ND's Swarbrick is happy with ACC and...

[BlazeOrange]

thats the way i remember it too.

it was clearly botched.

they ended up with 11, 1 school who they didnt want, plus the whole goal was to go north with Syracuse and BC...and they got neither. miami was a no-brainer in, but only by going to 12.

after the smoke cleared, they realized they didnt have boston and said, holy fcuk.

the bigeast then went into cya mode, bc said no to something (help me out here) and once the bigeast said FU to bc...bc gave a nod to the ACC who quickly voted them in.

Wasn't that the expansion to 16 by adding more hoops schools to balance out the football replacements? I think meeting minutes were eventually released with BC threatening to leave if that option was implemented.

 

[Townie72]

nothing you said has anything to do with the dma or why the btn may get on basic cable in that dma. you're talking brand and wins/losses again.

Educate me.

The Big Ten Channel only gets onto the Basic cable package if the cable companies decide to add it. If they do add it, they will have to pay the BTN 80 cents a subscriber.

In order to do add the BTN and pay the BTN 80 cents per subsciber, they have to pass that charge along to basic cable subcribers plus some sort of mark-up because there has to be costs associated with this.

Now, I don't know about you but at our house we blanch everytime we see the cable bill which has gone from $29.95 a month to north of $200 a month (although this is for cable, internet and phone). The point is that cable demand is not completely "elastic" with demand never falling regardless of how high the price goes.

We have both the FIOS and Comcast cable in our front lawn so we can shop and have ... switching from Comcast to FIOS because it was $50 a month less and the picture we get is now superior to what we had and we no longer have the constant interruptions in service we ad with Comcast.

This shopping around and the eventual switch from Comcast was triggered by a price increase letter we got. The reaction it elicited was "Enough! I've had it! No more! We are switching. F Comcast."

 

[baggerbob]

Congress will pass legislation for different bundling within a few years, due to the fact cable companies haven't done it for themselves, even with suggestions. Once that happens the Big 10 network will blow up in their face, they have boring football and basketball, which no-one outside of the mid-west will watch.

 

[Townie72]

Congress will pass legislation for different bundling within a few years, due to the fact cable companies haven't done it for themselves, even with suggestions. Once that happens the Big 10 network will blow up in their face, they have boring football and basketball, which no-one outside of the mid-west will watch.

Well, I don't doubt congress will do something.

Most people, I think, have the feeling they are getting gouged with no place to go as an alternative. So politicians will want to seem to be addressing their constituent's concerns.

I doubt seriously if any solution that gaggle of buffoons, blowhards, thieves and nutcases will be able to come up with anything better. But the threat of them doing something stupid might just motivate the people at the cable companies to do something semi-intelligent.

 

[Scooch]

Wasn't that the expansion to 16 by adding more hoops schools to balance out the football replacements? I think meeting minutes were eventually released with BC threatening to leave if that option was implemented.

Yep, BC said they didn't want to be part of a 16-team league and that they'd leave if the BE went that way.

I've always figured that they got that on record because they knew they'd be leaving anyway. It was the longest of l.ong shots that the ACC's petition to the NCAA to have a conference championship game with 11 schools would be granted (if the NCAA said no to the SEC on that exact same request, why would they say yes to the ACC?). And BC and the ACC kept talking from the moment the motion to table expansion was approved in that fateful meeting. So they knew they'd be gone eventually and probably wanted something to "cover" them in the event of litigation.

Lots of people have ripped BC for backtracking on their pledge to the BE, but every other left behind school would have done the same thing, including SU.

 

[Townie72]

Yep, BC said they didn't want to be part of a 16-team league and that they'd leave if the BE went that way.

I've always figured that they got that on record because they knew they'd be leaving anyway. It was the longest of l.ong shots that the ACC's petition to the NCAA to have a conference championship game with 11 schools would be granted (if the NCAA said no to the SEC on that exact same request, why would they say yes to the ACC?). And BC and the ACC kept talking from the moment the motion to table expansion was approved in that fateful meeting. So they knew they'd be gone eventually and probably wanted something to "cover" them in the event of litigation.

Lots of people have ripped BC for backtracking on their pledge to the BE, but every other left behind school would have done the same thing, including SU.

Soooo ... rather than take BC at their word when they said that they had no interest in a 16 team monstrosity you are saying that they said that to give themselves cover when they bolted?

Seems farfetched to me. But I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

 

[Scooch]

Soooo ... rather than take BC at their word when they said that they had no interest in a 16 team monstrosity you are saying that they said that to give themselves cover when they bolted?

Seems farfetched to me. But I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

No, I'm really saying they had no interest in being in the Big East. Period.

They never stopped talking to the ACC from the minute Miami and VaTech were admitted. That's a well known fact. At some point the ACC was going to get a 12th member and BC was almost certainly going to be their choice.

So I'm just suggesting that BC said they didn't want to be in a 16 team Big East because they (a) didn't want to be in any formation of a Big East and (b) wanted that to be on record. But they couldn't just say "hey guys, were are so getting out of here the split-second we get the call from Swofford" so they said what they did about the 16 team configuration. I suspect they truly didn't want that either because if the ACC didn't come a-callin' they didn't want to replicate the hoops school power in the "new" league that existed in the old league.

 

[Chip]

i know all that. but the question was forward thinking. also to be considered in the nyc dma is who owns what, like the yankees which can be leveraged.

Before 2006, you couldn't touch Rutgers, DMA or not. It's the same theory that applies to Temple today. Otherwise, Temple would be in one of the big boy leagues. Rutgers finally showed something on the field. It may be overrated to those of us who know it well, but it's not what Temple still is. That's why the DMA argument can make more sense now.

 

[Townie72]

Before 2006, you couldn't touch Rutgers, DMA or not. It's the same theory that applies to Temple today. Otherwise, Temple would be in one of the big boy leagues. Rutgers finally showed something on the field. It may be overrated to those of us who know it well, but it's not what Temple still is. That's why the DMA argument can make more sense now.

Being more desirable in the NY/NJ DMA than Temple is in the Philly DMA is hardly a recommendation.

It may be that the B1G is betting that once Rutgers starts playing a B1G schedule fan interest will increase.

It hasn't worked all that well when they were playing Miami, VT, SU when we were good and BC. But somehow that's going to change? I hope they have Rutgers on some sort of incentive compensation plan ... small audience = small share of the pie.

 

[Chip]

Being more desirable in the NY/NJ DMA than Temple is in the Philly DMA is hardly a recommendation.

It may be that the B1G is betting that once Rutgers starts playing a B1G schedule fan interest will increase.

It hasn't worked all that well when they were playing Miami, VT, SU when we were good and BC. But somehow that's going to change? I hope they have Rutgers on some sort of incentive compensation plan ... small audience = small share of the pie.

I was more just responding to why no one was adding Rutgers back in 2003. I don't think it's as good an idea now, for the reasons you cite. But it sounded like a much worse idea back in 2003. 40-50,000 people showing up at a home game is a lot better than 20,000 (did they even get 20,000 back then? I was at the SU-RU 2003 game, and I swear there were no more than 1,000 people in their seats as they announced their seniors).

Adding Rutgers in 2003 would be like adding Temple now.

Adding Rutgers in 2012 is slightly better. I still don't really get it though. I think the B1G is cooking some serious books when it comes to their forecasted Big 10 network revenues.

 

[KaiserUEO]

NYC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>philly

Going to NYC for the weekend and a game is 1 thing, going to Philly is like going to Chicago, once you're there 1x, it's enough.

 

[longtimefan]

In 2003 UNC and Duke repeatedly voted no against any expansion whatsoever. Their intransigence led to Virginia Tech being admitted as an 11th member (after Miami), much to the horror of Swofford and his consultants.

One error--VaTech was actually admitted before Miami. The powers in Blacksburg had the leverage due to Virginia politics. They were afraid that if Miami were admitted first, the ACC might have stopped (temporarily) at 10. Their reasoning being that Swofford and his boys might have hoped that a little time would cause a shift that would prevent VT's being forced down their collective throat. And the Hokies may have been right. The ACC stopped after 11 in '03, hoping for ND as #12.

 

[Moontan]

At the time, Syracuse was convinced that it was ACC bound. Remember the ACC on-campus visit? Who does that any more? 2003 was probably the last of those.

In proper English: we was robbed!

Scooch's assessment of BCU's position during their time in limbo is correct. They knew they were next in line for an ACC spot and realized that 11 wasn't enough to address the ACC's needs. Its stated position in the NBE gave them a clean way out.

 

[longtimefan]

I assume you mean that it was available to the ACC without needing consultants, right?

Makes me think of the Don Cheadle character in "House of Lies". He explains what he, a consultant does: Steal your watch, then tell you the time. (And, of course, charge you for the activity.)