Chick fil-A press conference

[jimsumner]

Gary Stokan, David Cutcliffe and Kevin White met with the media early today.

A few useful tidbits.

Stokan--the bowl's CEO-emphatically denied that there was any politics involved in the selection process. He said that he told Duke and the ACC Friday night that Duke would be their selection if FSU won the title game and Clemson got the Orange Bowl nod. He said that no one from the bowl talked to Swofford Sunday until after the selection had been made.

Stokan led with this. He seemed a bit miffed at the idea briefly floated Sunday that suggested otherwise.

He added that the CFA bowl takes "great pride in letting teams play their way into our bowl and letting them play their way out." Duke played their way in.

Kevin White said the Duke ticket allotment was 18,500 and that Duke had sold around 8,000 of that through yesterday. He called the Duke response "ecstatic."

The CFA game will have no other bowl competition in that time slot. The bowl had 8.4 million viewers last season. Total payout this year expected to be $7.4 million.

Duke will begin practice on 12-15. Cut said everyone would be through with finals by then and he expects a captivated audience. He cited last year's bowl practices as a key to this year's success.

[budwom]

Good stuff. I'd still like to know what Keeley was alluding to in her tweets.

Any discussion of injuries, e.g. Duncan, Kelby, Connette, etc?

[jimsumner]

Good stuff. I'd still like to know what Keeley was alluding to in her tweets.

Any discussion of injuries, e.g. Duncan, Kelby, Connette, etc?

No. This was more of a CFA-formally-invites-Duke-to-play-in-our-bowl-kind of event.

[Dev11]

The CFA game will have no other bowl competition in that time slot. The bowl had 8.4 million viewers last season. Total payout this year expected to be $7.4 million.

Excellent stuff, thank you. Any idea what the payout for Duke was last year for Belk versus this year? Where might that surplus be directed?

[Bluedog]

Excellent stuff, thank you. Any idea what the payout for Duke was last year for Belk versus this year? Where might that surplus be directed?

One thing I'm curious about is isn't the ACC a "revenue sharing" conference? Does that mean the money that Duke/ACC gets for the Chick Fil A is evenly split among all member institutions or does Duke get more of the proceeds since they are the participant? If is indeed all "shared," then I would think the only thing that affects Duke's revenue is how many BCS bowl invites the ACC gets basically...but perhaps that's not the case. Thanks for any clarification.

[Duvall]

One thing I'm curious about is isn't the ACC a "revenue sharing" conference? Does that mean the money that Duke/ACC gets for the Chick Fil A is evenly split among all member institutions or does Duke get more of the proceeds since they are the participant? If is indeed all "shared," then I would think the only thing that affects Duke's revenue is how many BCS bowl invites the ACC gets basically...but perhaps that's not the case. Thanks for any clarification.

Pretty much. Teams going to bowl games also get extra money to cover their bowl expenses, but the rest of the money is split fourteen ways.

Well, thirteen.

Even though its football team has qualified for the Military Bowl, the Maryland athletic department will not receive any of the ACC’s distributed postseason revenue as the conference continues to withhold funds, including money earned from bowl games, from the soon-to-be-departing member because the situation surrounding its exit fee has yet to be resolved.

[OldPhiKap]

Well, thirteen.

Very interesting article, looks like the ACC has already withheld about $3M since last year.

Of interest to Duke:

"Revenue and expense payouts from the ACC also depend on how many bowl-game tickets a school sells. Each ACC school is responsible for the cost of the first 6,000 tickets. The ACC partially covers the next 2,000 tickets if they go unsold. Once a school sells 8,000 tickets, the ACC foots the bill for any other unsold tickets and that money comes from the bowl distribution pool."

Duke has alraedy sold around 8,000 tickets in its allotment, I believe, per Jim's comments above.

[budwom]

Very interesting article, looks like the ACC has already withheld about $3M since last year.

Of interest to Duke:

"Revenue and expense payouts from the ACC also depend on how many bowl-game tickets a school sells. Each ACC school is responsible for the cost of the first 6,000 tickets. The ACC partially covers the next 2,000 tickets if they go unsold. Once a school sells 8,000 tickets, the ACC foots the bill for any other unsold tickets and that money comes from the bowl distribution pool."

Duke has alraedy sold around 8,000 tickets in its allotment, I believe, per Jim's comments above.

Ha, I hope the league sends Merlin a fake check for $4 million bucks, or whatever the payout turns out to be, with the notation "this could've been
yours if you weren't such a pack of shortsighted, inept mercenaries. Bon Voyage."

[OldPhiKap]

Just watched the PC, as always I love hearing from Cut. What a great opportunity this team has earned. Break on through to the other side!

[westcoastbestcoast]

Good stuff. I'd still like to know what Keeley was alluding to in her tweets.

Any discussion of injuries, e.g. Duncan, Kelby, Connette, etc?

I have a pal who is in the athletic department, and without saying too may details, I can tell you that he is not a fan of the current bowl system. He says that the bowl selection process is super political, and that a bunch of bowls may call you and tell you how much they want you in their bowl, but say the same thing to a bunch of other schools too (so it doesn't really mean anything when a bowl calls you). And on the assertion that they had made this decision Friday... well, when I talked with my friend mid-day Sunday, he still had no idea (narrowed it down between to 3 bowls... El Paso, Orlando, and the chick-fil-a). So while its possible the bowl knew who they would select, they sure did not tell Duke until sometime sunday afternoon.

With respect to the Keeley tweets, I would trust her reporting more than the statement of the bowl ceo. Given how much time passed before Duke was notified, I would guess that there was some hold-up/dispute.

[throatybeard]

With respect to the Keeley tweets, I would trust her reporting more than the statement of the bowl CEO. Given how much time passed before Duke was notified, I would guess that there was some hold-up/dispute.

Definitely. What you said, times ten. I don't know what happened, but it was something.

I'm not a journalist, so I can't even imagine the pressure these folks are under to report things in more-or-less real time. Twitter in particular creates fairly crushing incentives. I particularly don't like ESPN's widespread adoption of treating Twitter like THE NEWS. This represents an abdication of ESPN's own duties, first of all, and then further forces beat reporters who are on Twitter to feed stories to MouseCorp, more or less for free, with the suffocating expectation of getting it right much faster than they had to get it right before social media existed.

You can tell ESPN is really invested in the success of Twitter. Their anchors sometimes make comments about how played/obsolete Facebook is, while they act like Twitter has the same gravitas as Dan Rather standing in front of Hurricane Betsy in 1965. Everyone I know under fifty still uses Facebook, a lot, even my traditional-aged undergrads. Lots of people I know over fifty use it as well, and that doesn't mean it's played. It's not obsolete at all, not yet anyway. A lot of my friends in this town are still under thirty, and they use all of the social media stuff, except MySpace, which is done. Most of our not-in-person interaction occurs on Facebook, not Twitter, and not really even Instagram. It's not like there's some sort of demographic tide where only young people are on Twitter and only old people are one Facebook. But ESPN is really in a swivet over Twitter, and they have you believe that narrative.

I don't have any idea if Swofford lobbied for Duke, or indeed, what the deal is at all. But I'm darn sure going to trust a beat reporter before I trust some corporate suit who's speaking for the bowl itself. Vigilance about the truth is what the fourth estate is for.

This is completely anecdotal here, what I'm about to say, but I think the print media, much to my dismay, has fallen off another continental shelf recently. I mean, past the ones it already had. I went to a Faculty Senate meeting on Tuesday. The system president, who seems like a good enough guy, was in town to speak to us. I was a good boy, and when the budget and planning committee described a campus budget shortfall that was almost exactly what Gary Pinkel makes for coaching MU football, I held my tongue. But I've been avidly reading this series on the impoverished girl, Dasani, in the NYT. I wanted to read more about her. I have a limited e-subscription to the NYT, so I feel this entitles me to yoink a print copy of the paper at school, one which the kids aren't going to read anyway.

So I go to the north campus library because it's the closest paper-distribution point to where the meeting was. We get the NYT, the Saint Louis Post Dispatch, and USAT. This has been the case at Universities for at least a decade. I think the idea was, if we give the paper away free now, they'll get used to reading it, and when they have a pay job after graduation, they'll subscribe. They haven't. They won't. They won't even read the freebies, anymore. I'm Gen-X, so I'm not a digital native, and one of the first things I did when I was a frosh was to subscribe to the Raleigh News & Observer. I've been reading the paper wherever I was since I was seven. Not these kids. Now, even other people my own age (37) ridicule me for having a subscription to the print P-D when I mention it. (I recently asked on Facebook how much you're supposed to tip the paper delivery person at Xmas. Much of the discussion was more about ridiculing me and talking about iPads than answering the question).

So I make a U-turn at the library. You go in the entry door, and there are the free papers, and you have to U-turn around the security point to make sure you didn't steal a book. That slows me down 15 seconds, during which time, I run into one of my Grammar kids. She's, I don't know, I'm guessing 23. She goes, "dude, you're the only person I know who reads the paper."

This doesn't surprise me at all. What surprises me is (again, anecdotally) the difference in supply and demand for these free papers just since I've been at UMSL since Fall 2007. Supply has been the same. Keep in mind, you have old people like me, faculty, whoever, yoinking papers that are really meant for the kids. Not even the old people are yoinking the papers. Three years ago, if I didn't get a Times before my 12:30 class, I wasn't getting one. Now, if I'm working at home and I'm off campus and I go in to get some mail at 4:45 (like today), there is a fat stack of papers waiting for me. Even then, only like ten NYTs are left. There are enough USATs and P-Ds to start a bonfire. Unless it's late in baseball season. Then people pick up the P-Ds. But what this means is you have a few liberal professors picking up the Times. No one is picking up anything else.

2002 or 2003 was the year, I've read, that the newspaper crisis really accelerated. That may be, but I think we've fallen off again just in the last couple years. I consider it a precious gift that I can get a current New York Times in my own building, and read the Arts section every day. It's the only daily, as far as I'm aware, that has an Arts section 365 days/year. But there are like six distribution points on north campus, probably 10K people walking around on a given day, and maybe 50 people taking a free copy of the Times.

It's a different world. I follow Ms Keeley. I've seen Season Five of The Wire many times. I long for the day when modestly-sized cities had two and three broadsheet daily papers. I wish she got to work for the NYT fifty years ago. But she doesn't. But 'll take her word over some Chick-Fil-A aparatchick* any day.

* - I see what I just did there.

[Reilly]

...With respect to the Keeley tweets, I would trust her reporting more than the statement of the bowl ceo. Given how much time passed before Duke was notified, I would guess that there was some hold-up/dispute.

There's a lot to unpack here.

Which do you trust:
(a) Keeley's tweets that Swofford was lobbying and CFA was wobbly in his commitment to Duke on Sunday; or
(b) Keeley's deletion of that tweet and saying conference officials say there's no lobbying of bowl officials?
Basically, she 'reported" (if tweeting is reporting) two diametrically opposed stories.

Watch the press conference, CEO Stokan calls such reporting "irresponsible." Really calls her out, basically.

I like Laura Keeley's coverage of Duke, a lot. But she hasn't explained herself, at all, that I can tell. And the bowl CEO is basically saying it's all a lie, and that he spoke with Kevin White Friday night, and White was sitting right there.

In short, Keeley should explain *why* she tweeted what she did -- who had she talked to, what had she read, that led her fingers to type such words, and then retract them. The explanation may make her look bad -- maybe she jumped the gun, or had a shaky source who didn't really know what they were talking about. Or the explanation may make us question the Bowl CEO's version of events.

For now, given there has been no further explanation, and the tweet was deleted, I'm siding w/ the bowl CEO's version (and I'm one usually much more prone to side with the reporter, and to question authority).

[budwom]

I agree that I'd love to hear from Laura what she was hearing, but I do NOT see a conflict between the two tweets.
The first said Hair Helmet Swofford was lobbying.
The second said the ACC SAYS they don't do that. Hardly means they don't, or didn't. Obviously something
was transpiring and it would be nice to know what it was.

[Reilly]

I agree that I'd love to hear from Laura what she was hearing, but I do NOT see a conflict between the two tweets.
The first said Hair Helmet Swofford was lobbying.
The second said the ACC SAYS they don't do that. Hardly means they don't, or didn't. Obviously something
was transpiring and it would be nice to know what it was.

Yes, I thought of that. How's this for a conflict:
(a) a tweet that says Swofford is lobbying;
(b) no tweet that says Swofford is lobbying.

She put something out there, and deleted it. So, she has told two stories. Or, told one story, then quit telling that story.

If we had a consistent story about Swofford .... versus .... Stokan's version. Well, then, pick your side.

Here, we have an inconsistent story about Swofford .... versus ... Stokan's version. Given that, I go w/ Stokan.

[OldPhiKap]

There's a lot to unpack here.

Which do you trust:
(a) Keeley's tweets that Swofford was lobbying and CFA was wobbly in his commitment to Duke on Sunday; or
(b) Keeley's deletion of that tweet and saying conference officials say there's no lobbying of bowl officials?
Basically, she 'reported" (if tweeting is reporting) two diametrically opposed stories.

Watch the press conference, CEO Stokan calls such reporting "irresponsible." Really calls her out, basically.

I like Laura Keeley's coverage of Duke, a lot. But she hasn't explained herself, at all, that I can tell. And the bowl CEO is basically saying it's all a lie, and that he spoke with Kevin White Friday night, and White was sitting right there.

In short, Keeley should explain *why* she tweeted what she did -- who had she talked to, what had she read, that led her fingers to type such words, and then retract them. The explanation may make her look bad -- maybe she jumped the gun, or had a shaky source who didn't really know what they were talking about. Or the explanation may make us question the Bowl CEO's version of events.

For now, given there has been no further explanation, and the tweet was deleted, I'm siding w/ the bowl CEO's version (and I'm one usually much more prone to side with the reporter, and to question authority).

To add to this, after watching the press conference, Stokan did not call her out once. Stokan spent about four minutes calling her out. It would be pretty bold if his account was not true.

Not unprecedented, but very bold.

Regardless, we're in. Don't care how we got here. The only way to silence critics is to beat A&M on the field. Get 'er done.

[Reilly]

And to add a bit about the press conference, Stokan said how he called Al Golden and ____ (I guess the AD) of Miami to let them know it would not be them ... then he added almost as an afterthought ("and Frank Beamer of VT"). Those were the three in contention. He did not mention contacting GT, I don't think, though they literally, in theory, could've been in contention at 5-3. Just the way he said Miami first, and then threw in VT as an afterthought, gives a bit of ammunition to the 'maybe they were thinking of Miami a bit on Sunday' theory.

On the other hand, I'm guessing Laura was at the press conference yesterday (she was tweeting about it; maybe she phoned in) ... but if she had something to go on, and something to question Stokan about, that was the time and the place given he called her out. Makes me think there's nothing there.

[alteran]

To add to this, after watching the press conference, Stokan did not call her out once. Stokan spent about four minutes calling her out. It would be pretty bold if his account was not true.

Or it could be a case of "the bowl dude doth protest too much." 3.75 minutes too much, if you ask me.

[OldPhiKap]

Or it could be a case of "the bowl dude doth protest too much." 3.75 minutes too much, if you ask me.

Perhaps, although it would seem easy to refute.

Either way, as I said before I don't care how we got there. We are there, and we have a chance to prove that we should be there. Let the naysayers be damned.

I don't recall the spreads in the Miami or VT game, but I think this is kinda similar. Go Duke!

[Duvall]

Perhaps, although it would seem easy to refute.

I imagine that depends on whether proving a now moot point is worth burning a source.

[Reilly]

I imagine that depends on whether proving a now moot point is worth burning a source.

What point is moot? It would an interesting story -- today -- to know and understand the bowl machinations, to the extent they exist.

Also, Stokan just yesterday calling reports irresponsible makes the integrity of the reporting an on-going story.

In short, I see at least two points (the bowl selection; the reporting of the bowl selection) and do not consider either moot.