ACC/MD Settlement

[kyleslamb]

Having a settlement does not create a floor. It's not precedent. Any other school could go into court and get a judgment regardless of this settlement.

 

[btstimpy]

Having a settlement does not create a floor. It's not precedent. Any other school could go into court and get a judgment regardless of this settlement.

They could sure. And Dr. Wallace Loh of Maryland with his legal genius called it unenforceable, punitive, and illegal and said Maryland wouldn't have to pay it. Then he paid 3/5 of it. I wanted the case to go to conclusion because I wanted legal precedence to be declared on it, and the ACC had the winning hand. But the case was dragging on way too long and interfering with other ACC plans. So rather than drag it on more to get another $21 million or $1.4 million per member, it was settled to move on. If another school wants to go through what Maryland went through, then let them try. I'm not seeing any takers. And if an ACC Channel makes close to what the BTN and SEC Channel make, what's the point? I know that there are many skeptics here about an ACC Channel. I'll revisit that discussion as they watch it happen.

 

[Ldandy]

I can see Pitt delivering full carriage rates for The ACC... In about a 3 block radius inside Oakland.

 

[Ldandy]

The proximity of Louisville to Cincy can be viewed as a positive or negative.
Cincy's airport is in Ky and they bill themselves the gateway to the South. In many respects it's a southern city. Similarly Southern Ind,and Ill,are much different than the northern part of those states.
It gives the Cards their traditional rival going back to Metro days.
But with Cincy not in a P5, Louisville might look at it as a opportunity to expand.
at their expense. The BC strategy. Louisville support drops off outside the city limits as UK owns the state. So capturing some of Southern Ohio is a possible strategy.
Even in the city itself UK fans make up a good % of the population. Cincy has the same problem in Ohio. with the OSU.

Iowa State brings nothing to the B1G, their more of an ACC team ,number two in their state. (Except VA and Carolina maybe BC ) see Clemson,FSU,Louisville,Duke,Wake,NCS,Pitt. VPI,Miami

The B1G wants only flagships
Kansas at least brings a new Market

He won't mention Kansas because they are a desirable add. ISU is an ongoing dig he likes to use when discussing B1G Expansion. I can't wait to see The ACC's 15th and 16th members Coastal Carolina and Western Kentucky when they start play in a few seasons. They are a great cultural fit and all.

 

[btstimpy]

He won't mention Kansas because they are a desirable add. ISU is an ongoing dig he likes to use when discussing B1G Expansion. I can't wait to see The ACC's 15th and 16th members Coastal Carolina and Western Kentucky when they start play in a few seasons. They are a great cultural fit and all.

I have mentioned Kansas and Missouri as well. If you want your football team to play Charlie Weiss and his team, that's just fine. There is nothing wrong with ISU though. It's in the B1G footprint, rivals with Iowa, and AAU. It's a perfect cultural fit. Their football team doesn't lose to Kansas either. They deserve a good home with rivals like Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.

 

[Ldandy]

I have mentioned Kansas and Missouri as well. If you want your football team to play Charlie Weiss and his team, that's just fine. There is nothing wrong with ISU though. It's in the B1G footprint, rivals with Iowa, and AAU. It's a perfect cultural fit. Their football team doesn't lose to Kansas either. They deserve a good home with rivals like Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.

It has nothing to do with ISU being a good fit or not and everything to do with the fact that they would add zero value to any B1G Contract. You already knew that though.

 

[btstimpy]

It has nothing to do with ISU being a good fit or not and everything to do with the fact that they would add zero value to any B1G Contract. You already knew that though.

They wouldn't add subscribers for the BTN in Iowa, but they would add games for the Big Ten Tier One Contract with whomever in 2017. That contract is based on volume of games. So they could work, and if the Big Ten wants a partner for UConn, ISU truly is standing there with their hand up in the air, and they meet all of the Big Ten criteria right now. They also have wrestling, which I know you would think is a plus. Kansas does not. But anyway enough about them. I know you don't like that option.

 

[HoopsFan21]

The ACC is garbage in the one sport that matters when it comes to TV contracts. Sorry, basketball doesn't get it done. The B1G may not be the best of the best when it comes to football, but it makes up for that in terms of number of customers. In other words they are huge schools with some of the largest alumni bases in the country.

 

[B1GOSU]

I'm sorry, but Pitt wouldn't get any network statewide coverage. Customers would have to demand it. You would be lucky to get coverage outside the Pittsburgh city limits.

Cincinnati wouldn't pull in any of Ohio outside of Cincy either. No one outside of Cincy cares about UC unless they went to school there.

 

[Ldandy]

They wouldn't add subscribers for the BTN in Iowa, but they would add games for the Big Ten Tier One Contract with whomever in 2017. So would any other team in America, so your point is?

That contract is based on volume of games. So they could work, and if the Big Ten wants a partner for UConn, ISU truly is standing there with their hand up in the air, You say this, but where has ISU publicly campaigned for inclusion in The B1G? Not to mention that they are held by the same GOR that ACC Schools are supposedly held in place by as well.

and they meet all of the Big Ten criteria right now. Clearly they don't meet all of the requirements because one of, if not the biggest requirement is bringing a new market to the conference for purposes of BTN Dollars. A redundant market in a small state is self defeating.
they also have wrestling, which I know you would think is a plus. Wrestling is great, but that or any non revenue sport will have little influence on realignment issues.Kansas does not.

But anyway enough about them. I know you don't like that option Personally I don't see a dime from The B1G whether they add a school like ISU or not, so I would not be put out by their inclusion. What bothers me is that you repeatedly bring them up as an option knowing full well that they are not and will never be one. It's done to get a rise, congrats it worked.

 

[btstimpy]

The ACC is garbage in the one sport that matters when it comes to TV contracts. Sorry, basketball doesn't get it done. The B1G may not be the best of the best when it comes to football, but it makes up for that in terms of number of customers. In other words they are huge schools with some of the largest alumni bases in the country.

The only thing I can respond to that with is that the ACC has the current national champion in football, has the Heisman Trophy winner, had 11 schools with winning records in 2013 (the most of any conference since the 1930s), had 11 bowl teams in 2013 (most by any conference ever), had 42 players drafted by the NFL from 13 schools in 2014 (second only to the SEC's 48), and will be including Notre Dame on the schedule starting this season. You can call it garbage. I'll be watching it.

 

[NickyNewark]

It has nothing to do with ISU being a good fit or not and everything to do with the fact that they would add zero value to any B1G Contract. You already knew that though.

The guys an arrogant buffon who tried passing off that Temple would be/bring more value than NJU in CR in one of his 1st posts and I havent respected a word he's said since...hes an ACC shill who plays like he's a UConn booster then knocks them on SU's board(another board he trolls)...I watch his posts for laughs..comical.

 

[Plains&Lakes]

I have mentioned Kansas and Missouri as well. If you want your football team to play Charlie Weiss and his team, that's just fine. There is nothing wrong with ISU though. It's in the B1G footprint, rivals with Iowa, and AAU. It's a perfect cultural fit. Their football team doesn't lose to Kansas either. They deserve a good home with rivals like Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.

I agree that ISU is a solid academic school in the AAU, with a compatible culture, in the right general area. But as you well know, they are in the same state as Iowa so the extra TV money is not there. If ISU was in a separate state called "Central Iowa" or "Western Iowa" and the University of Iowa was in "Eastern Iowa", there would be Big Ten and other parties justifiably singing ISU's praises. Your analytical points are well taken and spot on.

 

[Plains&Lakes]

My point is that if a school deems $31M as "doable", then they might be willing to challenge the GOR. As Fishy said in this thread or another (I don't remember which), there has yet to be a conference to stick the entire set of exit terms to a departing school. Someone will challenge a GOR at some point. The playbook: we signed it under duress. There's no way definitive way to prove, one way or the other, something so vague as "duress".

Who know, that someone might even be your VT. Personally, I would love a VT/UCONN combo to the B1G. More markets, more football recruiting, more hoops recruiting, and solid academics. Non AAU but close in both cases. VT a little closer than UCONN.

I agree. Here is how I look at it: There is now closure in the Maryland case. The ACC teams have now seen precedent if not prophesy (they have an idea, but not a guarantee of how the exit fee would work). The settled case seems to present an opportunity for the potentially interested ACC teams to show some interest, but not for the Big Ten to move in. This may take some time to be realized (potentially years) or even not at all.

It will be interesting to get feedback of where the Big Ten's overtures are outside of the ACC. If there are a few of those soon running, that may be the surest sign through inference that the ACC teams are all afraid and/or uninterested. My intuition is telling me that the Big Ten will at least try to add 2 teams before the contract negotiations. With UConn as likely join, they only need one. I absolutely would not bet against the Big Ten finding that one.

 

[TRest]

The guys an arrogant buffon who tried passing off that Temple would be/bring more value than NJU in CR in one of his 1st posts and I havent respected a word he's said since...hes an ACC shill who plays like he's a UConn booster then knocks them on SU's board(another board he trolls)...I watch his posts for laughs..comical.

Yeah, we get a lot of faux UConn boosters on this board.

 

[Dooley]

By the way, the floor in the AAC is $11.5 million. The Louisville settlement set the floor. Rutgers was able to also settle on the same floor. Some of the others that never made it all the way in like Boise State, San Diego State, and TCU paid less, but they are exceptions. The $11.5 million will be the floor for UConn.

The difference between what we're talking about with MD/ACC and RU/UL leaving the Big East is that the Big East also has a 27 month exit waiting period. RU/UL paid more than the Big East/AAC's established $10M exit fee in order to leave earlier than the required 27 months. The "floor" is $10M for the Big East/AAC if a school is willing to wait the full 27 months...something that UCONN may be willing to do.

 

[btstimpy]

The guys an arrogant buffon who tried passing off that Temple would be/bring more value than NJU in CR in one of his 1st posts and I havent respected a word he's said since...hes an ACC shill who plays like he's a UConn booster then knocks them on SU's board(another board he trolls)...I watch his posts for laughs..comical.

I do think Temple brings more value than Rutgers or at least the same. Temple is one of the top 10 winningest basketball programs in college basketball history. I showed you the Rutgers-Louisville basketball game in the 2014 AAC tournament for you to get a perspective of Rutgers basketball. Temple's football program has accomplished about equal to what Rutgers has which isn't much. Given all of that, Temple would be about the same kind of addition. I'm not sure that the ACC would want them because like Rutgers the football isn't great. It would be a similar work in progress. And I have done nothing but promote UConn to the Syracuse faithful as well as here with the UConn faithful. You are confusing with someone else in that regard.

 

[btstimpy]

The difference between what we're talking about with MD/ACC and RU/UL leaving the Big East is that the Big East also has a 27 month exit waiting period. RU/UL paid more than the Big East/AAC's established $10M exit fee in order to leave earlier than the required 27 months. The "floor" is $10M for the Big East/AAC if a school is willing to wait the full 27 months...something that UCONN may be willing to do.

Ok. For a little extra most have broken the 27 months and gone for 2 seasons. WVU spent more to get out after 1 season. I was just inferring that the AAC has shown what it will accept as a minimum.

 

[btstimpy]

I agree that ISU is a solid academic school in the AAU, with a compatible culture, in the right general area. But as you well know, they are in the same state as Iowa so the extra TV money is not there. If ISU was in a separate state called "Central Iowa" or "Western Iowa" and the University of Iowa was in "Eastern Iowa", there would be Big Ten and other parties justifiably singing ISU's praises. Your analytical points are well taken and spot on.

I understand why the Big Ten Network would not be interested. But the Big Ten Athletic Conference and Committee on Institutional Cooperation should be interested in Iowa State. They meet all the criteria of those parties and are located right in the geographical footprint and fit perfectly culturally. One member, Iowa is also getting tremendous pressure to sponsor them as well according to E. Gordon Gee within their state. But with the BTN driving the bus, the conference will do unnatural things instead. We are now observing it. That was my only point.

 

[kibblesnbits]

In the cable subscriber game you get all the subscribers in a state if you get carriage. Fewer follow Maryland or Rutgers in their home states than Louisville in theirs, but the Big Ten took them both anyway. Why is that? Cable subscribers in those states. Oddly enough Pittsburgh gives the ACC access to all the subscribers in Philadelphia as much as Penn State does. I find that odd, but Pitt is in the same state. That's how subscriber contracts work.

I don't want Cincinnati in the ACC because I like sticking with the East, but there are several cable subscribers in Ohio. The Big Ten Network has now taught everyone this game, and ESPN was able to play it perfectly with the SEC Network. The ACC Network will get to take advantage of that experience that ESPN has, and the ACC and SEC will cooperate to make both channels successes across the entire footprint of both conferences combined. Put Notre Dame football content on the ACC Channel and anything is possible. This is my prediction, and it's actually an educated guess.

If the ACC wants back in Baltimore/Maryland market, we can add Navy. They have already inquired and Notre Dame and UVA are already willing sponsors. The ACC isn't in expansion mode though yet. There are many other things the league is working on at the moment. The ACC already has the DC market DMA. The basketball tournament is headed there, and VT and WVU are scheduled to play football there. It will now share it with the Big Ten.

The bright side for UConn is that with a thriving ACC, there will be two P5 options for UConn down the road if either should expand. UConn is a good candidate for both. You shouldn't want the Big Ten to be your only option although I know having been here a while, it is your preferred option. The Big XII is also an option I guess, but not a really good one due to distance. I do believe that there will be some more expansion during the decade.

You seem to be under the delusion that just because a conference has a school in a state that cable systems in that state have to agree to statewide carriage. That only happens with leverage like having a flagship with a powerful statewide following. You are kidding yourself if you think Pittsburgh has pull that strong. That's only marginally less absurd than the AAC adding Buffalo and saying, "Let's start a network because we'll get all of NY."

As for Louisville versus MD/Rutgers, not only is Louisville #2 in its home state (albeit one of the strongest of all #2s), but KY has a much smaller population than the other two with much, much weaker demographics.

 

[btstimpy]

You seem to be under the delusion that just because a conference has a school in a state that cable systems in that state have to agree to statewide carriage. That only happens with leverage like having a flagship with a powerful statewide following. You are kidding yourself if you think Pittsburgh has pull that strong. That's only marginally less absurd than the AAC adding Buffalo and saying, "Let's start a network because we'll get all of NY."

As for Louisville versus MD/Rutgers, not only is Louisville #2 in its home state (albeit one of the strongest of all #2s), but KY has a much smaller population than the other two with much, much weaker demographics.

I'm not under any delusion. I'm being told this by an employee of Comcast who is in Philadelphia and negotiates these subscriber contracts. The rates are statewide. Comcast could elect not to carry the channel, but some Comcast customers in Pennsylvania might want to see Notre Dame play Pitt. Comcast will have to determine this.

 

[Fishy]

I'm not under any delusion. I'm being told this by an employee of Comcast who is in Philadelphia and negotiates these subscriber contracts. The rates are statewide. Comcast could elect not to carry the channel, but some Comcast customers in Pennsylvania might want to see Notre Dame play Pitt. Comcast will have to determine this.

Sure.

I can only imagine the outrage of the 12 Pitt fans in Philly over not being able to see that Notre Dame - Pitt game every sixth year.

 

[btstimpy]

Sure.

I can only imagine the outrage of the 12 Pitt fans in Philly over not being able to see that Notre Dame - Pitt game every sixth year.

LOL. I just picked one example. Or the ND fans in Philly not being able to see it either.

 

[XOVERX]

Yeah, we get a lot of faux UConn boosters on this board.

Lol. This could describe me and probably does.

My fear is that UConn joins the ACC, and is therefore unavailable when the B1G expands to 16, 18, or 20.

I foresee the next round of B1G expansion to include one, or all three, from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

There needs to be UConn available to close out the north end of the NE Corridor, plus the 3 B12 schools are an odd number and there needs to be an even number.

So ... I am decidedly for UConn in the B1G, but am rooting against UConn in the ACC.

I know ya'll just want the heck out of the AAC.

Now that MY-ACC is settled, we'll soon see if the B1G's long-rumored "Plan A" - expansion with ACC schools along the eastern seaboard - comes to fruition, or whether the B1G has to wait on "Plan B" - hemming in the SEC on the western prairies via Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

My personal opinion is that Plan B will be the next play - and UConn needs to be there for Plan B to work itself out. If Texas ever joined the B1G, I would sure like to see UConn there.

 

[uconnell]

^^^^^^^. Perhaps Delany would consider clueing in some schools, on the super secret QT of course. The poor can't be too fussy.