Well, you specialize in bleak pictures. You have said
that there were no negotiations regarding a new network. You have said that ESPN has no incentive or interest in doing a new network and they would just cut a check. Now you morph once again...'there will be a network but it won't be one that I like and it won't measure up to my standards'....very Dude-ish I must say.
No one, not anyone has suggested the ACC will and should get SEC/B1G $$$ for football. And neither Babcock nor Radakovich (no AD in the ACC) has said we need to get that level of income. What all but a few have said is that the difference needs to be manageable. VT/ACC needs to keep up with the Joneses in terms of the basics and that is what R'vich is saying in the interview ("do we need to keep up with...?"). He isn't prepping anyone for a letdown. He is saying the ACC has to generate enough income so that there isn't a gap that leads to a competitive disadvantage.
We all just saw that exercise play out with the satellite camp rules and in the last couple of years we have discussed and seen very real differences related to recruiting staff, analytical staff, indoor facilities, and now dorms. However, the law of diminishing returns applies nicely to college sports. We need to have the bells and whistles to compete but we don't need to have a 100,000 seat stadium just because another school has one.
You continue to manufacture the notion that "damage" has been done. That is simply false. The stage IS set for that to happen if the ACC fails to get what it needs for its media rights, and that is the sense of urgency that the ADs are referring to, that ALL of us feel.
You and a couple of others are not the lone wolves pointing out what no one else sees. We all see it. We just don't belong to the fraternity of the miserable looking for company.
|
(
In response to this post by chuckd4vt)
Posted: 05/02/2016 at 08:55AM