Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789
Results 81 to 90 of 90
  1. #81

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercury View Post
    There is no ego big guy like dulany or Scott . He works very very closely with the presidents and board of trustees athletic directors. He works quietly and has several working committees - the committee of 12 4- presidents 4 and 4 faculty members .

    Lots of folks in the message boards and sports media under appreciates this skill but it is essential in building a holisitic collaborative team.

    My guess is if the new president from Maryland and ad who came from Illinois and West Point / cal, who are not use to method of operatins, just talked their comcerns with swofford it woildnt have ended with them lewving. they made a decision without any discussions or questions. They made decision in a stovepipe.

    Life moves on
    Swofford made a few serious mistakes, but he never really had much to work with. Allowing Miami to dictate the terms of the 2003 expansion was one. VT, Pitt, and Miami should have been the first picks. Miami had no leverage: the SEC didn't want them, nor did anyone else. So why did the ACC bend over backward to try and take fellow private schools Cuse and BC so that Miami could have its student pipeline in the northeast?

    Of course, it's possible Swofford had no say in the matter. But if you don't assign blame there, you can't rightly assign credit for the latest moves.

  2. #82
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    3659′36″N 7813′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Swofford made a few serious mistakes, but he never really had much to work with. Allowing Miami to dictate the terms of the 2003 expansion was one. VT, Pitt, and Miami should have been the first picks. Miami had no leverage: the SEC didn't want them, nor did anyone else. So why did the ACC bend over backward to try and take fellow private schools Cuse and BC so that Miami could have its student pipeline in the northeast?

    Of course, it's possible Swofford had no say in the matter. But if you don't assign blame there, you can't rightly assign credit for the latest moves.
    Miami was suppose to bring another national powerhouse football program to the ACC.

    2000: #2, 11-0, 7-0
    2001: #1, 12-0, 7-0 BCS National Champions
    2002: #2, 12-1, 7-0 Loss to Ohio State in 2OT in BCS Championship game
    2003: #5, 11-2, 6-1

    That's why Swofford allowed Miami to dictate expansion. They finished in the top 5 four straight years and played in 2 BCS Championship games. Swofford expected the U to continue their football success in the ACC but they fell off the football map in 2006. As we all know, the U didn't deliver.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    November 21, 2008
    Posts
    5,086
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Swofford made a few serious mistakes, but he never really had much to work with. Allowing Miami to dictate the terms of the 2003 expansion was one. VT, Pitt, and Miami should have been the first picks. Miami had no leverage: the SEC didn't want them, nor did anyone else. So why did the ACC bend over backward to try and take fellow private schools Cuse and BC so that Miami could have its student pipeline in the northeast?

    Of course, it's possible Swofford had no say in the matter. But if you don't assign blame there, you can't rightly assign credit for the latest moves.
    Agree about the Miami situation and I'm a Pro Swofford guy.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    August 27, 2002
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    I am not comfortable with "elite academic culture." As a person who is currently enrolled in a graduate program at an elite university, I can tell you that the pretentiousness that accompanies such a culture isn't something I admire nor strive for. Actually the folks at my current elite school are fairly laid back about it, but there's a few in the bunch. And that's been my experience with most Ivy Leaguers I know. It's the wannabe Ivys that are annoying beyond belief. You know the UVA and Tarhole types. They are all in your face about their "grounds" and their degrees. The guys I've met from Harvard don't have to tell you they went to Harvard. You just figure it out. But anyhow, as the population shifts to the South the money will follow, and the SEC will become every bit as highly regarded as the B1G. And they may be able to put something together something that rivals the CIC. That money going to the University of Minnesota may end up going to the University of South Carolina. That money going to Michigan will be going to UGA. And of course, the ACC schools are a hodgepodge of academic institutions with no common thread. I ain't say'n it will happen next year, but it will come to be in the next 20-30 years. And that's how these conference choices should be viewed, as long term decisions.
    Population growth, save for the US Congress, isn't a zero-sum game. The only state to see a decline in population from 2000 to 2010 is Michigan -- and it still is the fifth-largest in the US. Yes, population is growing faster in the South. But you don't necessarily see a concomitant rise in quality. You're also much more likely to find the obnoxious pretentiousness you describe among undergraduate alumni than graduate alumni.

    One thing that constrains southern universities is southern politics. The South has a long history of underfunding public education, especially post-secondary education. Given southern attitudes toward taxation, that isn't likely to change any time soon. Yes, the potential is there for South Carolina to eclipse Minnesota. But not for decades. There's just too much ground to make up.

    USC has a 70% acceptance rate; UMn accepts 47.8% of its applicants. Columbia has 60% of the student population of the Twin Cities campus. USC is a sea-grant school, but UMN is a land-grant, a sea-grant, and a space-grant. And UMn has a $2.5 billion endowment -- 5 times USC's $513 million. Unless all of Minnesota suddenly decides to inhabit South Carolina, the relative academic standings of the two schools won't change all that much.
    Last edited by Perfesser; Sun Apr 28 2013 at 07:10 AM. Reason: Typo

  5. #85

    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    Miami was suppose to bring another national powerhouse football program to the ACC.

    2000: #2, 11-0, 7-0
    2001: #1, 12-0, 7-0 BCS National Champions
    2002: #2, 12-1, 7-0 Loss to Ohio State in 2OT in BCS Championship game
    2003: #5, 11-2, 6-1

    That's why Swofford allowed Miami to dictate expansion. They finished in the top 5 four straight years and played in 2 BCS Championship games. Swofford expected the U to continue their football success in the ACC but they fell off the football map in 2006. As we all know, the U didn't deliver.
    Spot on, Miami with National Title, huge Media market, recruiting hotbed, solid academic profile and unique high TV appeal in relation to their small , private school status had it all in the early 2000s. It was all about getting Miami and 2 warm bodies. The ACC coveted them and the leverage was they could just stay in the Big East where they were thriving on the field.

    You have to apply some historical perspective and not rely totally on 20/20 hindsight to accurately assess the situation.

    The same goes for bashing Swofford on the TV contract. The round the ACC was in in 2008-2009 was negotiated when only ESPN was the singular entity in sports broadcasting, the ACC was in a down cycle in performance on the field, and the national economy was horrible.
    I remember speculation that our TV contract might actually be reduced but instead the ACC got a 2.9 million dollar bump. I destinctly remember an ACC collective sigh of relief. With only a few exceptions, our contract was verbatim modeled after the SEC including getting upfront money for 3rd tier rights. The Big 10 network wasn't turning a profit and was still going through start up costs and growing pains.

    CBS, Fox, and NBC then got interested in expanding their sports offerings. Timing is everything. Nothing drives up the price at an auction like having a number of interested bidders. So what looked like a good solid contract for the ACC within a year became an undervalued albatross. The realignment has been a bonus to the ACC allowing some wiggle room and increases for our contract despite ESPN having exclusive rights, i.e., none of the other networks can bid on the contract.

  6. #86
    Femoyer Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 20, 2003
    Location
    Glen Allen, VA
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by hokieball View Post
    FSU's board was vocal in their displeasure of the ACC TV contract. The disparity between FSU and UF would be of greater concern to FSU, in my opinion. I'm going to go with with the creation of an ACC network before anything ND related. ND will come in time (hopefully), but I think an ACC network and the additional revenue from that are the primary reasons for the GOR and FSU stepping in line.
    Agree. Two thoughts. With the dragging out of the SEC and ACC networks, might there be some kind of joint network? Will the ACC network bring enough new money to entice ND to join full time? Texas and/or PSU to the ACC? I know, I'm really reaching but Stech's comments always make me feel like we are missing something and will be surprised. Another thought is if/when the playoff format guarantees conference champs are in, then that frees up OOC scheduling (see joint conference network idea).
    Last edited by Femoyer Hokie; Sun Apr 28 2013 at 09:38 AM.

  7. #87

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Location
    Fredericksburg
    Posts
    82
    Still think it would be cool to have some type of cross network sharing with the PAC12. I'm sure both conferences would benefit from some type of partnership.


    Quote Originally Posted by Femoyer Hokie View Post
    Agree. Two thoughts. With the dragging out of the SEC and ACC networks, might there be some kind of joint network? Will the ACC network bring enough new money to entice ND to join full time? Texas and/or PSU to the ACC? I know, I'm really reaching but Stech's comments always make me feel like we are missing something and will be surprised. Another thought is if/when the playoff format guarantees conference champs are in, then that frees up scheduling (see joint conference network idea).

  8. #88

    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Posts
    75,976
    Quote Originally Posted by 133304Hokie View Post
    Swofford clearly did a masterful job of talking Florida State back off the cliff.
    Sounds like he really just laid out the facts to all of the decision-makers at FSU free from the filter of an uninformed media and internet message board clutter. The money gap between the SEC and the ACC isn't nearly as wide as generally believed by virtue of the fact that the SEC counts a lot of things as revenue that the ACC either does not count or doesn't report.

  9. #89

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    39
    Very interesting.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercury View Post
    I guess you want performance based conference rather than we are in it together

    Sorry that is not the vision of the acc- it's University presidents and board of visitors. It's a collaborative membership of like minded university working together for excellence in academics athletics and research . It's very collaborative group of the brightest universities in the nation. However they got great brand and will generate very good revenue streams.

    With the vision it is not just an athletic factory.

    If any of the fan bases desire a more sec big 12 perspective it's not in the cards for acc schools. I would recommend finding new teams to support. You will just be frustrated
    I am typically a capitalist myself, and innately prefer the pay for performance model. However, when it comes to the ACC, I think the current sharing model is best. Using football for example, the majority of our schedule is locked in with conference opponents. Allowing a bunch of these opposing teams' athletic revenues to decline substantially, as would happen in a performance based model, would cause them to cut athletic budgets and thus decline further in performance, devaluing many of the conference games we are forced to play. Given that, any wins we have against those teams would not be respected and would not increase our profile. The ACC needs the equal sharing model to ensure that the entire portfolio of teams in the conference can fund their programs and compete at a high level, not only for themselves, but for the sake of quality competition for the better teams. JMHO.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •