In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 640
Online now 593 Record: 5859 (2/14/2012)
The place to talk about the Florida State Seminoles
The place to discuss general topics outside of Florida State
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.
More than two years of passionate, rampant speculation about Florida State University’s future with the Atlantic Coast Conference came to a screeching halt Monday with the announcement that the league’s presidents had unanimously agreed to a pact that effectively locks in all 15 schools through at least 2027.
The agreement, called a grant of media rights, requires any university leaving the ACC to forfeit all of its television revenue – hundreds of millions of dollars – through the length of the contract.
While some FSU fans claim to feel betrayed by President Eric Barron and the university’s board of trustees – the ACC is an inferior league, they say, and there’s far more money and prestige to be gained in the football-powerhouse Southeastern Conference – Barron and his board did not agree to stay put in a last-minute, dark-of-night deal.
Quite the opposite.
The wooing of Florida State and its rich football tradition was vital to the recently expanded ACC’s ability to renegotiate a top-dollar, long-term deal with ESPN, the network that holds broadcast rights to most of college football. ACC Commissioner John Swofford needed buy-in from FSU, so he and the league’s TV consultant, Dean Jordan, made two previously unreported trips to Tallahassee during a six-week period before the conference sealed its deal with ESPN last week.
Much more at link: http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20130425/NEWS01/304250053/Swofford-s-Tallahassee-trips-helped-sell-FSU-ACC-deal
Chris Nee of 247Sports.com. You can follow me on twitter @CNee247.
I still don't fully comprehend what benefits were gained by the 'cloak and dagger' approach to building consensus behind the scenes, in secretive, closed door meetings.... as opposed open-source consensus building, systematically laying out the facts, and logically explaining the decision points, based on those facts.
I guess I'll surrender and assume it's either a generational thing... or perhaps he was doing the best he could, with the people he was working with. I'd probably make a terrible leader, because I'd try to do things completely transparent.. and I'd be open to all the well thought-out input available, from all of my stakeholders. I'd probably refer to the fan forums for a lot of decisions, and let the best ideas rise to the top, if I was in that position
This post was edited by FsuFanForever 12 months ago
I don't see what talking does in this scenario. I like everything about the ACC other than the amount of money we pull in. If we were to pull in the same amount of money regardless of conference, I'd say, lets go with the ACC. The problem is, I am skeptical that will happen. I am just hoping this ACC Network can give us something, because we need something in terms of finances...
"Some people think football is a matter of life and death, I assure you, it is much more serious than that."
If Swofford attended a meeting where open record laws were applicable, it would have led to more media coverage. My presumption is it was done in the manner it was done in order to keep it quiet and allow it to play out privately, not in newspapers or on websites.
Unless I misunderstood the article, the belief is it will gross 20 million per school via the new deal reached.
With additional revenue once the ACC Network is established. It seems like we actually are going to be on par with the big boys, very exciting.
From my experience with many of the leaders from this generation, that's generally the path you take when your decision is pre-determined. J/K.. :-)
so its equal reveune sharing?
If so, then President Barron, who I like, effed this thing up royally. No way we should lock ourselves in a deal where we are getting hosed for the better part of two decades.
GO NOLES! / SCALP EM!
Barron didn't eff anything up...again with the child-like rants of the chants.
I actually agree that schools who invest more in their football program and bring in more viewership should get a greater payout of the football money. However, by the same turn, schools who invest more in their basketball program and bring in more viewership, by the same turn, should and would expect to get a greater payout of the basketball money.
Even though much of the deal talk in the news doesn't split up sports to protect title IX and lesser men's sports you can rest assured that there are itemized lists of the payouts for each sport in these contracts. We would get good in ACC football money but get screwed in ACC basketball money and any other sport not named baseball. I think it would all pretty much even out in the end...or would be made to even out by the powers that be. The ACC football payout is not as disparately large compared to basketball as in the other major conferences.
Duke and UNC are a wash in this scenario.
Actually the thing that really irks me, is that UNC and Miami both bowl ineligble somehow get the same share bowl payout as FSU.
Me too. No travel expenses, extra time to recruit, and same payout as everyone else. That's a loophole that needs to close.
I can see equal media sharing but bowl sharing should be incentive-based with travel considerations and proportional to prestige of bowl participation.
This post was edited by chantsource 12 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports