Negative Expansion News
- Thread starter ColoradoMountaineer
- Start date
Source please? Even a friend of a friend or heard from a guy that knew a guy would source your posts LOL.
They took an asset off the table (Louisville) that they knew full well was looked at heavily by the Big 12. That might not have been the #1 reason why the ACC took Louisville, but it was definitely a prominent reason that the ACC was fully aware of. John Swofford might be a lot of things, but nothing that he does happens by accident. The guy is a heck of a lot smarter than what a lot of conference realignment want to give him credit for.
It wasn't the #1 reason, or the #2 reason, the #10 reason, or the #50 reason. You are making the mistake of assuming there was an option. The ACC had to replace Maryland, or they would lose money from their TV contract. (On top of that, their scheduling would be completely thrown out of whack with 13 schools.)
Now, let's look at their options. Anybody in a P5 conference (including West Virginia) was signed to a GOR. Notre Dame obviously wasn't joining. So who do you have left? You have the Big East teams, BYU, and mid-major schools. Are you going to take BYU, from the other side of the country? You aren't getting more money, so adding another market doesn't really do any good. You're trying to boost up football, so which school would be the best addition for that?
So according to you, the ACC bypassed a better option for themselves, simply to screw the Big 12. That's frankly asinine. The ACC had to replace Maryland, and Louisville was the best option. It's no more complicated than that.
I’m not sure what to make of some of this conversation, but I can confirm that the first Big East break-up was chalked full of behind closed door deals, and without a doubt Boston College, Syracuse, and Miami wanted as far away from the Big East as they could get. They hated WVU, and thought WVU was beneath them. BC, and Syracuse was Northern liberals and Miami had a new President named Donna Shalala(liberal). Tony Caridi used to say they treated us like crap at BE media events every year, Syracuse trashed us in that movie they put out several years ago, and the ESPN 30-for30 even had a former BE basketball coach say, “I never signed up to go play in Morgantown WV”. Then these three-cut a behind closed doors deal to leave the BE without us ever knowing and the idea was absolutely to cut us out of a BCS bowl berth, but once the remaining BE schools hired attorneys and started putting AD’s and President’s under oath the pressure was put on to find a way to keep the Big East a BCS conference. To the point about the BCS formula. Yes, this was the criteria for keeping BCS status, but when you took Miami out that formula it looked much different which created issues for the BE.
So again, I’m not sure what you guys are talking about but there was an effort to kill the remaining BE football schools but attorneys, State Attorney Generals, and Federal and State Legislator took up a noble fight and kept us relevant. I remember after the Sugar Bowl Mike Tranghese Saying he walked back to his hotel room by himself knowing with that win by WVU it insured that BE football would survive.
College Athletics is a dirty business!
BTW, I can answer the questions! Jake Crouthamel was the AD at Syracuse, Jean D DeFilippo was at BC, and Paul Dee at Maimi. Donna Shalala had all the University computers destroyed so no one could find out just how long they had been conspiring to leave the BE. The first round of BE shake-ups had NOTHING to do with TV sets.
Last edited:
ACC passed on WVU several times! BTW, GOR's did not become a part of the process until late into conference movement when the Big 12 needed stability.
Last edited:
Yes, it was about TV sets. I don't care how much you want to believe all this conspiracy theory crap, it simply isn't true.
Let me take the BCS thing first. The Big East simply could not be kept out of the BCS. It was strictly based on a formula. There is no way ESPN, the ACC, Boston College, or anybody else could keep the the Big East out of the BCS as long as they qualified, which they did. Even when Miami left, the Big East still scored high enough to keep their BCS status. That undermines your entire point.
There was no lawsuit to keep the Big East in the BCS. Simply didn't happen. The Big East sued the departing schools for damages. The did not have to sue to keep their BCS status, because it couldn't be taken away from them.
Now, let me take your second point. I agree with you that Miami, Boston College, etc. want to move out of the Big East. The problem is, you are conflating two different things. You are conflating a desire to leave the Big East with a desire to destroy the Big East. Two completely different things. Did West Virginia want to kill the Big East when they left? No, they just wanted a better situation than the Big East offered. Same with the other schools. Miami in particular, because the SEC was becoming more prominent, and Miami had SEC schools recruiting in its backyard.
Not my point. The ACC simply took teams they thought were most beneficial. Some of you guys have this boner about the ACC. Well, guess what? The SEC passed on West Virginia several times too. Think about it. West Virginia would make 10 times more sense in the SEC than Missouri. West Virginia would fit neatly into the East division. They would be natural rivals to Tennessee, Kentucky, and Vanderbilt. They would also be good opponents for Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. West Virginia has a better football and basketball program than Missouri. So why didn't the SEC take West Virginia? Simple, TV markets.
The Big 12 had a GOR in place when Maryland left the ACC. West Virginia was already under contract with the Big 12 when the ACC was replacing Maryland.
Im not going to debate this issue like some others have because I had a close friend that worked in the media during this time and was following it very close. I just think your a little naïve to the cut throat business of college athletics and how it really works.
"I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy." Par for the course on message boards.
I'm not naive at all. I just have common sense and don't believe idiotic conspiracy theories. I look at actual evidence and judge things rationally.
No he does not get it! Life is still about doing business with people you get along with and having relationships. Your post was very good! We just had nothing in common with the old BE schools and those tobacco road schools. I know for years BC and Syracuse hated we took props. I still remember reading in the newspaper when John Swofford said that the ACC would have a better chance of getting two BCS bids with no Big East. I could have punched the TV.
He still wont answer why the ACC has turned us down many times but the Big 12 picked us up? If its all about TV sets then we should have never landed on our feet.
Last edited:
Read these stories.
http://www.semissourian.com/story/112265.html
"Businesses not only seek to better themselves at the expense of others but to eliminate the competition. Once, the purpose of college athletics was to promote healthy competition, not to kill it."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...41_1_virginia-tech-syracuse-and-boston-weaver
Last edited:
Easy answer. ACC doesn't see WVU as a good fit for all of the ACC partners. Those reason revolve around academics and WVU perception. This isn't tough stuff to understand. Throw in a footprint that doesn't represent much to the ACC and there's your answer.
Business is about making money. That's the bottom line. Is and always has been.
I have already explained to you why the Big 12 took West Virginia. Here are the options the Big 12 had:
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
Rutgers
Connecticut
South Florida
BYU
Mid-majors
Ok, so who out of that group is better than West Virginia? Nobody.
In addition to that, the Big 12 didn't get more money for taking West Virginia and TCU. TV markets didn't factor in, because the Big 12 wasn't getting more money. They were just adding teams so they wouldn't lose their TV contract.
You also didn't answer MY question.Why didn't the SEC take West Virginia? They took Texas A&M and Missouri in 2011, and South Carolina and Arkansas in 1992. Both times West Virginia was available, and both times the SEC didn't take them. Why?
I did read the stories. They don't do anything to back up your point. The first one is simply a writer's opinion. It doesn't provide any information about any conspiracy. The second article doesn't offer any evidence that the Big East had to sue to maintain BCS status.
Yep. Bingo, but your buddy thinks we didn't get into the ACC because of TV sets but when you factor in how strong our southern fan base is and the large number of TV sets we have in the south we are actually a perfect fit. Much better fit TV sets wise then the Big 12 but it was personal with the old BE schools and ACC.
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
Rutgers
Connecticut
South Florida
BYU
Several(try most)of these schools are better TV set markets then WVU
Last edited:
You did notice the first article was written by an award winning writer from the Washington Post! You did see where she mentioned about killing competition? Correct?
You are proving my point! You keep saying its bout TV sets but WV's TV set number is not good. We got in to the Big 12 because of politics and the threat from Capital Hill! Our TV set numbers are better for the ACC then Big 12 because of our southern alumni base but the old Big East and ACC admin hate our asses.
You make a lot of good points but the only reason bc was added had to be for the TV sets. bc brings nothing else but potential ratings. The acc gambled and lost on them so they are stuck carrying their sorry butts.
It's comical to see people pining away to be in the acc. Wvu is perfectly fine where it is today. If the big 12 dissolves in the future we'll be fine when it happens. Hopefully it's not in the acc.
It's comical to see people pining away to be in the acc. Wvu is perfectly fine where it is today. If the big 12 dissolves in the future we'll be fine when it happens. Hopefully it's not in the acc.
WVUs football brand is fine. Actually better than most! I'm hoping WVU comes home in 2023. They belong with their longstanding partners. Fuvk Texas and Oklahoma.
BC brought TV sets but the media research told everyone at the time BC was not a product anyone watched, but at the time if it was about TV sets then Rutgers would have been the target. They bring you NJ and NY.
Correct, everyone was aware that BC was a dud program. No one watched them on TV or went to there games. It was (and still is) a sad athletic program but it was more about academic elites feeling good about who they were and making sure certain people stayed beneath them. What was interesting after BC moved Notre Dame stopped playing them on a regular basis and that really hurt BC. BC was nervous about UConn coming on and becoming the elite athletic program in the Northeast.
Moving to the ACC was terrible for BC because they have no built in rivals.
Last edited:
I agree, but not sure what the ACC payout is like compared to the Big 12. Maybe topdecktiger(I assume he is a Clemson guy) can give us those TV break outs?
Thank God we have you here to figure it all out for everyone. Let me know when the Big 12 announces it's death sentence. ACC could have take RU, blah blah blah. B1G did. Oh well.
Yep, long-term Rutgers was a much better grab. So once again, if it was TV only Rutgers gets in before BC, but it was not only about TV's. The ACC hid behind the "so called" academic schools for the reason behind BC and Syracuse. No one paid attention to the average academic ratings of Clemson, Florida State, or Miami at the time.
No, what you are saying is incorrect. You don't understand how the TV contracts work. Instead of listening you keep arguing with me.
Here is how it works. When a conference signs a contract with TV network, there is typically (not always) an expansion clause in the contract. This clause states that if the conference expands, it is allowed to renegotiate the TV contract, even if the contract still has years remaining. (On the flip side, the network is allowed to renegotiate if the conference loses teams.) When these conferences expand, one of the big factors in getting more money during renegotiation is the size of the conference's market footprint. That's why you have seen conferences talking schools that aren't particularly strong on the field, but have good media market. That was the case with the ACC in 2003 and 2011.
Now, with the Big 12, that was not the case. The Big 12 was not expanding in 2011. Texas A&M and Missouri had left, and the Big 12 was going to have their TV contract reduced unless they replaced those schools. The Big 12 as not going to be able to renegotiate their contract to get more money. They were simply trying to replace the departing schools so they wouldn't lose money. West Virginia's media market didn't matter in this specific case, because the Big 12 wasn't negotiating for more money. For some reason, you can't understand that difference.
No, that's not true at all. The media research firms hired by the ACC back in 2002-3 advised the ACC to take Syracuse and Boston College, based on media markets. Back in 2003, Rutgers did not deliver the New York market. Back then, Rutgers did not have the share of the New York market that they do now, which came about due to the success they had under Greg Schiano.
Yes it is a good thing I'm here to explain it, because you can't figure it out. The ACC didn't have a conference network at the time, which the Big Ten did. Markets are monetized differently under a broadcast contract vs. a subscription network.
Also, I have never said the Big 12 is in trouble. In fact, I've said the opposite. I've consistently said that all this hand wringing (especially the ridiculous expansion plan) was foolish and unnecessary, because the Big 12 was not in any danger.
Some of the things you say makes sense, but I agree with some others that politics played a very large role in this deal and it was not all about the numbers. They numbers played a major role but it was not all about the numbers.
So you can beat this drum all you like but at the end of the day many factors went to who went where, how, and why(TV sets was not the only factor). So now that we know your an ACC/Clemson Tiger guy maybe you have a bias.
Well, if contracts were already in place then it didn't matter about TV sets? correct?
All I have said from the beginning, is its more then just TV sets that went into decision making (also ESPN has a higher percentage of the college football TV revenue which makes them more open to a drop in income when ratings are down).
Politics didn't play a large roll. It comes down to money. That's the deciding factor.
When it comes to bias, you have a bias. You think your school is being insulted, so you are reacting emotionally, rather than logically. That's why you are buying into these conspiracy theories, because you get riled up at the idea that West Virginia is somehow being treated unfairly. In reality, West Virginia was simply a victim of circumstances. Nobody had a problem with West Virginia. Everybody was just covering their own ass.
No, your question is incorrect. I explained this clearly in my previous post.
When a conference expands, they are allowed to renegotiate their existing TV contract. That's the entire point.
If you have a 10 year contract, you are stuck with whatever that contract pays, unless you expand. If you expand, you can renegotiate that contract and get more money now. If you don't expand, you just have to wait out the 10 years until your contracts runs out and you sign a new one.
Ok, if you expand and renegotiate your contract, you need to have something that adds value, i.e. media markets/TV sets. That's why schools with big markets (Missouri) are attractive.
In the Big 12's case, they were not renegotiating. They did not expand with West Virginia. The still only had 10 teams. The Big 12 was stuck with the same TV contract either way, whether they picked West Virginia, Cincinnati, Florida St, Alabama, whoever. Well, if you aren't renegotiating your contract, then adding value, like media markets/TV sets, isn't really a factor.
Regarding your point about ESPN, ratings are not the issue. ESPN's ratings are basically consistent. They aren't losing money because of ratings. They are losing money because of subscribers. Those are two completely different things. The dirty little secret is, ESPN (and all cable channels) were making money off of people who don't even watch the channel. Now that those people are dropping cable, they aren't getting that extra revenue anymore. That's where the problem is coming in.
TopdeckTiger = refuses to look at or accept the whole situation and factors that existed during the mass BIG EAST exodus/raid.
Seriously he just keeps regurgitating the same argument, TV market blah blah blah.
I know TV markets was some of the criteria to the raid on the BE by the ACC. But it also was used as a pretext to settle old scores by a few Athletic Directors and Universitiy Presidents. Even politicians and congress were becoming involved.
Do some research, TopDeckTiger. Google is your friend.
Seriously he just keeps regurgitating the same argument, TV market blah blah blah.
I know TV markets was some of the criteria to the raid on the BE by the ACC. But it also was used as a pretext to settle old scores by a few Athletic Directors and Universitiy Presidents. Even politicians and congress were becoming involved.
Do some research, TopDeckTiger. Google is your friend.
Yes, Google is your friend. The problem is, Google doesn't reveal any sources that support your claims.
Two stories in this thread that discussed the AG in Conn and State government in Virginia where all involved. This was just one article.
I realize that, and I've addressed that. Neither article backs up your theory of a conspiracy.
The Virginia Legislature did not conspire with the ACC to destroy the Big East, or to exclude West Virginia. What the Virginia Legislature was very simple. They instructed UVA to vote for Virginia Tech in expansion. The Legislature had no influence beyond that. The Virginia Legislature did not deal with ESPN, the BCS, the ACC, John Swofford, North Carolina, Duke, or anyone else. That's not an example of a conspiracy, or backdoor politics.
The Connecticut attorney general did not influence expansion. The lawsuit was against the ACC, Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College for damages. Do you know what was the result of that lawsuit? The result was, the Big East got $5 million. That's it. The lawsuit had NO EFFECT on the Big East's BCS status, the Big East's TV contract, the Big East's bowl agreements, or anything else. ESPN was not part of the lawsuit. The NCAA was not part of the lawsuit. The BCS was not part of the lawsuit. This lawsuit had NO EFFECT on who was a member of what conference, or who got a BCS bid, or who got a TV contract. This lawsuit doesn't prove your theory that politics affected expansion.
I keep hearing this lol, but somehow it doesn't answer the question, "needed".
That's the first time you have admitted govts were involved.
Look, we get it, your a Clemson/ACC fan, if this entire process was so damn rational then why is a team like WVU flying to the Midwest for every game? Its stupid. The ACC does not like WVU, and to be honest I hate the smug group myself. You can come up in here and talk all this mumbo jumbo you want, but they told us no when rational decision making was to say yes. So whatever you say Im not going to agree with you because the ACC is a bunch of stuck up jerks and we fit better with the down to earth people of the Big 12 its just a shame its so far away. So for all of us, take your smug tobacco road crap back to the Greensboro Coliseum where you can play chess with all the Duke fans and play football with 20,000 fans at Pitt and 30,000 at a Wake game, or have a bowl game where by Syracuse or BC takes a 1,000 fans. Remember that ACC Championship game where BC had 500 fans in the stands. LOL.
THE ACC HAS TURNED US DOWN MULTIPLE TIMES, AND IT MAKES NO SENSE THAT WE HAVE TO TRAVEL TO THE MIDWEST. JUST REMEMER NONE OF THOSE GUYS ARE OUR FRIENDS AND I DONT WATCH THEM OR SUPPORT THEM IN ANY WAY. WHY, THEY DONT LIKE US!
This is my last post and I will end it with this. Tony Caridi said after going to the first Big 12 media day. "We were never treated this kindly at any Big East media day. It always felt like we were never wanted, and or felt to be apart of the conference. Even after winning and saving the league I never felt the respect that I felt at our first Big 12 media day"
So take your smug ACC attitude back to where ever.
First of all, I haven't "admitted" anything. If you would have paid attention, you would have noticed this statement I made two days ago:
I clearly referenced the Virginia situation. The previous post was not the first time I referenced the Virginia situation, so you are factually incorrect.
Now, let me get to your one legitimate point. You asked if the process is so rational, then why is West Virginia flying to the Midwest for games? Well, that's because the process is only conference-by-conference. For example, the SEC did not get permission from the Big Ten to expand. The SEC did not ask the Big Ten if there would be any problem taking Texas A&M and Missouri. The SEC did not ask if West Virginia or South Florida would be inconvenienced by SEC expansion. The SEC simply identified the most valuable teams for its conference, and took those teams. They don't care what happens to teams not in their conference.
Each conference acts in its own self interest. There isn't some larger entity that controls expansion so the process is orderly for all of college football. Each conference simply takes the teams that give it the most value. The SEC felt Texas A&M and Missouri were the most valuable, so they took those teams. The Big Ten felt Rutgers and Maryland were the most valuable, so they took those teams. The Pac 12 felt Utah and Colorado were the most valuable, so they took those teams. The ACC felt Pittsburgh and Syracuse were the most valuable, so they took those teams. It's literally no more complicated than that.
You have this idea that there is some overarching governing body that controls which schools go into which conference. It simply doesn't work that way. Each conference is autonomous, and decided what would be in its own self-interest. They don't worry about accommodating schools that aren't in their league.
The rest of your post was simply a pure emotional response. It wasn't rational or logical. You keep getting mad at the ACC, but as I pointed out, the SEC would also be a good fit for West Virginia, but the SEC didn't take West Virginia either. The fact that neither conference took West Virginia shows that it wasn't just the ACC being "stuck up." It shows that the two closest conferences simply felt they could get more money by taking other teams. Lashing out emotionally isn't going to solve anything for you. It certainly won't help you analyze the situation logically.
I agree for sure. I think it's more that these conferences look down on WVU as an institution. The ACC and the Big Ten just don't respect WVU.
