Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #241
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-29-2013 10:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(10-29-2013 10:38 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I'm not sure I want a scheduling agreement with the Pac-12. My east coast bias likes to think of the Pac-12 as inferior but they are pretty stout from top to bottom. Those 12 schools get to split up the recruits from the entire western seaboard. There's not a glut of teams over there to compete with so the average team probably has better talent than the average ACC school. Cutting out or pairing USC and Stanford with ND for the cross over helps.

Because of my east coast bias, I don't really care about playing Pac-12 schools. At least with the Big-12, Tex, Okl, WVU and whoever's good that year are exciting. The B1G has OSU, PSU, Nebr, Wisc and Mich and the SEC has 9 exciting teams not counting teams that are good right now like USC-e and Missouri. The Pac-12 without USC? Not exciting. They would be my 4th choice of the other 4 major conferences to have a scheduling agreement.

It would be UCLA, Cal, USC (or Oregon), and Stanford (or UW), not a full-blown scheduling agreement. Forget Oregon State, WSU, Utah, etc.

Yes, because the Pac 12 would absolutely be willing to have its best teams travel across the country to play ACC dregs without getting return games for its own dregs.

The Pac 12 would be perfectly fine with a one-sided arrangement. Makes perfect sense.
10-30-2013 12:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #242
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-29-2013 09:55 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(10-18-2013 12:31 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  It wasn't going to bring a lot of extra $$$ the last time it was crammed down our throats and the basketball schools still voted it in. It was only after they realized they too were going to be constricted with the addition of the game against the parasite that they dropped the 9th game the first time.

I don't believe that for one second. Judging from the time frame when the schedule was reduced back to 8 games, I have no doubt it was a bone thrown to GT, Clemson and FSU to stay in the conference.

Or, once Notre Dame was added the ACC decided an ~8.4 game schedule was enough.
10-30-2013 12:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #243
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-29-2013 10:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(10-29-2013 08:22 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why would the Pac 12 bother with an agreement with the ACC when their agreement with the Big Ten didn't work out? And why do you people always think every conference is going to partner with the ACC? An ACC/SEC combo network. An ACC/SEC scheduling agreement. An ACC/Big 12 scheduling agreement. Now an ACC/Pac 12 scheduling agreement. 01-wingedeagle
Also, for the record a de facto "ACC/SEC scheduling agreement" already exists. GT-UGA, FSU-UF, UL-UK, VU-WF, and CU-USC all happen every year. Weird.

Anyway, you're clearly a troll, so troll on my friend.

Don't be naive. That "de facto" arrangement has nothing to do with what you or others on here were promoting for weeks or months. I thought the Vandy/Wake series was coming to an end. There's no conference agreement. It's the way things worked out YEARS AGO. Those matchups were all taking place before ACC membership and in South Carolina's case, before SEC membership.

Troll? Grow up.
10-30-2013 12:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #244
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-30-2013 12:44 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(10-29-2013 10:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(10-29-2013 08:22 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why would the Pac 12 bother with an agreement with the ACC when their agreement with the Big Ten didn't work out? And why do you people always think every conference is going to partner with the ACC? An ACC/SEC combo network. An ACC/SEC scheduling agreement. An ACC/Big 12 scheduling agreement. Now an ACC/Pac 12 scheduling agreement. 01-wingedeagle
Also, for the record a de facto "ACC/SEC scheduling agreement" already exists. GT-UGA, FSU-UF, UL-UK, VU-WF, and CU-USC all happen every year. Weird.

Anyway, you're clearly a troll, so troll on my friend.

Don't be naive. That "de facto" arrangement has nothing to do with what you or others on here were promoting for weeks or months. I thought the Vandy/Wake series was coming to an end. There's no conference agreement. It's the way things worked out YEARS AGO. Those matchups were all taking place before ACC membership and in South Carolina's case, before SEC membership.

Troll? Grow up.

"I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain"

:)
10-30-2013 08:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,261
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 219
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #245
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
The previously rumored SEC-ACC scheduling alliance was in addition to, and really had nothing to do with, the existing in state rivalry games. The concept was to allow both conferences to avoid having a 9th conference game. It didn't go anywhere.

Now the ball is in the SEC's court as to whether to go to a 9th conference game. If they do, the ACC must follow or come up with a good alternative. As I suggested early in this thread, a scheduling alliance with BYU might do the trick. With the existing in state rivalry games and the ND scheduling agreement, 4 to 6 games annually with BYU might serve as a workable replacement to a 9 game conference schedule, i.e., it could get everybody to 9 base games annually and allow schools to schedule a P5 opponent annually on a flexible basis as some Clemson fans and others have suggested they want.
10-30-2013 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardFANATIC Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 906
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 12
I Root For: UL, N, OM, EWU
Location:
Post: #246
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-30-2013 08:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  [quote='Marge Schott' pid='9926466' dateline='1383111881']
[quote='nzmorange' pid='9926201' dateline='1383103688']
[quote='Marge Schott' pid='9925824' dateline='1383096147']


"I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain"

:)

Owned.
10-30-2013 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #247
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
07-coffee3

Completely ignoring the fact that their entire premise was wrong...
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2013 11:54 PM by Marge Schott.)
10-30-2013 11:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 363
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #248
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-30-2013 12:34 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(10-29-2013 10:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  It would be UCLA, Cal, USC (or Oregon), and Stanford (or UW), not a full-blown scheduling agreement. Forget Oregon State, WSU, Utah, etc.

Yes, because the Pac 12 would absolutely be willing to have its best teams travel across the country to play ACC dregs without getting return games for its own dregs.

The Pac 12 would be perfectly fine with a one-sided arrangement. Makes perfect sense.


Despite the manner in which he expressed it, Marge has a very good point that should be addressed here nzmorange... 07-coffee3
10-31-2013 10:45 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,287
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 729
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #249
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-31-2013 10:45 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(10-30-2013 12:34 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(10-29-2013 10:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  It would be UCLA, Cal, USC (or Oregon), and Stanford (or UW), not a full-blown scheduling agreement. Forget Oregon State, WSU, Utah, etc.

Yes, because the Pac 12 would absolutely be willing to have its best teams travel across the country to play ACC dregs without getting return games for its own dregs.

The Pac 12 would be perfectly fine with a one-sided arrangement. Makes perfect sense.


Despite the manner in which he expressed it, Marge has a very good point that should be addressed here nzmorange... 07-coffee3

I agree...would have to be across the board...not sure I would be in favor of it...real tough to travel West and play.
10-31-2013 02:50 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #250
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
Imaginary positive rep points for you two.
10-31-2013 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,287
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 729
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #251
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-31-2013 03:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Imaginary positive rep points for you two.

We are both having a breakout in group therapy. 04-cheers
10-31-2013 04:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 363
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #252
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-31-2013 03:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Imaginary positive rep points for you two.

Imaginary my ass! Give us the green candy! It's Halloween for goodness sakes. 04-cheers
10-31-2013 04:32 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #253
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-31-2013 10:45 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(10-30-2013 12:34 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(10-29-2013 10:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  It would be UCLA, Cal, USC (or Oregon), and Stanford (or UW), not a full-blown scheduling agreement. Forget Oregon State, WSU, Utah, etc.

Yes, because the Pac 12 would absolutely be willing to have its best teams travel across the country to play ACC dregs without getting return games for its own dregs.

The Pac 12 would be perfectly fine with a one-sided arrangement. Makes perfect sense.


Despite the manner in which he expressed it, Marge has a very good point that should be addressed here nzmorange... 07-coffee3

He actually doesn’t. He is trolling and nothing more, which is why I stopped responding to him. Contrary to his claim, the PAC is receiving something in return. You must have missed it because it was explained earlier in the conversation. Since you’re joining late, I’ll give you the high points. Without going into details, it is a basketball for football trade. Before you scoff at the idea, keep in mind that the ACC arguably has 4 of the top 5-6 basketball properties in the nation, whereas the Pac has a really, really down UCLA and an inconsistent (at best) Arizona. The ACC would be trading Duke, Syracuse, Louisville, and UNC basketball games for UW, Oregon, UCLA, and Cal football games. I know that it sounds crazy to trade basketball games for football games because football games are generally worth way more than basketball games, and the two conferences are on opposite ends of the country, but keep in mind that Pac schools traveling to the east coast isn’t rare. Quickly off the top of my head, Oregon played UVA and Tennessee this year (UTk is very close to the NC schools), USC played Syracuse last year and the year before that, and UW played Syracuse each of the two years before USC did. UVA and Syracuse are mid-tier ACC schools as of right now, which means that elite schools in the Pac-12 are already playing average ACC schools. This would just formalize it. Sure, under a formalized agreement, there would be games @Wake and @Duke, which probably aren’t particularly attractive to west coast schools, but for every one of those, there are two home games against Clemson/Miami/FSU/Virginia Tech which are attractive for both financial and recruiting reasons. So it really isn’t as big of a hurdle as Marge is making it sound. Furthermore, the participating Pac schools would be getting something in return. In addition to east coast exposure, which is why they all consistently play eastern teams, they would be getting basketball. To put things in perspective, SU will sell out both the Duke and UNC basketball games, which means that we will sell over 35,000 tickets to each game. The minimum ticket price is $45. $45*35,000 tickets is $1,575,000 in attendance, assuming that each ticket is sold at the minimum price. Given that there is a HUGE discrepancy between the good seats at SU and the bad ones, and that the good ones are already selling for about $5k on the secondary market, I don’t think that it’s unfair to guess that the average ticket price is at least $70 (roughly 50% higher than the lowest price). That puts ticket sales over $2,000,000 for the game. As of a couple of years ago, FSU football had ticket sales of about $14 million/yr (this seems low, but it’s not counting donations to get the right to buy tickets, concessions, and so forth). Assuming that there were 7 home games that season, Duke basketball has the potential to make as much as a decent football game in ticket sales (obviously this doesn’t include concessions, donations, and so on). Sure you can write off some of the high ticket sales to the novelty of the situation, but how often does the Syracuse men’s basketball team walk into the University of Washington’s gymnasium for a regular season game? I can assure you that it isn’t very often, so to pretend like the participating Pac schools aren’t getting something in return is crazy. Also, being able to tell recruits that in their four year stint, they can be on one of four teams within a 2,000 mile radius that is guaranteed to play Duke, UNC, Syracuse, and Louisville is a HUGE recruiting advantage which would breathe life into the dormant pac-12 programs. And, as much as everyone wants to pretend otherwise, basketball is exceedingly important. On its own it might not make as much as football, but having one’s basketball house in order is half the equation for having a balanced athletic department. Keep in mind that in ’01, SU’s athletics department made more than any school in the ACC or the BIG EAST at the time. That includes UNC, Duke, FSU, Clemson, and Miami. The reason why we were so profitable is because we had a very good football program and a very good basketball program. We weren’t elite in either, but we were very good in both. Sure UND/Duke basketball probably made more than SU basketball, but SU football made a LOT more than UNC/Duke football. Similarly, FSU and Clemson football probably made more than SU football, but SU basketball made a LOT more than FSU and Clemson basketball. With balance in mind, I think that basketball will be the next point of emphasis amongst the big dogs of the Pac. Oregon built a new gymnasium, Washington has been dumping money into their program, and UCLA is desperately doing everything that they can to stop the bleeding. There is simply too much of an investment/risk, and too much potential for a chance to build alliances with elite programs to pass up without serious consideration. Throw in the fact that it is amicable to university presidents because scheduling games and building rivalries against ACC teams is probably one of the easiest and most effective ways of marketing a school to high quality potential students, and there are a number of direct advantages to the participating Pac schools involved. However beyond that, the conference as a whole might promote the idea, given that 1. basketball is the driving force in conference network revenue and the Pac-12 just dumped a TON of money into developing a network that they cannot afford to have fail, and thus desperately need a basketball revival, and 2. adding east coast fans is the quickest way to increase subscribers.

Anyway, if this was coupled with financial incentives to make ACC revenue athletics more competitive (i.e. penalties for underfunding athletic departments), which I think that it should be, the burden on the football programs of the Pac schools involved is even further reduced, and may even be reversed.*

So what does the ACC get? From an athletic perspective, the ACC would get a 9 game regular season that consists of 8 ACC games, 5/14ths of a Notre Dame game, 5/14ths of a Texas game, 1/14th of a UCLA game, 1/14th of a Cal game, 1/14th of a Stanford/Oregon (probably Oregon) game, and 1/14th of a USC/UW game (probably UW). Not only is that a solid schedule, but it is recruiting GOLD. Every ACC team would be able to promise almost every recruit at least one game against a high profile North Carolina, Texas, Cali, and Florida team, and a game against Notre Dame, as well as occasional games in places like South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Western PA, and Kentucky. That’s HUGE. From an academic perspective, every ACC school would get to rub elbows with the likes of UCLA, Cal, USC/UW, and possibly Stanford, while gaining nation-wide exposure (especially in California, which exports more high quality students than any other state). That’s also a big deal.

How is it different from the B1G proposal? The B1G wanted a full scheduling agreement, and wouldn’t budge on exempting USC and Stanford. That would mean that USC and Stanford would be faced with either dropping their yearly rivalry game with Notre Dame, dropping a bought home game or having absolutely no flexibility in their schedule. Since the ACC should be willing to sub UW and Oregon for USC and Stanford, by not demanding a full scheduling agreement, it is MUCH less of a commitment by the Pac. Furthermore, the B1G didn’t offer anything else in return. Here, the ACC is offering elite basketball in return for good football. Combined, those two factors mean that this proposal would be asking for MUCH less from the Pac and offering MUCH more. Comparing the two agreements is like comparing apples and oranges.

*This goes beyond the scope of your comment, but I think that there should be financial incentives to fully fund athletic programs for both competitive reasons and for general fairness reasons. From a competitive standpoint, I am for it because I am a fan of the ACC and I think that it would make the conference better. I also think that it is fairer. If the big football schools are dumping money into their programs to make this agreement more attractive to Pac football fans, and the big basketball schools are dumping money into their programs to make the agreement more attractive to Pac basketball fans, the other schools shouldn’t be allowed to free ride and burden the other schools with their weight.
10-31-2013 07:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #254
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
Hi, my name is nzmorange and I'm trying to sell my manuscript.
10-31-2013 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #255
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-31-2013 04:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(10-31-2013 03:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Imaginary positive rep points for you two.

Imaginary my ass! Give us the green candy! It's Halloween for goodness sakes. 04-cheers

I don't have the option.
10-31-2013 09:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #256
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-31-2013 09:04 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Hi, my name is nzmorange and I'm trying to sell my manuscript.

I can always use more money :)

Happy Halloween.
10-31-2013 09:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 363
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #257
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(10-31-2013 09:05 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(10-31-2013 04:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(10-31-2013 03:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Imaginary positive rep points for you two.

Imaginary my ass! Give us the green candy! It's Halloween for goodness sakes. 04-cheers

I don't have the option.

You can rate posters, but not individual posts.
11-03-2013 07:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 363
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #258
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
Nzorange, everything you said is all well and good, well not really, but you didn't respond to his question of why they would take such a lopsided deal?
When it takes you 5 paragraphs and 1500 words to try and explain why it's not a lopsided deal, it's a lopsided deal. Especially for a league that explicitely doesn't play favorites. And it makes no sense because those schools have no issues with lack of game, because they typically only play six home games anyway, so home and homes on top of 9 conference games is no big deal. But now you are taking away their ability to choose who to play to get a "reward" that those who want, can usually get on their own (home and home basketball). But you already knew that.... 03-shhhh

And I "didn't come late," I just never bothered to chime in on that discussion. You talk as though you are the smartest person in the room. In reality most of the time your information is wrong, your understanding of basic concepts is lacking (Still remember your lack of understanding of Fox using YES for leverage on the Big Ten Network), and your writing proves the opposite of what you intend. To make matters worse, you tend to think you win arguments because people just tire of responding.

And I am saying all of this and I generally feel the same way about the person you are arguing with.
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2013 07:35 PM by adcorbett.)
11-03-2013 07:30 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #259
RE: 9th Conf game coming back for ACC?
(11-03-2013 07:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Nzorange, everything you said is all well and good, well not really, but you didn't respond to his question of why they would take such a lopsided deal?
When it takes you 5 paragraphs and 1500 words to try and explain why it's not a lopsided deal, it's a lopsided deal. Especially for a league that explicitely doesn't play favorites. And it makes no sense because those schools have no issues with lack of game, because they typically only play six home games anyway, so home and homes on top of 9 conference games is no big deal. But now you are taking away their ability to choose who to play to get a "reward" that those who want, can usually get on their own (home and home basketball). But you already knew that.... 03-shhhh

And I "didn't come late," I just never bothered to chime in on that discussion. You talk as though you are the smartest person in the room. In reality most of the time your information is wrong, your understanding of basic concepts is lacking (Still remember your lack of understanding of Fox using YES for leverage on the Big Ten Network), and your writing proves the opposite of what you intend. To make matters worse, you tend to think you win arguments because people just tire of responding.

And I am saying all of this and I generally feel the same way about the person you are arguing with.
One a preliminary note:
...wow. It was 1500 words because there are a lot of reasons. What's lop sided about it? The teams in question are already playing average ACC teams (unless you're willing to call SU and UVA upper shelf), only with a formalized arrangement, they would get better basketball.

Anyway, ask ANY non-UNC/Duke fan whether the ACC plays favorite, and I'm pretty sure that they would disagree with you, especially in the wake of Notre Dame's special deal. We now probably play favorites more than any other conference not named the Big XII.

On a substantive note:
I have no idea why you're upset that I said that "you came in late." It's not an insult, nor was it meant to be. I had no way of knowing that you were following the conversation in silence. However, you clearly took it as an insult, and that's what matters. I apologize for the confusion and any hurt feelings. I mean this when I say that I sincerely did not intend to offend anyone, including you. This is a sports board. At the end of the day, none of this matters. It's talk to pass the time, nothing more. It definitely isn't worth causing anyone grief, so if I did, once again, I'm sorry. The same is true for anyone else that I've offended, including my friends at FSU, Clemson, Pitt, PSU, WF, OSU, and any all the other schools out there.
:olivebranch:

And back to the mindless chatter of sports media:
As for the B1G using YES as leverage, you are completely wrong. The Yankees, who own something like 49% of YES aren't going to let FOX dilute their product for free. IF it is used as leverage, Fox will surrender value to the Yankees in some form. Fox in turn won't enrich the B1G without getting something in return. There is something called a fiduciary duty of loyalty and a fiduciary duty of care. The Yankees could use either fiduciary duty as grounds for a civil complaint to recover damages from Fox, and Fox could use simple market forces to extract value from the B1G. If you still don't believe me when I say fiduciary duties exist, or if you still don't think that supply and demand dictates price, please don't believe me. Instead, consult the Wikipedia pages. I'm sure that they are extensive.

Other than that, the only times I can think of where we argued were where you claimed that internet retailers in preferred NY customers over Alabama customers because NY dollars were worth more, when I claimed that contract buyout prices would be based on net present value (PV=FV/R^T), and when I questioned the importance of having a network. Our discussions about intra-American exchange rates and the time value of money more or less speak for themselves (translation: that's a box of worms that I don't want to open - believe what you want), so moving on to our discussion regarding networks, I think that we are on the verge of a sports bubble and the industry's growth is going to slow down. Personally I would rather lock into a long term deal while projections are rosy and let the other party assume the risk of a slow market, then form a network betting on the market staying strong. And, by all accounts, the ACC agrees with me. From what I understand the conference was given the opportunity to form a network joint-owned by ESPN, or take a higher payout. As far as I can tell, we took the higher guaranteed payout. If you disagree, then I will freely acknowledge that your opinion is valid. After all, the SEC formed a Network very recently, and I assume that they know what they're doing. However, I think that their risk profile is very different from ours, so they are in a better position to take on the risk of a network.

And no, barring a conference-mandated scheduling agreement, Syracuse will not go to UW to play a basketball game. The two schools have played exactly one time, presumably on a neutral court. Syracuse has never played Oregon in basketball. Syracuse has played exactly two basketball games against UCLA (presumably either a home and home, or two neutral courts). And finally, Syracuse has played exactly two basketball games against Cal, and both of them were on neutral courts. What do you think the odds are of a Pac school scheduling Syracuse in a home and home, given that SU has an ACC schedule AND commitments/rivalries with Georgetown, UCONN, Villanova, Saint John's and about half the east coast knocking on the door? Out of Oregon, Washington, UCLA, and Cal, only UCLA has a realistic chance of getting Duke in a home and home on a consistent basis, and even then, they're playing Duke in NYC this year. Tourneys and conference-mandated games aside, other than two neutral site games (KU in Chi and UCLA in NYC), Duke doesn't play a single OOC basketball game outside of NC all year. UNC plays exactly one OOC game outside of NC this year, and it's against UAB, and I'm pretty sure it's a lop-sided deal. Admittedly, UNS plays Texas and UK at home, but the UK-UNC and UNC-UT rivalries aren't going anywhere and they are a special case. Getting even home and homes with UNC on a consistent basis isn't something you just do. I'll assume that you know more about UL basketball than I do, but I would be amazed if you guys were handing out home and homes to anyone who wants one. If so, give PSU a call. I'm sure they would be down, and their program could use the help.
11-03-2013 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.