In partnership with CBSSports.com
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
it looked to me like the reason he mentioned the "done deal" thing was to show that your Big 12 sources have put out bullshit in the past, so there is plenty of reason to question whether these latest numbers are true.
I'm not even ready to concede this yet.
I believe their point is this sucks by default because the ACC doesn't have the earning potential in the first instance relative to the other conferences. That contention isn't a sure thing imo.
Not harping on anything. I'm certain that you guys didn't fabricate what you reported. As such, it's clear that there was misinformation put out by the Big 12.
I've read what you have said went down. And most of it is fabricated BS.
This post was edited by TheACF247 2 years ago
The Angry Clemson Fan | 247Sports
ITT TheACF is getting too angry.
So, basically you agree with all I said, but think I am stupid...
All I am saying is it appears to me we rushed to do a deal with the OB, who was in a weak position. I think we could have shopped the Sugar as well because whoever took us was guaranteed to be in the championship rotation.
I also don't disagree it is generally good for us, but I refuse to believe it helps us catch up to the other conferences as many are inferring. No one has seen the money yet. When we do, then we can judge. Do you disagree with that?
I never said it was a bad bowl, others said it was just as big as the Big12/SEC and the Rose bowl. That simply isn't true.
THIS. EXACTLY THIS. Finally, someone gets it!
This is a step in the right direction for the ACC. You can't say it's not as big until the $$$ figures and opponents comes out.
How in one sentence do you say you can't judge till the money comes out then in the next say it's not as good as the others. You contradict yourself.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Abu Garcia 2 years ago
A second tier conference is never the best situation.
What's worse -- the ACC is guaranteed a spot in the Orange Bowl even if it has a representative in the playoffs. Do you know how many times the ACC has had more than one team finish in the Top 12 going back to 2006? None.
There is plenty that remains unclear about how the future postseason is going to impact the Big East. You understand why Big East senior associate co
Jerry Jones bidding 50 million more than anyone else to host the Champions and Cotton Bowl...
The Big 12/SEC numbers could be 50 a conference.
Do you notice a bowl game and conference missing in all these talks?
Good luck ACC with the Orange Bowl vs ?
Bigger than the Final Four? The World Series? Maybe. Dennis Dodd says college football's playoff is still two years off, but cities are already lining up for the chance to host games that will likely be second only to the Super Bowl.
This makes the ACC/Orange Bowl deal even better. The ACC has a seat at the table and is protected as a major conference in instances where they don't make the top 4. The ACC took advantage of the open market that has become of the former "BCS" bowls. As such, and as many of us have been saying in this thread, this deal simply cannot be considered anything short of a great deal by the ACC.
Over the past month, ESPN has been using the term "the big 4 conferences." As of Tuesday, College Football Live's vernacular has changed to "the power 5 conferences." Perception is huge, especially with regards to recruiting. This deal solidifies perception with regards to the ACC as one of the major conferences.
Perception is great, but what Clemson needs it the $$$. Tough to build facilities and pay coaches just by looking swanky.
We aren't having any problems building facilities and paying coaches right now.
That $50 million includes hosting the Championship game. He isn't paying $50 million for the Champions Bowl itself and it's not $50 million per conference (according to that article).
That article also mentions that the Peach Bowl is trying to get involved. The Peach Bowl presents another opportunity for the ACC to attempt to get another tie-in.
Oh yeah...you also failed to mention this:
"It still has to be determined how many times in 12 years the Rose Bowl and newly-created Champions Bowl may actually participate in the semifinals. The average would be four times in those 12 years for each bowl (24 slots divided by six bowls). However, the Rose prefers to protect its Pac-12-Big Ten matchup as often as possible. The SEC and Big 12 are sharing revenues evenly in the Champions Bowl.
That could mean more semis and monies for the likes of the Orange, Fiesta and Sugar bowls."
How about some objectivity from the 247sports staff...
This post was edited by RGClemson05 2 years ago
Perception = value = marketability = money.
Right now is the key phrase. Clemson needs to be thinking about the future. That's the problem a lot of Clemson folks have. Their head is in the sand. We have to look at what the future holds and be ready for it. We can't live in our South Carolina bubble and expect everything to be fine.
ESPN won't touch the ACC TV contract again for five years while the SEC is getting ready to re-up AND launch their network. So for at least 5 years we'll be stuck watching the dumptrucks of money roll through Columbia.
My head isn't in the sand. We were having no problems paying coaches and building facilities before these contracts started taking effect.
When is the SEC announcing this new contract?
Not to mention our recruiting budget is nearly $100K more than SCar's under the previous ACC TV contract.
lol, the ACC should have taken a shot at the sugar? the fact that you act like this was "rushed" (when you have no idea), that it's a certainty the ACC would not have attempted to talk to the sugar bowl (when you have no idea), that the sugar bowl would have been worth more or in some other way better (when that's not the case) and that the ACC might have passed up an opportunity for the sugar bowl (when that's probably not the case) is what is stupid.
the sugar bowl isn't better than the orange bowl because it's the sugar bowl... it's "better" because it has better teams that play in it, while the orange has ACC champs.
This post was edited by FabulousTiger 2 years ago
how is that worse???????
Maybe it's just me....
but I'm still waiting for someone in the ACC to endorse the ACC, Miami aside....
especially either FSU or Clemson. Did I miss that?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports