferences instead of the SEC/BiG? Probably not.

But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million.

And the Orange needed to be a contract bowl as much as the ACC needed one as a conference in order to try and remain a step ahead of the other Event Bowls. So it really came down to how much was TV willing to payout. But even there, the Orange and the ACC had the option to go to FOX or another network.

I don't see why so many fans of North Carolina schools want to defend Swofford on this issue. I think he has done an admirable job overall, but on this one issue, he dropped the ball, imho.

And the facts seem to support that position. At least that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil

the commish traded money for access to the gator & citrus bowls which had been off-limits ...

RESUME BUILDING DOS & DON'TS

Huh? You will have to fill us in on your thinking here.

Cheers,
Neil

here's what you need to understand ...
since none of us are privy to backroom dealing ...
the ACC treats its bowl opponent as equal partners in accordance with league ethos (guiding belief) ...

GIVE AS GOOD AS YOU GET

So that explains ND getting $13.5 million if they wind up in the Orange Bowl? As a partner, shouldn't they get $27.5 million as well?

Don't be absurd. Equal $$$ if getting a champion from another P5 conference like the Rose and Sugar. There was no need to settle for equal payouts for the third or fourth best team from the BiG or SEC, none whatsoever.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-19-2014 05:23 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 05:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry Jam, but your position regarding the Big 12 (and in reality the Pac as well) is not backed up but what actually happened.

Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to get another contract bowl (either a 7th or one within the six) where the best of the G5 champions would face off with either a B12 or Pac-12 team.

However, there was no equivalent value TV $$$ in such a set-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...off-access

Cheers,
Neil

So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

Jam, my post was to address your position that the ACC couldn't have gone to the B12 (or by inference the Pac) to try and get the "price" down for the SEC/BiG taking part of the Orange.

You specifically said the B12 had no interest since they had gotten what they wanted with the Sugar Bowl deal.

That stance is incorrect as the article I posted showed, both the B12 and PAC12 would have wanted to be a part of it.

Now, would the value have been the same at $55 million with those conferences instead of the SEC/BiG? Probably not.

But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million.

And the Orange needed to be a contract bowl as much as the ACC needed one as a conference in order to try and remain a step ahead of the other Event Bowls. So it really came down to how much was TV willing to payout. But even there, the Orange and the ACC had the option to go to FOX or another network.

I don't see why so many fans of North Carolina schools want to defend Swofford on this issue. I think he has done an admirable job overall, but on this one issue, he dropped the ball, imho.

And the facts seem to support that position. At least that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil

the commish traded money for access to the gator & citrus bowls which had been off-limits ...

RESUME BUILDING DOS & DON'TS

That was just cleaning up his own mess. He is the reason we lost the Gator Bowl as an ACC tie-in when he strong-armed them into taking a team they didnt want (They wanted Clemson because of traveling fans, but he raised a stink until they took the team that had a better record than Clemson but had fans that wouldn't travel-think it was BC, but cant be sure).

Swofford then pushed through the rule that another team couldn't jump a team in bowl picks unless they were within 1 game in wins. That was when Gator left ACC in the dust as their primary bowl partner.

One year later, Gator drops ACC because they did not want to lose money again.

"That was just cleaning up his own mess. He is the reason we lost the Gator Bowl as an ACC tie-in when he strong-armed them into taking a team they didnt want (They wanted Clemson because of traveling fans, but he raised a stink until they took the team that had a better record than Clemson but had fans that wouldn't travel-think it was BC, but cant be sure).

Swofford then pushed through the rule that another team couldn't jump a team in bowl picks unless they were within 1 game in wins. That was when Gator left ACC in the dust as their primary bowl partner.

One year later, Gator drops ACC because they did not want to lose money again. "




Great story that reminds us we have a basketball commish in a football world.



But basketball schools will keep him in power.

(12-20-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  Great story that reminds us we have a basketball commish in a football world.

But basketball schools will keep him in power.

If we are going to criticize Swofford, let's at least get the facts right. He played football in college (at UNC), not basketball. He's not a basketball commish, he's a UNC commish.

(12-21-2014 07:28 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  Great story that reminds us we have a basketball commish in a football world.

But basketball schools will keep him in power.

If we are going to criticize Swofford, let's at least get the facts right. He played football in college (at UNC), not basketball. He's not a basketball commish, he's a UNC commish.

Same thing.

(12-21-2014 07:28 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  Great story that reminds us we have a basketball commish in a football world.

But basketball schools will keep him in power.

If we are going to criticize Swofford, let's at least get the facts right. He played football in college (at UNC), not basketball. He's not a basketball commish, he's a UNC commish.

I can do that too. Back in Tommy Bowden coaching days, pictures on Tigerillustrated were posted that showed Clemson players that were in more pads than was allowed at the time (had shells with thigh pads that should not have been worn yet according to regulations regarding beginning of season practices). Swofford was in the process of getting ready to penalize Clemson for breaking the timeline. Once pictures of UNC players in the same practice gear surfaced, his inquiry disappeared.

(12-21-2014 07:28 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  Great story that reminds us we have a basketball commish in a football world.

But basketball schools will keep him in power.

If we are going to criticize Swofford, let's at least get the facts right. He played football in college (at UNC), not basketball. He's not a basketball commish, he's a UNC commish.

I never commented on what sport he played. I commented on the sport he reps. That is basketball.

Your statement "he's a UNC commish" only supports my claim

Being a UNC guy means he is a basketball guy.


I love college basketball.....but it is about football first due to 80% revenue from football. Big East showed the world.....compete in football or die.


Swofford is a basketball commish. That is a fact....my facts are right.

(12-21-2014 10:43 AM)nole Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 07:28 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  Great story that reminds us we have a basketball commish in a football world.

But basketball schools will keep him in power.

If we are going to criticize Swofford, let's at least get the facts right. He played football in college (at UNC), not basketball. He's not a basketball commish, he's a UNC commish.

I never commented on what sport he played. I commented on the sport he reps. That is basketball.

Your statement "he's a UNC commish" only supports my claim

Being a UNC guy means he is a basketball guy.


I love college basketball.....but it is about football first due to 80% revenue from football. Big East showed the world.....compete in football or die.


Swofford is a basketball commish. That is a fact....my facts are right.

The irony is that we did.

(12-20-2014 04:59 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 05:23 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 05:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:20 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry Jam, but your position regarding the Big 12 (and in reality the Pac as well) is not backed up but what actually happened.

Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to get another contract bowl (either a 7th or one within the six) where the best of the G5 champions would face off with either a B12 or Pac-12 team.

However, there was no equivalent value TV $$$ in such a set-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...off-access

Cheers,
Neil

So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

Jam, my post was to address your position that the ACC couldn't have gone to the B12 (or by inference the Pac) to try and get the "price" down for the SEC/BiG taking part of the Orange.

You specifically said the B12 had no interest since they had gotten what they wanted with the Sugar Bowl deal.

That stance is incorrect as the article I posted showed, both the B12 and PAC12 would have wanted to be a part of it.

Now, would the value have been the same at $55 million with those conferences instead of the SEC/BiG? Probably not.

But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million.

And the Orange needed to be a contract bowl as much as the ACC needed one as a conference in order to try and remain a step ahead of the other Event Bowls. So it really came down to how much was TV willing to payout. But even there, the Orange and the ACC had the option to go to FOX or another network.

I don't see why so many fans of North Carolina schools want to defend Swofford on this issue. I think he has done an admirable job overall, but on this one issue, he dropped the ball, imho.

And the facts seem to support that position. At least that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil

the commish traded money for access to the gator & citrus bowls which had been off-limits ...

RESUME BUILDING DOS & DON'TS

That was just cleaning up his own mess. He is the reason we lost the Gator Bowl as an ACC tie-in when he strong-armed them into taking a team they didnt want (They wanted Clemson because of traveling fans, but he raised a stink until they took the team that had a better record than Clemson but had fans that wouldn't travel-think it was BC, but cant be sure).

Swofford then pushed through the rule that another team couldn't jump a team in bowl picks unless they were within 1 game in wins. That was when Gator left ACC in the dust as their primary bowl partner.

One year later, Gator drops ACC because they did not want to lose money again.

news flash: ninja fallible ...
he made a mistake and atoned -- the mark of a good leader ...
how long are you going to crucify ...
sadly, I think hatred for all things carolina color some of y'all perception ...

LET IT GO

(12-21-2014 02:35 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 04:59 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 05:23 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 05:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So let me get this straight, neither the Big 12 nor Pac 12 would have been upset if the ACC didn't enter into an agreement with the BIG and SEC? So they would have been fine with the ACC being the only P5 conference without a contract bowl tie-in...yeah ok.

Jam, my post was to address your position that the ACC couldn't have gone to the B12 (or by inference the Pac) to try and get the "price" down for the SEC/BiG taking part of the Orange.

You specifically said the B12 had no interest since they had gotten what they wanted with the Sugar Bowl deal.

That stance is incorrect as the article I posted showed, both the B12 and PAC12 would have wanted to be a part of it.

Now, would the value have been the same at $55 million with those conferences instead of the SEC/BiG? Probably not.

But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million.

And the Orange needed to be a contract bowl as much as the ACC needed one as a conference in order to try and remain a step ahead of the other Event Bowls. So it really came down to how much was TV willing to payout. But even there, the Orange and the ACC had the option to go to FOX or another network.

I don't see why so many fans of North Carolina schools want to defend Swofford on this issue. I think he has done an admirable job overall, but on this one issue, he dropped the ball, imho.

And the facts seem to support that position. At least that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil

the commish traded money for access to the gator & citrus bowls which had been off-limits ...

RESUME BUILDING DOS & DON'TS

That was just cleaning up his own mess. He is the reason we lost the Gator Bowl as an ACC tie-in when he strong-armed them into taking a team they didnt want (They wanted Clemson because of traveling fans, but he raised a stink until they took the team that had a better record than Clemson but had fans that wouldn't travel-think it was BC, but cant be sure).

Swofford then pushed through the rule that another team couldn't jump a team in bowl picks unless they were within 1 game in wins. That was when Gator left ACC in the dust as their primary bowl partner.

One year later, Gator drops ACC because they did not want to lose money again.

news flash: ninja fallible ...
he made a mistake and atoned -- the mark of a good leader ...
how long are you going to crucify ...
sadly, I think hatred for all things carolina color some of y'all perception ...

LET IT GO

Why? I was responding to a quote that he traded money for access. If that is true, then he is the sole reason for the disparity in question because his actions cost us the Gator Bowl tie-in to start with.

How long am I going to crucify? I do not trust him to be partial in his dealings. It is not crucifying to point out past deeds. Instead, I look at it as the need for new leadership.

Another example for you:
GT gets stripped of wins in football...
Florida State has to vacate wins in football....
North Carolina gets put on probation.....
Miami potential scandals.....
Clemson probation in 90s (Gaffney Gate)
Swofford is the commish for all of these times. Guess which was the only institution he went to bat for and spoke for at their infractions hearing...UNC.

The first time he ever stepped foot on Clemson's campus....when he was afraid of losing Clemson and FSU to the B12. He came to speak to the Board.

"But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million."

Have you looked at the ratings for Big 12 and PAC teams?

I'm a money guy, but this is just stupid thinking. You really think $500k per school is worth a game against Kansas State or Baylor or Arizona that nobody is going to watch? I suppose you still would rather have the extra $500k the Big 12 is making on their TV over the ACC, and be playing on FS1 in front of nobody.

I think the ACC could have gotten a better deal with the B1G and SEC on the Orange...but the SEC and B1G are where it's at. The ACC needs to keep company with them. A deal such as you propose would have driven substantially less interest and viewers to the Orange, and leave the ACC as the only school without an access bowl against the SEC or B1G.

In addition, it would give the ACC's two closest competitors in terms of prestige and money, a significant boost by giving them two access bowls to the ACC's one.

Money is important. The ACC, I believe, has had a bad history of leaving money on the table. But come on...this would have been an idiotic scenario.