ACC members. He needed to get aggressive as a result of what was happening outside the ACC and not wait until FSU and Clemson try to leave and then get aggressive. One is proactive the other reactive. You can't stick your head in the sand and wait for the sand to start to move before you do something.

you can't stick your head in the sand and wait for the sand to start to move before you do something. However, you really can't MMQB after the fact accurately unless you truly understand what decisions may or may not have been made AND the data, rationale and circumstances that influenced those actual decisions.

In no particular order. 1. The ACC lost a founding member to a peer conference when it should have been at the peak of power. 2. The "presence in 5 largest states" is true, and it is also leaving out just how small that presence is. 2 schools within the same city/metro area in northern CA. 1 very small private school in TX. 1 private school far from the big population in NY. 3. The flak for Swofford is justified. Let's look at the crown jewel of the ACCN - Announced in 2016. Launched in 2019. Didn't get full cable coverage until 2021. - In comparison, BIG announced in 2006, launched in 2007, and had full coverage by summer 2008. - In comparison, SEC announced in 2013, launched in 2014, and had full coverage by summer 2014. - The ACC was late and slow. 4. The ACC expansion was not well executed or planned. They added a bunch of smaller private schools, didn't prioritize football, and passed up other schools that would have solidified the conference better. 5. Football scheduling and conference champ game locations. Massive failures. 6. ACC is getting excluded badly from NCAA tournament selections in favor of our "peers". Which is now also happening in football selections. We have become weak.

down 14 with a minute left and no timeouts. The other team has the ball. There's just not a bunch he can actually do IMO. The ACC has -always- been late to the party.

we did not get the same intensity and passion from ESPN in our bringing to market they did. And in all fairness, we did not have as much to sell as the P2.

With ESPN. Espn was slow, but the ACC let them be slow. The ACC needs better Negotiators. We have a product to sell, we have to sell it. I've known people that negotiate contracts for a living, I couldn't do it myself, but I know from talking to people that are very good at it that not all contract negotiators are equal. Some are far more successful than others. The ACC needs an upgrade. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/23/2024, 5:05:54 PM

like the ACC threw everything into ESPN. If there were other opportunities, that was a huge mistake.

Saying we need one doesn't get it done and neither VT nor the ACC has a magic lamp to rub.

them could have done? There may be a few people out there, and apparently the Big 12 may have gotten one, who can move the needle. Your view is that somehow the ACC should be able to win the lottery over and over against very low odds. Time to accept that the ACC and VT are pretty much doing all they can but they do not hold enough power to do much at all.

I think there were better deals to be had. Espn was focused on the SEC network, and was slow to care about the ACC Network. That could have been handled better by the ACC. The ACC network doesn't bring in the kind of money that the SEC network does, but it is profitable. That profitability could have been used to light more of a fire under espn. The ACC had something of value for ESPN and didn't leverage it appropriately. So it drug out. Our deal with ESPN could have been more ACC friendly. The length of the deal isn't the problem, some means of renegotiating the value of that deal earlier than 2036 could have been negotiated into the deal. Throw in some milestones if achieved Gives the ACC a chance to negotiate for a better deal. Milestones like playoff appearances, national championships won, things like that. The contract was negotiated when the ACC was down. Afterwards the ACC had some good teams, won a couple of national championships. The ACC would have benefited by negotiating the deal with ESPN when Clemson was at the top of their game. The ACC negotiated the contract while their top teams were down, and negotiated with the attitude that those top teams were going to stay down. You can't negotiate a contract for that long of a period of time with that attitude. You have to Make sure ESPN acknowledges That we have quality teams, and they're going to get back to the top, so give us a better deal, or give us the opportunity in a few years to reevaluate and see how our top teams are performing. The ACC was desperate for a network, and we were convinced that we were negotiating from a position of weakness. You have to convince ESPN to be desperate for an ACC Network because they will also make a bunch of money off of it. Which they have. And you can't negotiate with a poor self-image. Desperation and a poor self-image will kill you in negotiations. Espn could taste the blood in the water. ESPN took advantage of the ACC. And the ACC Let them. We were never going to get a P2 level deal, but we could have done better than we did. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/23/2024, 9:42:20 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/23/2024, 9:42:41 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/23/2024, 9:43:43 PM

Seems that is exactly what it is. And in reality you nailed more what we hoped for than what the ACC reasonably had to sell. Again, you are saying the ACC should have gotten an A in the negotiations when they got a B-. Remember not only was the P2 the fair haired child of big media none of the ACC, big 12 nor PAC were. If FSU had not tanked from 2018 to 2022 and if Clemson had continued at their Trevor Lawrence levels or if Miami had actually done something then maybe the ACC would have had something bigger than a pen knife to go into a sword fight with. Heck if UNC had come in and won at the level FSU, Clemson and Miami were not winning, maybe that would have at least turned the penknife into a sheath knife. But the ACC did not have that. Think Big 12. They are talking big talk, they want the CFP look in because they are betting on their teams being better than the ACC teams. But what will the Big 12 have to negotiate with if they are the ones who don't have their upper level teams doing any better than FSU, CU, Miami or UNC have collectively done since the 2016 contract/GOR extension?

Seem to give the acc any power in negotiations. The milestones were just a couple of very quick examples thrown out. There's lots of ways that could be handled better. The point is the ACC could have gotten a better deal. If the negotiators felt the same way about what the ACC had to offer as you do, that explains why we got the deal we got. You can't sell a product you don't believe in.

You guys still try and make it sound like there was much more for the taking, all on the ACC. Teams were not providing the ACC much to work with and because everybody wanted the ACCN that provided a huge advantage to ESPN

ESPN had a huge advantage. that attitude allows ESPN to win the negotiations. The deal with the ACC and the ACC Network has made ESPN a lot of money. Where is the huge advantage for ESPN in the negotiations? Both sides stood to make a lot of money. But because the ACC allowed themselves to be desparate, and consider themselves weak, ESPN took us to the cleaners. I don't know how much more was available for the ACC, But there were several avenues to make the deal more ACC friendly, both financially and regarding future look-ins. ESPN has the chance to walk from the deal, while the ACC is stuck in the deal for 20 years. Huge advantage for ESPN. Again, the ACC was going to make ESPN a boatload of money, maybe not as much as the SEC, but ESPN gains profits, a lot of profits. The ACC Network was not a bad deal for ESPN. It was a good deal, a really good deal. That is leverage for the ACC. ESPN wanted the ACC Network because it was going to make them lots of money. Every indication I have heard implies ESPN basically got what they wanted. We all have believed that the ACC negotiated from a position of weakness, but much of that was self-imposed. The ACC had a lot to offer. Especially, when you look long term, and remember the contract was for 20 years. What was going to happen to our top teams over that period. They were not going to stay down. Every year the media annoucnes that Miami is back, they never are, but that shows the national reputation of Miami. That is "value". UNC is heralded as the most valuable program for expansion by many. I disagree, but that is name recognition and value. FSU and Clemson, though up and down are major programs with national name recognition - lots of "value". VT was still looked at as a valuable national commodity at the time of the ESPN deal. ACC had a lot to offer. Throw in that we were still the top name in college basketball. And also remember that at the time the financial difference between the ACC and the BIG and SEC was much smaller and expected to close even more with the ACC Network, therefore the ACC's future was even brighter. The ACC Network was expected to allow us to compete at a level near the top of college football - lots of future value. Around the time of the signing of the deal in 2016 the ACC won three national championships in football from 2013 - 2018, 50% of the championships. The ACC was not so weak. Yes, it had it's problems but it also had a lot of strengths and potential. When you are negotiating you have to see and point out that value. You are not selling the previous 5 years of ACC performance, you are selling the future 20 years of a conference with some strong programs. Oh yes, throw in the ND deal. With the deals the SEC, BIG and Big 12 are signing, the ACC with FSU and Clemson is clearly underpaid. In hindsight the media deal was to the advantage of ESPN. Do you really think ESPN did not know that at the time? I don't think so! I think they knew what a good deal it was for them, and so they tried to make it as long as possible. What business signs a 20 year deal, unless they are convinced it is good for them. Of course they wrote in an out for themselves. Of course the ACC also signed a 20 year deal, but they did so out of desparation and giving in to the demands of ESPN that wanted it to run 20 years. The ACC was outsmarted in the negotiations, and future results reflect that. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/24/2024, 1:40:03 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/24/2024, 1:43:07 PM

in the end it matters very little, if at all, what a negotiator feels or believes if they do not have the leverage to move their demands.

For both parties. People are amazed that the Big 12 could negotiate such a good contract after losing texas and Oklahoma. Why were they able to do that? Because their previous contract was underpaying them. With FSU and Clemson planning to leave, ESPN should be walking away from the ACC deal while they have The chance. Florida State and Clemson are the big money makers in the ACC. Espn should be running for the exit. If they choose to stick around and keep paying us as if Florida State and Clemson are still in the league for the next 10 years, that says something about the deal. It's a bad deal for the ACC. Of course everybody seems to know that today. When you can look back a few years later and say it was a bad deal, that's an indication that there was more leverage that was not used when the deal was made. The very fact that ESPN wanted to lock that deal in for such a long time, indicates they thought it was an advantageous deal for them and they wanted to lock it in as long as possible. It better not be about what the negotiator feels or believes, it better be about what the negotiator knows. And the negotiator better have done their homework, if not they're going to get screwed over ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/24/2024, 12:03:17 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/24/2024, 12:04:29 PM

that the negotiator knows the value of their product but, more importantly, they know the leverage they have and the way that leverage can be used to get the other side to agree. I think you have grossly misinterpreted what happened with the Big 12. I do not believe the product was undervalued. The Big12 did have ample leverage with the UT/OU situation from a litigation perspective and with the PAC 12 situation from a cooperation perspective to help both SEC/ESPN and FOX/B1G achieve their goals, the compensation for which resulted in a far better contract than previous value implied or warranted. As far as your other ramblings about the ACC and ESPN with regard to term and leverage I think you misinterpret that as well. When more details come out the motivations and leverages will likely become clearer. The fact is both FSU and Clemson wanted/demanded a network and they likely in their quest for that network made concessions. Buyer's remorse is not justification for a lawsuit although that belief is becoming more and more prevalent. You claim the fact ESPN wanted to lock the deal in for a long period showed they believed it advantageous but, you do not afford the ACC the same belief. Hindsight clarifies who may be right or wrong in their thinking but, it does not confirm the belief in thinking at the time the deal is negotiated. Moreover, until more specifics regarding lookins, adjustments, etc. become public knowledge, conclusions are little more than WAGS. You would be well served to think not only about what you believe but, what you really know based on publicly available information.

With Maryland and Penn State. Big misses for sure.

#1 do you really believe that was on the ACC versus Maryland? #s2,3 and 4 all turn on timing of contracts and available schools. What are the specifics that you believe could have been done? Just as important, do you know they were not done or may have been declined? Agree on #5 and no further context needed. #6 is certainly the perception, likely grounded in some reality and also aggravated by media pushing their own agenda. The ACC has made mistakes and there are criticisms warranted, however, any fair and balanced criticism must acknowledge demographic weaknesses and realities AND the fact they still exist, even if damaged, while other former competitors and peers much more well resourced and demographically advantaged are long gone. Finally, despite being monetarily challenged they still are getting it done on the fields and courts equivalent to, maybe even better than, their better resourced peers.

First, the GOR was celebrated by all schools when signed. All schools (including FSU and Clemson) signed it enthusiastically, at least in public. This was just after the Big 10 took Maryland and rumors were that BIG was looking to further expand. My key point, however, is another item in the deal that is not being talked about. I believe that the powers that be were under the illusion that the GOR would be renegotiated - as soon as Notre Dame joined the ACC for football. I think that may have been Swoffords biggest mistake - assuming that he could bring in Notre Dame. This goal started affecting decisions going back to the original attempts to include Syracuse and BC instead of the Hokies. Other items included giving ND a 5 game scheduling deal, giving ND partial membership in all sports but football, and a focus on smaller, private institutions in the northeast as part of expansion. (Fortunately for the ACC, there was some pushback by football schools or we likely would have UConn, Navy, and some other schools also taking a piece of the pie.) I believe this focus on ND also impacted the push for a long term deal with the GOR. It had to have been recognized as a good deal in the early years (revenue and the ACC network) with uncertain but diminishing returns. Of course, the diminishing returns were not an issue since it was assumed by the ACC leadership that Notre Dame would be joining the ACC. In fact, a big talking point on the GOR was that ND was locked into joining the ACC if/when they opted or were forced to join a conference. Once ND joined for football, a renegotiation would be forced to occur increasing the payout for all ACC schools. In addition, adding ND would also have increased ACC network viewership and revenue. The ACC and Swofford's big white whale has been Notre Dame. It has affected 20 years of decision making, media contracts, and conference building. Even now, there is talk that "just" adding ND would fix all problems. The ACC incorrectly read the " 'IF' ND joins a conference, it must join the ACC" clause as 'WHEN' and made decisions based on what would be attractive to ND. (Of course, a cynical take could be that Phillips is continuing to try to get ND by adding Stanford as a west coast, private, academic partner for ND, not to mention SMU.) ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/23/2024, 10:27:46 AM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/23/2024, 10:29:45 AM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/23/2024, 10:40:27 AM ** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/23/2024, 11:00:33 AM

should have been pretty easy to see in 2011 that the trends for the ACC were quite bad.

think you can catch it, just let it go and continue with your work.

ahead of the Big 10?

Was that IF they joined a conference for football before 2036, it had to be the ACC. They're a free agent after the GOR expires.

What are the terms and conditions? Any outs?

ship and many fans, which I am sure is your point

The out looks like it would be buying back the GOR and exit fee for olympic sports.

What makes me the angriest is the lack of integrity shown by FSU and Clemson. It feeds into what has become the elasticity of tort laws in this country. We have become a society where if you aren’t happy about something then you can just sue to get out of the situation. I’m not talking about a consumer, I’m talking about large corporate like entities with billions of dollars. They signed the deal. They need to shut up and live by their word. Weasels.

lack of integrity. The B1G formed an alliance and convinced two of their partners (ACC and PAC) to vote against playoff expansion while it was in their best interest to actually vote for it. And at the same time, while laying plans to raid one of their partners (the PAC) of their most valuable properties. There is NO INTEGRITY in college sports - anywhere. This is dog-eat-dog, and you better do what is in your best interest.

I don’t know they are, but I don’t know they aren’t either. I do know it’s best not to convict them until everything plays out.

I think if the ACC had it in them to be that shrewd, we wouldn't be in the shape we're in now.

What has happened would have happened no matter how "shrewd" the ACC leadership was/is.

My point is that before we decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, let's see how the facts come out, but maybe that's just me.

for the rest of the Mag7. FSU is acting impetuously.

first and that could also mean they agreed to play the bad guy, so to speak.

point is it might be prudent for people to hold judgement until all the facts come out. As I stated, I really don't know what the situation is, and I don't believe many others know either. So maybe wait until it is all said and done before we judge them.

on a lot of ACC boards.

History potentially may end up viewing him as being more destructive and incompetent than Tranghese. But history needs to play out.

Don’t understand it.

He's not looking at message boards, but this is apparently related to the ESPN deal and GOR Swofforfd did.

Nobody foresaw what was coming. And the long-term GOR gave the ACC the stability they were looking for. And everybody breathed a sigh of relief that the ACC was not going to lose more teams. There are things swafford deserves criticism for, that long-term deal is probably not one of them. I recall all the ACC fans happiness at the signing of the long-term GOR. It brought an end to a lot of anxiety for a lot of ACC fans. Time brings changes and can make deals that look good at the time look really bad later. How many of the people criticizing the length of our GOR, were upset when it was signed? I don't recall anybody complaining about it at the time. I didn't complain, I was happy. Not anymore. But I was then. However, even now I'm not sure how to feel about it. If Virginia Tech does not have an invite to the P2, then the long-term GOR is still a good thing. It will either keep schools from leaving for a number of years, or make them pay us to leave. If we don't get a better offer than the ACC, jenn, the current Grant of Rights is still a good thing. It's only a bad thing if we have a better offer waiting. Which means for most schools in the ACC, it's probably a good thing. It was done for the benefit of the ACC as a conference, not for individual schools that might want to leave. You can't blame swafford for making that decision. It was his job to look out for the conference, not to look out for schools that might want to leave. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/22/2024, 11:22:05 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/22/2024, 11:23:11 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/22/2024, 11:26:25 PM

He signed an agreement with Raycom to keep his son employed, and he was the the UNC athletic director when the fake classes scheme to keep not so smart basketball players and subsequently football players eligible. You could also add another item that Swofford as the ACC commissioner crucified Clemson when they had NCAA football violations and was mum when the UNC fake classes 💩 hit the fan. Another thing is some folks blame him for not getting the ACC Network up and running much earlier than it was, but the ACC was not in a good position to demand such at that time. But, part of that was due to ACC football as a whole going down the tube for quite a while. I’m sure there are other gripes, but the above matters probably cover most of them.

When the B12 can lose Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas aTm over the last decade, and STILL be in any position to not simply survive, but COMPETE with the SEC and B1G in revenue, and actually discuss which ACC schools they might pilfer, then you realize the GROSS mismanagement the ACC has had. Where's the ACC's "private equity" deal? Are you kidding me. The ACC is 70 years old with deep, rich tradition and great brands, and we're getting lapped by a bunch of B-C list leftovers? My gosh, the ACC should be discussing which B12 schools they might take. Swofford was a BACKWARDS looking, small vision leader. I hate to invoke the checkers and chess analogy, but while the B1G and SEC were planning world domination, Swofford was planning the invite list to the ACC tournament after parties.

level with the P2 are just off. Your planning analogy is missing THE thing, that is that big media was planning with the P2 and against the little p 3. Absolutely nothing anyone in the ACC could do about that.

IMHO they got extremely lucky with the timing of their bluebloods being robbed and for being finished with that when the PAC blew up. That is it. We are in the middle of a protracted fight and stability is something we don't have. But that is on FSU and Clemson for trying to welch on the deal they signed. If you want to blame someone, blame them as the lawsuits and defending against them is sucking up all of the air in the room that could be used for something else. 2nd, blame Tobacco Road or maybe better the other teams for not uniting against them. They have and are still running the conference.

ignoring the B12 noise/bluster, they trail the ACC in money and they are far behind in actual on field performance and championships to name the two most obvious metrics. Be careful to not let marketing and propaganda skew actual reality.

and added 3 more. You are clearly far and above the K-States of the B12. The PAC was a far better conference than the B12, it wasn't even close. can you imagine the likes of Cal and Stanford having an Iowa State, or an Oklahoma State in their conference? It just wasn't going to happen. Both the ACC and PAC are a better conferences than the B12. It's not even a discussion. Congratulations.

When Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving , many assumed the Big 12 was done and would be gobbled up by the pac-12 and ACC. There was a lot of fear being felt by the remaining Big 12 schools. If the ACC had gone after any of them, there's a good chance they would have jumped to the ACC. There were no elite football teams available, but there were schools that would have been above average football schools in the ACC. That would not have helped us compete with the P2, but would have solidified us as the third best conference in the long run. It was a missed opportunity. Instead of trying to improve the ACC as much as we could, we just complained about how far behind we were. The Big 12 was aggressive putting itself back together, the ACC was not aggressive in making sure they were the third best conference. When the ACC finally got around to inviting new members, you see who we got. When FSU and Clemson leave, The Big 12 will have a strong argument that they are number three. However, number three will still be way behind numbes one and two. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/23/2024, 10:39:21 AM

over time. And questioning aggressiveness is like Monday Morning QBing. Looking at it not today but back 3 years ago who could have gotten a majority vote to get into the ACC? West VA? not with UVA, Duke and UNC playing the academic card. I know that is as BS as UNC trying to say that about VT in 2003 but BS or not that card would be played. No one was looking at other time zones, no one.

For a while back then, the ACC and the PAC could have picked the B12 apart. For the ACC, having the PAC survive instead of the B12 would be huge right now. We probably could have just taken WVU, and left the top four of what was left to the PAC. The three left behind would be in the AAC right now, along with Cin, Houston, and UCF. And BYU would still be independent. For the record, I wanted us to take at least Baylor and OSU. If we had really been bad ass back then, or had Yormark as our pres, we could have taken WVU and kicked Wake out at the same time. That would have given us a clear #3 in football, and actually helped basketball.

a way to increase the media contract by $15M-$20M a year. Unfortunately, until I see otherwise, the only way to get that is to have some sort of merger that EXPN/FOX would pay for. Not a discussion many here want to have, but they should.

And both three and four are in the same boat, a boat filled with the same holes.

standards, it becomes very inexcusable. Did any ACC college presidents make a peep about him or try to push him out? I don't recall any doing so, which reflects badly on them. Moreover, the B10 was able to squeeze a lot more revenue out of its portfolio despite having a lot of schools that aren't as attractive as the top tier ACC schools. Shouldn't the ACC have been able to get a network launched that brought in 60% or so of what the B10 did? I'd consider 60% a really bad or failing effort and nothing even close to that very weak benchmark comparison was achieved, which looks to me like staggering incompetence and lack of vision. Yes. The one thing that unites a fractured ACC is the belief that Swofford sucks. Is he some scapegoat the people are unfairly piling on? I don't think so. Sports fans like to complain and pile on. I do, but I think trashing Swofford looks quite justified. At a minimum I think you have to conclude that he was outmaneuvered and didn't play his hand very well. There is lots of brainpower in the ACC that should have gotten better results. ** Edited by TDVick at 7/23/2024, 3:53:09 AM

Hey I think Swofford was a bad deal but that was the "face attached to the UNC posterior" part. I cannot go the full nepotism thing as Raycom had been an integral part of ACC success in the past as the carrier to the Thacker/Packer ACC game of the week way back while Swofford's son was still in 3 cornered pants. As for where the ACC is, I think it unreasonable to think the ACC could have competed with the anointed P2. That was not going to happen and to criticize either Swofford or Philips for that is over the top. The ACC has not had great leadership. The leadership did not see the changes coming and they have not been cheerleaders. But, the powers that be took what they wanted from the Big 12 and PAC without really any effort at all. The ACC is still standing and way more effort has been brought to bear against the ACC than it took to take down the Big 12 and PAC so the ACC leadership could not be as bad as some say. If the PAC, which did have really bad leadership is the grade of F and the Big 12 a grade of D+ to C then the ACC gets at least a C+ or B- up to right now.

Captured it well in this article.

These articles didn't used to have paywalls. The most important diference in his article and my post is Phillips said the new members added about $50 million a year to the ACC, which would be a payout to each member of about $2.75 million per year. And he talked about the SMU, Cal, and Stanford shares setting up that fund for the unequal revenue sharing stuff for top performers in football and men's basketball. The rest is basically backing what I said.