You lose credibility by not understanding context.
The SEC, B1G and P12 are in no danger of being poached. The SEC and B1G have had the money and power and the P12 is all the way out west and has geographic protection. You had six leagues fighting for four spots with three guaranteed. So, three leagues fighting for one spot in the new P4 is the context in which these events played out.
So, when comparing how well the conference has done you need to compare it with the conferences it was competing with and not some idealized version. Compared to the B12 and Big East the ACC has been run very well. Not perfectly, but clearly better than the Big East and B12. We lost one member and added a better athletic program to replace them. The Big East is gone and the B12 has lost several teams with more possible in the next few years. The ACC meanwhile has:
Expanded with P4 level programs
Extended a GOR
Added ND for everything but football
Contracted ND to join for football if they join a conference
Negotiated a Conference Network
Put teams in the Playoff both years
Won a NC in Football and Basketball and a few other sports
So, other than the decision to give Raycom games and give ESPN all the tier three rights many years ago, how has the ACC not been run well? Since that time which decisions were examples of inept leadership? Reality matters when assessing value. You argue points as if there is no context beyond the situation you state. Again, this isn't political talk radio and it's tiresome to keep reading the same rant over and over.
|
(
In response to this post by chuckd4vt)
Posted: 07/29/2016 at 2:04PM