Let's be realistic here. The ACC Swofford was peddling the rights to in 2008 or 2009 was much different from the one that's being paid in 2018. The ACC, for all practical purposes, was being overpaid in 2010 in regard to the results on the field.

The last national champion the league had seen in football was Florida State a decade before in 1999. FSU's record in BCS games before 2009: 1-5.

The rest of The ACC: Virginia Tech 1-3, Wake Forest: 0-1, Maryland: 0-1

Blame Swofford for the poor television contract all we want but the truth is he didn't have much to sell.
CJ

(04-23-2018 12:01 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The ACC, for all practical purposes, was being overpaid in 2010 in regard to the results on the field.

With this logic the B1G should be at\near the bottom in regards to revenue with their contracts during most of the 2000's & 2010's.

(04-23-2018 12:01 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Let's be realistic here. The ACC Swofford was peddling the rights to in 2008 or 2009 was much different from the one that's being paid in 2018. The ACC, for all practical purposes, was being overpaid in 2010 in regard to the results on the field.

The last national champion the league had seen in football was Florida State a decade before in 1999. FSU's record in BCS games before 2009: 1-5.

The rest of The ACC: Virginia Tech 1-3, Wake Forest: 0-1, Maryland: 0-1

Blame Swofford for the poor television contract all we want but the truth is he didn't have much to sell.
CJ

They don't pay for on field results.

They pay for TV ratings.

FSU and Miami were TV ratings MONSTERS all through the 80s, 90s, and beyond. Even in FSU's 'down years' (3-7 at Bobby's end), ratings were high.

All evidence I can find is ACC was consistently a top 3 conference in TV ratings for money sports (football and basketball).

Even IF you dont' believe the evidence, you don't lock in a bad contract for 3 decades. HORRIBLE business sense.

It was a bad contract....period.

(04-23-2018 01:33 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 12:01 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Let's be realistic here. The ACC Swofford was peddling the rights to in 2008 or 2009 was much different from the one that's being paid in 2018. The ACC, for all practical purposes, was being overpaid in 2010 in regard to the results on the field.

The last national champion the league had seen in football was Florida State a decade before in 1999. FSU's record in BCS games before 2009: 1-5.

The rest of The ACC: Virginia Tech 1-3, Wake Forest: 0-1, Maryland: 0-1

Blame Swofford for the poor television contract all we want but the truth is he didn't have much to sell.
CJ

They don't pay for on field results.

They pay for TV ratings.

FSU and Miami were TV ratings MONSTERS all through the 80s, 90s, and beyond. Even in FSU's 'down years' (3-7 at Bobby's end), ratings were high.

All evidence I can find is ACC was consistently a top 3 conference in TV ratings for money sports (football and basketball).

Even IF you dont' believe the evidence, you don't lock in a bad contract for 3 decades. HORRIBLE business sense.

It was a bad contract....period.

Bingo, +1

It's a crazy phenomenon; the leagues with higher viewership receive more money! It's almost like advertisers are more willing to pay more money for these television time slots with ESPN because they are aware that the viewership will be high enough to justify the payment. I sure do hope ESPN is aware of this so that they can just give the ACC more money. Oh, the ACC agreed to be lowballed? Makes sense...

Amazed at the mental gymnastics the Swofford apologists take defending the indefensible. They are truly Olympic level and if the ACC Network truly ever gets off the ground we should include them because it's truly entertaining.

(04-23-2018 02:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Amazed at the mental gymnastics the Swofford apologists take defending the indefensible. They are truly Olympic level and if the ACC Network truly ever gets off the ground we should include them because it's truly entertaining.

Yup, it is bizarre.