Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Lou_C, post: 1222931, member: 3201"] I didn't understand it at the time. I get that when it was happening, Swofford was trying to make chicken salad out of chicken s---. If the SEC and B1G didn't sign on, the ACC was in trouble. What were they going to do, pair with the AAC? The highest ranked G5? So it's possible the B1G and SEC played hardball, as there wasn't an alternative to give Swofford any leverage. I'm not exactly sure why the ACC couldn't own the Orange and play an at large, but I guess that ESPN wasn't going to pay $55m for a possibility of getting Kansas State, Boise St. or Arizona in the game. I get that I guess. I'm glad that we salvaged a bowl that should have a good chance to do ratings similar to the other bowls, which was the most important thing. Considering what we had to work with, money or not, it was important not to end up with what would be a clear also-ran bowl. Most years the Sugar and Orange representative will be virtually equally appealing, and ditto the B1G. Anytime half the Sugar is made up of anyone besides Oklahoma or Texas, the ratings will suffer. Granted, the ACC can put up some no-interest teams as well, but Clemson-LSU or FSU-Ohio State is going to have a chance to draw bigger eyes than TCU-Mississippi I think. When you divide it by team, the deficit to the Big 12 and PAC hurts, but it's not crippling. $2-3M per school. The difference to the B1G and SEC is more substantial, but the resource differences between ACC and SEC or B1G is already gigantic, and would be even if TV was equal. The big problem would have been the image hit of not having a guaranteed spot in an access bowl, or having a clear second-rate matchup guaranteed. We just have to take our lumps on this and position ourselves better for the future. When Texas and friends join the ACC, then we'll likely end up sharing both with the SEC and be in great shape. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?