They were paying out top dollars to its 9 members.
THEN, Swofford and company wanted to get cutting edge by becoming an east coast conference, and they bungled it. They actually got incredibly lucky they added VT instead of Cuse too. Can you imagine how poor they would have looked when negotiating in 09 had that not been the case? But after lucking into 2 football powers, they went on to add BC, which is when things went to heck.
And yes, they dang well should have had a network up and running by the time the SEC did. I'm shocked by how long it took the SEC frankly. But I think the SEC had existing longterm contracts to finish out.
And let's not forget that the Pac12 and the University of Texas had networks up and running. The ACC NEGOTIATED AN ENTIRELY NEW DEAL IN 2010. Everybody else was moving toward networks then, but the ACC even set up barriers to a network by lumping in potential programming. Only months after the ACC deal, the Pac12 announced a better paying tier 1 deal, while keeping their own potential network programming. How do you not see that? When compared to the Pac12, the ACC had and has everything going for them.
|
(
In response to this post by Stech)
Posted: 04/29/2016 at 12:18PM