ACC/B1G Challenge

[David Bunkley]

If I were the ACC, I would consider cancelling this event and doing the same type of event with another big conference (SEC, Big 12, etc). I just don't know why you would continue doing business with someone who is trying to destroy your conference for monetary gain.

[uh_no]

If I were the ACC, I would consider cancelling this event and doing the same type of event with another big conference (SEC, Big 12, etc). I just don't know why you would continue doing business with someone who is trying to destroy your conference for monetary gain.

the event produces a ton of revenue for the conferences. If expansion has shown anything, its that money rules.

[senkiri]

the event produces a ton of revenue for the conferences. If expansion has shown anything, its that money rules.

An ACC-SEC challenge would likewise make a ton of money for the ACC and have the added benefit of not making a ton of money for the overly greedy B1G...

[Jderf]

An ACC-SEC challenge would likewise make a ton of money for the ACC and have the added benefit of not making a ton of money for the overly greedy B1G...

Are we really in a position where we can criticize other conferences for poaching teams?

[Matches]

Or a position where we can assume the SEC won't poach any ACC teams given the chance?

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

Are we really in a position where we can criticize other conferences for poaching teams?

Right, the ACC as I knew it hasn't existed since the loss of the home and home schedule. This is why I was ok with FSU, but not Va Tech, Miami, and BC.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Or a position where we can assume the SEC won't poach any ACC teams given the chance?

I'm pretty sure that the proverbial high horses have all been auctioned off.

[senkiri]

Not saying the ACC is above reproach here at all. But the B1G is already one of the two top dogs-- with a media contract renegotiation in 2017 sure to make them even wealthier and keep them there-- and from their perspective the motivation for poaching MD was purely about making even more money, with the added benefit of potentially destabilizing the ACC which might have been an equal or better in ten years if its schools revert to their historical norms in football and Notre Dame was added as a full member. Hence my calling them overly greedy. The ACC has acted out of self-preservation over the past decade... had we not made the moves we did, we might look like the Big East right now. And had Swofford been better at contract negotiations with ESPN, Maryland might still be part of the ACC...

[CameronBornAndBred]

I vote we keep playing until they cancel it due to lack of B1G victories. Don't get mad, don't get even. Just beat the hell out 'em every game.

[Papa John]

I'm not sold on his ability to steer the conference, and perhaps that plays into K's reaction when he expresses concern about the vulnerability of the ACC given MD's move... That said, I agree with others that it's ridiculous to hop on a high-horse here when we've poached from the Big East in the past, and will likely do so again in reaction to this move (thereby likely accelerating that league's complete collapse).

What I don't understand about this move is exactly why the B1G would entertain inviting MD and Rutgers to join. I'm a little confused about the benefit to be derived, aside from the perceived benefit of adding the NY/NJ and DC/Baltimore television markets (and the numbers they're throwing around in these press conferences are ridiculously pie-in-the-sky with respect to the potential revenue gain from adding those markets—the reality will be far lower). I think in reality the B1G will see a slight bump in the overall television revenue picture through adding two television markets that don't really care about college athletics (particularly football—both are pro football towns, with the Giants/Jets and Redskins/Ravens dominating fan interest in the fall), and they move closer to the "super-conference" number of 16 teams, but not sure what else they gain. Both of these teams will likely be bottom-feeders in football when they move over, and Rutgers will likewise struggle in basketball. The additions don't make much sense geographically with respect to the B1G's existing footprint. And I'm not sure there will be much of a positive impact with respect to enhancing the recruiting footprint of the B1G.

The move certainly benefits MD and Rutgers from a financial standpoint. Both are horrendously managed athletic programs that are in serious need of cash infusion, and the move to the B1G will provide some short-term benefit. In the long run, however, this doesn't solve either program's financial struggles, which I would argue have more to do with poor business decisions, and those stem from bad management—the only way to solve that problem is to get rid of the bad management.

[SmartDevil]

1. I'm not sure I want to offend the Big 10 for reasons I may go into another time. But I don't think we should have anything to do with Maryland. Is there any way to keep up the challenge series but quietly and unemotionally decline any of our teams scheduling Maryland as part of the ongoing series? (Parenthetically, no ACC team should schedule Maryland in any other sport, including lacrosse.)

2. Regarding Swofford....recent praise for him regarding the commitment obtained from Notre Dame now seems grossly inflated...moreover I wonder if our current Duke AD, former AD at Notre Dame, was in fact the key player in using his contacts to secure an alliance with Notre Dame (and hopes for a football alliance in the future as well). Swofford has never struck me as brainy or activist.

I'd like to see Swofford released. He's put us on a road to potential disaster--or at least did not help us avoid it as he should have.

And, hey, let's use some of Maryland's $50 milllion exit fee--I see no reason to lower that obligation and, moreover would think (hope anyway) that the ACC's lawyers wrote a bulletproof penalty (and if not, let's sue them for any reduction in penatlty that takes place)...in any case, let's use some of that $50 million to hire the Big 10's Delany as ACC commissioner at double or more his current salary. Seems to be a sharp guy who gets universal recongnition for his intellect and craftiness. The ACC could use him. And, alas, recent events have proven money talks in college athletics.

[rthomas]

If I were the ACC, I would consider cancelling this event and doing the same type of event with another big conference (SEC, Big 12, etc). I just don't know why you would continue doing business with someone who is trying to destroy your conference for monetary gain.

Get real.

[alteran]

Not saying the ACC is above reproach here at all. But the B1G is already one of the two top dogs-- with a media contract renegotiation in 2017 sure to make them even wealthier and keep them there-- and from their perspective the motivation for poaching MD was purely about making even more money, with the added benefit of potentially destabilizing the ACC which might have been an equal or better in ten years if its schools revert to their historical norms in football and Notre Dame was added as a full member. Hence my calling them overly greedy. The ACC has acted out of self-preservation over the past decade... had we not made the moves we did, we might look like the Big East right now. And had Swofford been better at contract negotiations with ESPN, Maryland might still be part of the ACC...

Actually, we DO look a helluva lot like the Big East right now.

With the exception of the Uconnvicts, we've pretty much snatched up all their premiere teams already, at least the ones that compete in football.

Why does Swofford still have a job? Hell, ESPN ought to hire him because he's proven amazing at getting contract concessions from the ACC.

[ChillinDuke]

Actually, we DO look a helluva lot like the Big East right now.

With the exception of the Uconnvicts, we've pretty much snatched up all their premiere teams already, at least the ones that compete in football.

Why does Swofford still have a job? Hell, ESPN ought to hire him because he's proven amazing at getting contract concessions from the ACC.

I'm not sure there's much the guy could do. The SEC and B1G are in a position of strength relative to ALL other conferences. As such, no matter what anyone on this board may think/say/dream, no team from those conferences will leave and go to the ACC. From a geographical standpoint, that really limits our options. Big East is the obvious option for finding new members. Big 12 is a stretch. Teams in other, non-power conferences are very unlikely to match up size-wise (monetary commitment to athletics, facilities, academics to some extent, and - mainly - football revenue wise) with the ACC.

That's it, plain and simple. Swofford added arguably the two best matches he could from the Big East and has foot-in-the-door'ed unarguably one of the biggest football powerhouses (monetarily) in the nation. I can't really fault the guy.

Geography is gone. Penn St and South Carolina, to name a few, are not leaving their conferences. Why are we even considering these things anymore? We can't have our cake and eat it too. Meaning, we can't have the ACC of old (geographically speaking) and still be a top-flight, relevant conference. Similarly, we can't lure the best football schools to further entrench our conference, as they are in relatively more powerful conferences and won't leave. The whole mess is complicated, but our situation is straightforward.

Anyone who doesn't want our conference to "look a helluva lot like the Big East" is implying we shouldn't add Big East teams. But there's no one else out there. So that sentiment really shakes out to arguing in favor of our conference decline (e.g. - adding no one, and potentially losing teams). Anyone who (I'm paraphrasing this one) wants our conference to be based "on the Atlantic Coast" for the sake of a name/history is essentially arguing for SEC/Big East teams, which I've already discussed above.

We can't have it all. We need to collectively keep an open mind and accept this new reality, if for no other reason than ensuring our future as a conference.

Circling back to The Challenge, I love the event, am all for it, and would love to see the ACC get to a point where we can dominate it again.

- Chillin

[-bdbd]

1. I'm not sure I want to offend the Big 10 for reasons I may go into another time. But I don't think we should have anything to do with Maryland. Is there any way to keep up the challenge series but quietly and unemotionally decline any of our teams scheduling Maryland as part of the ongoing series? (Parenthetically, no ACC team should schedule Maryland in any other sport, including lacrosse.)

2. Regarding Swofford....recent praise for him regarding the commitment obtained from Notre Dame now seems grossly inflated...moreover I wonder if our current Duke AD, former AD at Notre Dame, was in fact the key player in using his contacts to secure an alliance with Notre Dame (and hopes for a football alliance in the future as well). Swofford has never struck me as brainy or activist.

I'd like to see Swofford released. He's put us on a road to potential disaster--or at least did not help us avoid it as he should have.

And, hey, let's use some of Maryland's $50 milllion exit fee--I see no reason to lower that obligation and, moreover would think (hope anyway) that the ACC's lawyers wrote a bulletproof penalty (and if not, let's sue them for any reduction in penatlty that takes place)...in any case, let's use some of that $50 million to hire the Big 10's Delany as ACC commissioner at double or more his current salary. Seems to be a sharp guy who gets universal recongnition for his intellect and craftiness. The ACC could use him. And, alas, recent events have proven money talks in college athletics.

Perhaps I can lend a little extra MD-centric view from living in the DC area, where the media is saturated with MD Journalism grads. But I strongly agree that the ACC should "black ball" MD in terms of scheduling any games with them for all sports (other than holding their feet to the fire on existing contracts for FB games, etc, which would hinder their Big10 entrance). I also STRONGLY believe that we should hold fast to the $50M exit fee, which MD so blythely believes they can "negotiate away" (as seen repeatedly in the DC media assumptively in recent days). There is value in setting the example that we won't make it easy on departees.

1. In the media, I have seen commentators and many fans commenting - I recall one in the media conversation 2 days ago specifically about lax and soccer - that MD should meet its minimal scheduling commitments to its new conference in LAX and Soccer, but then continue to play as close to a full-slate vs the (better competition in) the ACC. I find that extremely presumptuous. The conference should make it extremely difficult for any ACC school to schedule non-conference match-ups in any sport going forward. They want to play in a conference where the average opponent is 700+ miles away, then more power to them. Good luck getting quality competition closer.

2. I have actually been wondering the same thing about the Duke-ND connection and the role that might've played in the recent Irish move to the ACC. That said, there are a number of historic ties between ND and the ACC, including former ACC Commissioner Gene Corrigan being a former ND AD, and the current men's BB coach, Mike Brey, being a "Duke guy."

I have never been a big fan of Swofford, mostly tied to his Kerlina roots and apparent pro-Kerlina biases. But the biggest strike against him right now for most fans would seem to be the poor TV deal he obtained for the conference. But it is hard to evaluate that from the outside - how do we guage whether we could have gotten better? Was there enough network interest?

[alteran]

I'm not sure there's much the guy could do. The SEC and B1G are in a position of strength relative to ALL other conferences. As such, no matter what anyone on this board may think/say/dream, no team from those conferences will leave and go to the ACC. From a geographical standpoint, that really limits our options. Big East is the obvious option for finding new members. Big 12 is a stretch. Teams in other, non-power conferences are very unlikely to match up size-wise (monetary commitment to athletics, facilities, academics to some extent, and - mainly - football revenue wise) with the ACC.

That's it, plain and simple. Swofford added arguably the two best matches he could from the Big East and has foot-in-the-door'ed unarguably one of the biggest football powerhouses (monetarily) in the nation. I can't really fault the guy.

Geography is gone. Penn St and South Carolina, to name a few, are not leaving their conferences. Why are we even considering these things anymore? We can't have our cake and eat it too. Meaning, we can't have the ACC of old (geographically speaking) and still be a top-flight, relevant conference. Similarly, we can't lure the best football schools to further entrench our conference, as they are in relatively more powerful conferences and won't leave. The whole mess is complicated, but our situation is straightforward.

Anyone who doesn't want our conference to "look a helluva lot like the Big East" is implying we shouldn't add Big East teams. But there's no one else out there. So that sentiment really shakes out to arguing in favor of our conference decline (e.g. - adding no one, and potentially losing teams). Anyone who (I'm paraphrasing this one) wants our conference to be based "on the Atlantic Coast" for the sake of a name/history is essentially arguing for SEC/Big East teams, which I've already discussed above.

We can't have it all. We need to collectively keep an open mind and accept this new reality, if for no other reason than ensuring our future as a conference.

Circling back to The Challenge, I love the event, am all for it, and would love to see the ACC get to a point where we can dominate it again.

- Chillin

Well, for what it's worth, when you call me out on my "look a helluva lot like the Big East" comment and ascribe what writing it means I must think, you seem to have misunderstood me. My point was that, regarding a previous poster's point that were it not for Swofford's actions we'd look like the BE right now... frankly, that ship has sailed. We look A LOT like the Big East now, both in terms of actual members and inherent vulnerability.

I'm not sure precisely what actions of Swofford's I'd change. But I'd be hard pressed to argue that what he has done has been successful. YMMV. And let me be clear, I'm not necessarily saying we shouldn't have made additions in football. But look at the Big 12 right now-- this conference was WAY more unstable than the ACC, but now their Conference agreement is ironclad in a way that makes them almost unbreakable.

Sure wish we'd had THEIR commish instead of ours a couple years back.

At some point, we have to stop repeating the same actions-- or following the same leader-- and expecting different results.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Actually, we DO look a helluva lot like the Big East right now.

With the exception of the Uconnvicts, we've pretty much snatched up all their premiere teams already, at least the ones that compete in football.

Why does Swofford still have a job? Hell, ESPN ought to hire him because he's proven amazing at getting contract concessions from the ACC.

Yikes. Is this the same Swofford that was being generally praised as a genius on all fronts after the "coup" of getting Notre Dame just weeks ago?

I know that message boards are prone to over-reaction, but please, let's wait and see how this plays out.

[ChillinDuke]

Well, for what it's worth, when you call me out on my "look a helluva lot like the Big East" comment and ascribe what writing it means I must think, you seem to have misunderstood me. My point was that, regarding a previous poster's point that were it not for Swofford's actions we'd look like the BE right now... frankly, that ship has sailed. We look A LOT like the Big East now, both in terms of actual members and inherent vulnerability.

I'm not sure precisely what actions of Swofford's I'd change. But I'd be hard pressed to argue that what he has done has been successful. YMMV. And let me be clear, I'm not necessarily saying we shouldn't have made additions in football. But look at the Big 12 right now-- this conference was WAY more unstable than the ACC, but now their Conference agreement is ironclad in a way that makes them almost unbreakable.

Sure wish we'd had THEIR commish instead of ours a couple years back.

At some point, we have to stop repeating the same actions-- or following the same leader-- and expecting different results.

Wasn't calling you out, just quoting you. Certainly possible I misunderstood you.

The disagreement I have is that there is no way that the ACC is as inherently vulnerable as the Big East. The Big East is (was) a conference of 16 teams, only half of which play FBS football. That is (was) their main issue. Every team in the ACC plays FBS football. That's a monstrous difference given the drivers of realignment. So I don't find it fair to list this as a failure of Swofford.

Of course, this doesn't ensure the ACC is strong/stable enough to completely avoid poaching. But there's no way we're as vulnerable as the Big East. If you're arguing that we're the most vulnerable of the remaining 5 power conferences, you may very well be right. But again, as I outlined in my previous post, I'm not sure what Swofford could have done to avoid this. I don't know enough about the Big 12 agreement to weigh in on their relative stability as a conference versus the ACC.

- Chillin