I don't think the ACC got a raw deal, they just didn't get a great deal due to some bad timing and, honestly, not putting out the best football product for a few too many years. With Miami and Fla St really struggling, the ACC was not in the greatest position of strength when it came time for a new deal. As decent an AD as Swofford can be (and your opinion of him will be challenged after a few years of Blue bias,) he doesn't seem to be the shrewdest negotiator, and likely not the greatest innovator - unlike a Larry Scott. He is very good at trying to protect the ACC, though. My one real problem with the ESPN deal is that it keeps the ACC from creating their own network. I would rather watch my team, NC State (don't hate me, I've always liked Syracuse,) play a lower caliber game on a regional ACC network than on the computer (ESPN3.) That aside, the deal isn't bad by no means. The ACC has been, at best (and it's debatable,) the fourth best football conference for the longest time. USC and Oregon's success over the years has probably elevated the status of the Pac 10(12) vs. the ACC. Heck, some might even argue the Big East has outperformed the ACC on the field in recent years. I'm not arguing either way. The per-team payout after the ACC gets to 14 will not be the greatest, but not so bad either. It will be much more money than any of our schools were making a year ago, even if the better football conferences will be making more. The thing the ACC offers is stability, fairness, and a very good academic reputation which university presidents do care about.
Did the ACC get a raw deal from ESPN?
- Thread starter Whitey23
- Start date
chakka3421
All Conference
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
- Like
- 3,640
Its really all I care about too. If we end up with $10 million more per x 10 years it's $100 million in my book for infrastructure improvements. $100 million more for SU athletics is a lot of money - if invested properly - can do wonders especially for the football program!
