|
Replies: 12
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [3462]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 5156
Joined: 9/12/10
|
WHY? I ask you WHY?
1
1
May 16, 2023, 10:16 AM
|
|
With Florida State and Clemson trying to get others to join them and find a way out of the ACC, I keep asking myself....WHY DID THEY SIGN SUCH A HORRIBLE DEAL TO BEGIN WITH?
Too stay in a crappy conference?
Because they freaked out when mighty powerhouse Maryland left?
The ACC has never been a friend to Clemson. So why did Clements agree to such a loooooooong term contract to stay in the ACC.
If that was a ten year contract instead of 20, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
I believe Barker signed in 2013, Clements in 2016...
3
May 16, 2023, 10:18 AM
|
|
because it was the right thing to do at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3462]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 5156
Joined: 9/12/10
|
Huh?
1
May 16, 2023, 10:21 AM
|
|
How is signing a horrible deal for twenty years ever the right thing to do?
What benefit did we get out of it?
And in college sports everyone knows so much can change in ten years, let alone twenty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
Not sure why you're asking or card you're trying to play...
3
May 16, 2023, 10:31 AM
|
|
other than hindsight?
Of course they felt it was the right thing to do, provided stability when little existed and then galvanized that decision by unanimously signing again in 2016.
Notre Dame was included over this time, Barker given credit for the deal that made that happen and ESPN agreed to the ACCN.
BTW, it wasn't Swofford that negotiated on behalf of the ACC, it was Wasserman media group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2565]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2242
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Re: I believe Barker signed in 2013, Clements in 2016...
1
May 16, 2023, 11:27 AM
[ in reply to I believe Barker signed in 2013, Clements in 2016... ] |
|
Signing a binding agreement for 20 or 20+ years re: the 'GOR' and ACC ties was ludicrous at either time. Swofford was looking to create a monument to himself and instead formed a target for criticism from now on in college sporting activities. Sad thing is that the top executive at each ACC school signed on also and put athletic programs at their schools in jeopardy as to competition with other conference institutions.
I would like very much to hear Jim Clements or the BOT Chairperson speak on the matter very soon. Doubt they will be very upbeat about this long term arrangement that they endorsed for Clemson few years back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64590]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88995
Joined: 3/27/01
|
In fairness...
May 16, 2023, 10:26 AM
|
|
at the time, not sure anyone could have reasonably envisioned what was going to occur within the landscape of college football.
Keep in mind, this was at the time Maryland bailed for the B1G and the intent was to keep other teams from leaving or being poached by other leagues. When that occurred, the revenue disparity wasn't nearly as great as it is now which is obviously the driving factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27187]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16027
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Re: WHY? I ask you WHY?
2
May 16, 2023, 10:26 AM
|
|
Hindsight is always 20/20 vision. It was probably a knee-jerk reaction to MD bolting......clearly it was not the right move. But at the same time, you can't deny that the CFB landscape has changed drastically......the agreement gives no room for modifications unless 8 voting members agree to blow it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26013]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20645
Joined: 7/31/07
|
Re: WHY? I ask you WHY?
1
May 16, 2023, 10:31 AM
|
|
This lands in the lap of Swofford. He was not good for the ACC but was really good to his son and the TV contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3462]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 5156
Joined: 9/12/10
|
I don't think any of y'all are getting what I'm saying
May 16, 2023, 10:56 AM
[ in reply to Re: WHY? I ask you WHY? ] |
|
WHY TWENTY YEARS????
Do this same deal but for ten years.
Why 20?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44050]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32965
Joined: 2/22/03
|
It seemed like a smart move at the time.
May 16, 2023, 10:30 AM
|
|
It's hard to fault the decision when the powers that be had no idea about what the future held.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3462]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 5156
Joined: 9/12/10
|
Judge you absolutely right.
1
May 16, 2023, 10:58 AM
|
|
You don't know what the future will bring.
That's why you never sign a deal for twenty years!
Ten would have been fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6168]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5087
Joined: 8/30/17
|
Re: WHY? I ask you WHY?
2
May 16, 2023, 10:41 AM
|
|
Swoffie had one thing in mind and one thing only: creation of an ACC Network. Now his narrow minded focus at the time was basketball being the primary attraction. He could have cared less about football programming just as long as there was a game or two each week to show. This is evidenced by how they run lacrosse and backgammon games instead of real programming. What Swoffie couldn’t anticipate is the absolute cratering of ACC basketball rendering the league completely dependent on football schools for network appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4065]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2941
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I remember...
May 16, 2023, 2:24 PM
|
|
disagreeing with it at the time. With me, this isn't 20/20 hindsight. The length is what troubled me most and it turned out to be true. If they wanted to do a 5-7 year deal...then fine. The long-term obligation is what was troubling most to me. The good news is CLEM knew the potential downfall at the time and knew if they one day needed to get out they could. That day has come....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 12
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
