I think we should get more based on number of ACCN subscriptions in our market. I wonder how much more money the State of New York brings in to the ACC thanks to us compared to rural Virginia. UVA can take credit for the DMV.Giving a partner more because of who he is = stupid.
Giving him more because he's getting a commission and he sold more = motivational.
If the ACC agrees to paying more based on TV ratings, isn't that a commission?
People will watch FSU just to see them lose and laugh at them. That's why I watched the Memphis game and hope to get to see Cal beat them.It's definitely funny for FSU to be proposing this at a time when their TV ratings are about to go into free fall.
For sure, there's an audience for that. But people who are just fans of college football will stop watching them, because they're not interested in watching a mediocre team try to claw their way to 6 wins and a crappy bowl game.People will watch FSU just to see them lose and laugh at them. That's why I watched the Memphis game and hope to get to see Cal beat them.
For sure, there's an audience for that. But people who are just fans of college football will stop watching them, because they're not interested in watching a mediocre team try to claw their way to 6 wins and a crappy bowl game.
For sure, there's an audience for that. But people who are just fans of college football will stop watching them, because they're not interested in watching a mediocre team try to claw their way to 6 wins and a crappy bowl game.
If they bring in additional revenue, then fine. But that isn’t the proposal. Nothing new is coming in.Giving a partner more because of who he is = stupid.
Giving him more because he's getting a commission and he sold more = motivational.
If the ACC agrees to paying more based on TV ratings, isn't that a commission?
It’s bo timeBojangles
This was proposed by Clemson and FSU, meaning that they may be finally seeing that they cannot win so that they are willing to settle.I am fine using that model starting in 2037. Why should SU give up revenue from 2025-2030 so FSU can make more money, only to leave in 2029? It makes SU poorer and the ACC less stable.
There is no reason to compromise.
Those ratings certainly exist, I just don't have access to them.Scooch, was there historical ratings for Syracuse and Miami vs the rest of the Big East in the 90s? I would assume we were 1-2 in television ratings back then. Maybe WVU was a close 3rd but I wonder if there's a way to track our ratings when the going was good and if we could achieve a ratings bump similar to that one in the 90s (calculating the 100 diff ways television is diff now than it was).
I am just trying to figure out if there's a universe where in 2030 (after 3 playoff appearances and Fran Brown firmly entrenched at SU) we are the hunted again with regards to college football interest level
And by settle you mean they can escape in '29 or '30This was proposed by Clemson and FSU, meaning that they may be finally seeing that they cannot win so that they are willing to settle.
Those ratings certainly exist, I just don't have access to them.
I can say, though, that in the late 90s/early 00s SU was the 3rd most popular team of fans in the northeast. That was based on extensive fan polling that tended to be correlated with TV ratings. Penn State was #1, ND#2 and SU #3.
I have little doubt that we could reclaim that position if we strung together some top 12 teams and a few playoff appearances.
Agree. Miami seems poised to have a really good season this year. If they finish with a better record than Clemson or FSU, but Clemson and FSU are getting ratings rather- than performanced-based money, how does Miami react? You can repeat this exercise for anybody who's not Clemson or FSU and still get the same answer - rather mightily P.O.ed at his "deal".It's definitely funny for FSU to be proposing this at a time when their TV ratings are about to go into free fall.
Also funny for Clemson to be a party to it since it's looking like they're about to slip from the #2 rated team to 4th or even 5th.
It’s not the revenue that’s the prize, it’s the GOR ending in 2030.Agree. Miami seems poised to have a really good season this year. If they finish with a better record than Clemson or FSU, but Clemson and FSU are getting ratings rather- than performanced-based money, how does Miami react? You can repeat this exercise for anybody who's not Clemson or FSU and still get the same answer - rather mightily P.O.ed at his "deal".
I think it's very difficult to forecast out more than a couple years at this point. TheSo my point about 2030 is the right one. Maybe we are the ones who would want to see what's out there in 2030 vs Clemson and FSU. I think the ACC is a great home for SU. But I don't know what SU is in 2030. Is it Clemson, is it WF, is it a version of Syracuse we've seen for the past 20 years.
I think everyone looks backwards as to what colleges are worth to eyeballs around the country. When I decided to go to SU in early 90s I would say it was a compelling television product in football and basketball.
Not sure it's a risk they'd take with shrinking the GOR to 2030 but i think in 2030 the entire landscape changes again.
EDIT: Mind you 18 months ago I thought we may be destined for D1AA. I'm a fan as in fanatic
Yes, giving benefits for TV viewers drawn is a commission as is giving benefits for championships won and rankings earned.Giving a partner more because of who he is = stupid.
Giving him more because he's getting a commission and he sold more = motivational.
If the ACC agrees to paying more based on TV ratings, isn't that a commission?
I suggest we give them $100 in Chipotle coupons.
Not at the level Dabo achieved, but Clemson has had a large number of teams finishing Top 3 in the ACC in every decade. Clemson football history is quite good, but not Bama good.Yeah, currently FSU is getting some train wreck can't look away ratings. But that will soon fade because it all just becomes uninteresting (but still funny to see the scores).
Dabo is going to get shorter term Boeheimed if they don't turn it around and he once again insists on avoiding the transfer portal. That's not a program that's had a sustained level of success over time.
This isn't the time to settle with them.
You think summary judgement loss and drop the lawsuit? I’d be shocked. They are pot committed.
The settlement makes sense for all. It isn’t perfect but it has to serve many masters. I’m hoping they stay in the ACC with less power and maybe a chance for more money.
Be funny if Syracuse ends up the highest television rated team w an ascendant football and a return to greatness for hoops
ESPN is going to be sorry when Fran builds the program back to top level, and Red gets us back in Basketball, and they want a new extension, and we tell them go to H**L.I am fine using that model starting in 2037. Why should SU give up revenue from 2025-2030 so FSU can make more money, only to leave in 2029? It makes SU poorer and the ACC less stable.
There is no reason to compromise.
YEAH!!!! Wait...where are we going to go?ESPN is going to be sorry when Fran builds the program back to top level, and Red gets us back in Basketball, and they want a new extension, and we tell them go to H**L.
If we get back to the time of 87-98 in both Football and basketball the Big will find some rules to get us in.YEAH!!!! Wait...where are we going to go?