The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

Author Archive

19 Feb 2013

The Confidential Correspondent Weekly Poll: February 18, 2013

With apologies to all, the Confidential is on the road.  Anyway, the votes for this weeks’ poll were submitted before the Monday games, but the Confidential was slow to issue the rankings.  Here they are for February 18, 2013:

  1. Miami  21-3  (5 first place votes)  81 points
  2. Duke 22-3 (2 first place votes)  79 points
  3. Syracuse 21-4   70 points
  4. Louisville 21-5   58 points
  5. Notre Dame 20-6  51 points
  6. Pittsburgh  20-6  49 points
  7. NC State  18-7   46 points
  8. North Carolina  17-8   35 points
  9. Virginia  18-7  31 points
  10. Maryland  18-7  24 points
  11. Florida State 14-11  13 points
  12. Clemson 13-12   9 points

None of the bottom four received votes.  In case you were wondering.

If there standings were to be replicated in 2015, it would mean that 5 of the top 6 teams were formerly in the Big East.  Are the ACC’s veteran teams going to stand for that?

 

The poll continues to be variable between #4 and #8.  Louisville was the most consistent team in that spot, with all votes putting them 4th, 5th, or 6th.  No other school from #4 to #8 had that small a range.

 

What do you think?  How is the poll good or bad?

 

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Basketball, Correspondent Poll, Opinion, Rankings and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
17 Feb 2013
10 Comments

The Big East’s $20Mish TV Deal

It is expected that the Big East will land a television deal for approximately $20 million per year. Total. As in $2M per school. This excludes the so-called Catholic-7, who are working their own deal.

It has also been widely reported that the Big East once turned down an offer that would have paid each football school $13M per year. Apparently, it was Pitt, WVU, and Rutgers that led the charge to turn down that deal. These three schools and Georgetown allegedly voted against it.

So, if you are decent at math, UConn, Cincy, and USF have lost $11M per year because of these four schools’ rejection of the deal. Granted, there may be some recoupment based on shares of exit fees, but these are huge losses.

If I am these schools, I am furious at Pitt for rejecting the deal and then bolting, leading the charge toward the eventual loss of $11M per year. At least in Syracuse’s case, they were willing to accept the ESPN deal. It can be argued that the improvident rejection was an impetus for moving to the ACC. In Pitt’s case, they rejected on the theory that the Big East was worth more and then were the first domino to make it worth less. And WVU and Rutgers can always note that the Big East would have been worth more had everyone stayed, as they assumed when voting. Pitt is the one that deserves the ire.

As a lawyer, I have seem far far more frivolous suits that ANY theory that UConn, USF, and Cincy could raise against Pitt for these dealings. As a lawyer, I also expect that the Pitt exit fee settlement included a release of those claims (by conference or school). And even if they could, it is doubtful that anyone would sue. But the whole thing does really stink.

From the ACC’s perspective, it needs to throw the book at Maryland. Pitt leaving set off a chain reaction that cost three Big East schools to lose tens of millions of dollars–much more than their share of the exit fee. This is WHY an exit fee needs to be so high. Wake Forest, who is ACC or bust, needs to vote against any settlement for less than face value. If Maryland starts a chain reaction, exit fees are all you’ll have.

More on that later.

For now, let’s all just sympathize with UConn, Cincy, and USF fans.

Posted by acaffrey in Uncategorized
14 Feb 2013
3 Comments

Rutgers Very Nervous: Big 10 Will Not Schedule FCS Games

According to Barry Alvarez, or more accurately according to CBS Sports quoting Alvarez, the Big 10 will no longer schedule games against FCS schools.  The most immediate reaction is extreme nervousness in Rutgers.  However, Rutgers has perfected the art of scheduling crappy FBS teams, so the need for panic is overblown.

For fun, let’s just look at Rutgers’ history in the Big East era (stats courtesy of http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Rutgers.htm#2012).  From 1993 to 2000, Rutgers record was a well below-average 24-63. But at least there are some decent OOC opponents each year, such as Penn State, Notre Dame, and Texas.  In fact, one year–1999–featured Texas, California, and Wake Forest, three major conference opponents.  There were three seasons where Rutgers took on two major conference opponents, 1993, 1995, and 2000.  Not that Duke is that strong an opponent, but it’s still reasonable.

But then in 2001, a scheduling philosophy emerged–cupcake city.  From 2001 to 2011, the BEST OOC opponents scheduled by Rutgers for each season were as follows:

  • 2001: A 1-10 California team
  • 2002: Tough schedule–Tennessee and Notre Dame
  • 2003: Michigan State
  • 2004: Michigan State
  • 2005: Navy (only BCS foe was Illinois)
  • 2006: North Carolina
  • 2007: Maryland
  • 2008: North Carolina
  • 2009: Maryland
  • 2010: North Carolina
  • 2011: North Carolina
  • 2012: Arkansas

Thus, between 2003 and 2011, the toughest opponent Rutgers faced was some combination of North Carolina, Michigan State, Maryland, and Navy.   But it is not like Rutgers was scheduling in quantity, with three BCS foes.  Instead, for the most part, it was Army and Navy that would provide the more difficult 2nd and 3rd games.  The rest of the schedule would be MACtion and FCS.  Not surprisingly, playing these soft schedules led to a historical surge in wins.

Sure, you say… the Big East was too strong for Rutgers to schedule tough.  Really?  In 2002, equally inept Temple scheduled South Carolina and Oregon State.  Pitt scheduled Notre Dame and Texas A&M.  Boston College scheduled Stanford and Notre Dame.  West Virginia scheduled Wisconsin and Maryland.  Syracuse scheduled Auburn and North Carolina.  Virginia Tech scheduled LSU and Texas A&M (in addition to rivalry game against Virginia).  Miami scheduled Tennessee and Florida (in addition to rivalry game against Florida State).

OK, perhaps you can rationalize that because that was the older, tougher Big East.  Fast forward to 2007.  Rutgers OOC slate was Maryland (6-7), Buffalo (MAC), Navy (8-5), Army (3-9), and Norfolk State (FCS).  In contrast, Syracuse scheduled Washington, Illinois, and Iowa.  Pitt scheduled Michigan State and Virginia.  Louisville had Utah, Kentucky, and NC State on the slate.  UConn–just making the move to FBS–scheduled Virginia and Duke.  South Florida challenged itself with North Carolina and Auburn.  Cincinnati had a weak schedule too, with only Oregon State having any relevance. West Virginia had Maryland and Mississippi State.  Again, if Rutgers was not the weakest schedule, it was second weakest to only Cincinnati.

2012?  With the recent success, surely Rutgers would have taken on some tough opponents?  Nah.  Rutgers deserves credit for scheduling a trip to Arkansas–the first game against an arguable king of college football since 2002.  But the rest of the schedule was Tulane, Howard, Kent, and Army.  Wow.  Again, the other Big East schools were way ahead of Rutgers.  Temple could not get a 5th OOC game, but still found room for Penn State and Maryland.  UConn missed a bowl, but scheduled North Carolina State and Maryland.  Pitt had Virginia Tech and Notre Dame on the slate.  South Florida faced local kings Miami and Florida State.  Syracuse had an incredible Northwestern, Minnesota (road), USC (neutral), and Missouri (road).  Cincinnati was weak–with only Virginia Tech being a tough foe.  Finally, Louisville had North Carolina and Kentucky.  Again, Cincinnati is the only school providing Rutgers competition for weakest schedule.

While the Big 10 shifts away from FCS games, Rutgers will still be able to sprinkle in the MACtion and Army/Navy games.  At least playing a Big 10 schedule will provide some toughness.  Although Penn State’s sanctions and Maryland’s woes mean that the two rivals will be well-below par.  But at least Rutgers will see what it is like to play multiple football kings in a single season.  It has not happened much in the past 20 years and almost never in the past dozen.  Winning is impressive, but only when you beat good teams too.  Going big time might mean a return to small time win totals.

Posted by acaffrey in Football, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
13 Feb 2013
36 Comments

ACC Poll Day–If Notre Dame Went All-In with the ACC, Who Do You Like For Team #16

Today is a good day for a poll.  Query–if Notre Dame was to shock the world by going “all-in” for the ACC, giving it 15 teams, who would you like for team #16?  Let’s assume that schools from the SEC, Big XII, and Big 10 are out of the mix because…. they are.  Nobody is taking a pay cut to join the ACC.  It is what it is.

The candidates:

  • Connecticut.  Pros–outstanding hoops (mens and womens) & competent football, with at least one BCS appearance.  Rivalries with Syracuse and Pitt, and a huge rivalry potential with Boston College.  Even Duke-UConn womens hoops would be huge.  Cons–only competent football, not outstanding football.  Geographical overlap with Boston College.  Not a pedigreed football name.
  • Cincinnati.  Pros–new market (southern Ohio), good football recently, and some decent hoops.  Close to Pittsburgh & Louisville for potential rivalries.  Cons–small market, as Ohio is dominated by Ohio State, while neighboring Kentucky is  swallowed by Louisville and Kentucky.
  • Navy.  Pros–national name and a partner for Notre Dame.  Back into the Maryland/DC market.  Cons–terrible hoops in the post-David Robinson era.  Football would not exactly be an upgrade–although it is hard to say that Navy is demonstrably worse than UConn or Cincinnati in the big picture.
  • South Florida.  Pros–outstanding location for football recruiting and potential.  Cons–ACC already has the Florida market in check with Miami and FSU.  Hoops team has not done much, and the football team has underachieved of late.  Not a national name by any stretch.
  • Temple.  Pros–Philly market, good hoops history, and potential for football.  Cons–football has been more bad than good in the modern era, especially in the absence of a certain Mr. Golden.
  • Hybrid craziness.  Let’s say #16 gets to be UConn for hoops, Navy for football, and Johns Hopkins for lacrosse–take it or leave it, folks.  Or some other combination, like VCU for hoops subbing in for a UConn not being happy with a partial membership.

Anyone else out there?  This seems to be the list.

Who do you like and why?

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Basketball, Conference Realignment, Football, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12 Feb 2013
11 Comments

Conference Realignment–ACC Needs to be Wary of History Repeating Itself

Frank the Tank has a new entry for your perusal.  In this latest blog entry, the opinion is that Fox, rather than ESPN, is responsible for the demise of the Big East.  The Confidential disagrees.  Moreover, the Confidential cannot help but think that the ACC needs to be very wary of the destruction of the Big East to prevent, to the extent possible, the demise of our great conference.

As a preliminary matter, there is no doubt that Fox’s entry into the sports networking landscape has been a contributing factor.  If nothing else, the partnership with the Big 10 has dramatically altered the college sports landscape.   Fox’s role in conference realignment is obvious.

But the demise of the Big East began long before the loss of Rutgers, Maryland/Louisville, Notre Dame, and the Catholic-7.  Rather, the demise began with the loss of Pittsburgh and Syracuse.  And, really, the loss of Pittsburgh and Syracuse began with the inability of ESPN and the Big East to negotiate a restructured deal.  While ESPN was willing to ride the Longhorn Network into town to save the Big XII, ESPN did not bother to do anything to save the Big East from demise.  Rather, it allowed (directed?) it’s partner, the ACC, to take two of the Big East’s most valuable properties–Syracuse and Pittsburgh.  Even if Fox was behind every other move that decimated the Big East (see West Virginia, TCU, Maryland, and Rutgers), the reality is that ESPN never stepped up to the plate to save the Big East.

As ESPN continues to lose the rights to major college programs, one wonders if ESPN is going to go the route of MTV.  Once, MTV showed videos… with an occasional non-video show sprinkled in.  At some point, MTV stopped showing videos.  And it’s been decades since this author has cared about MTV.  Every pass through revealed less about “music” and more about reality TV.  Presumably, MTV is still profitable and pleasing to its owners.  Is ESPN going to follow suit and devote more resources to news & shows where reporters yell at each other?   It certainly runs contrary to the prevailing logic that live sports are among the best television products out there because people cannot fast forward through the commercials.

In any event, the question that begs is whether ESPN will step up to the plate to “save the ACC.”   ESPN helped save the Big XII.  But, with every program that moves from the ACC to the Big XII or Big 10, ESPN will lose the exclusive rights to that school.  And one wonders whether Fox will be content to allow ESPN to share in the Big XII and Big 10.  If this is a business battle between Fox and ESPN, Fox seems to be winning.  The Big East was “collateral damage” in that battle.  The ACC needs to ensure that ESPN does not view the ACC as collateral damage.  It is unclear exactly what the ACC can do… but at least being wary of ESPN and history repeating itself is a very small step one.

What do YOU think?  Is ESPN working for or against the ACC these days?


Meet Christian Singles - Free Trial!

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
11 Feb 2013

The Confidential Correspondent Weekly Poll: February 11, 2013

Note: This poll was completed prior to Monday evening’s games. We apologize for the late publication. We DO NOT apologize for the ranking for your team.

#1 Miami. 3 first place votes. 68 pts.

#2 Duke. 2 first place votes. 67 pts.

#3 Syracuse. 1 first place vote. 62 pts.

#4 Notre Dame. 46 pts.

#5 Louisville. 45 pts.

#6 NC State. 44 pts.

#7 Pittsburgh. 38 pts.

#8 North Carolina. 30 pts.

#9 Virginia. 27 pts.

#10 Maryland. 19 pts.

#11 Florida State. 13 pts.

#12 Georgia Tech. 5 pts.

Clemson and Wake Forest also received votes.

Agree? Disagree? Feel free to share your top 12…

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Basketball, Correspondent Poll, Opinion, Rankings and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
08 Feb 2013
10 Comments

Notre Dame Unlikely to Play ACC Hoops in 2013-2014

Not much to comment about here… the reports are that Notre Dame is unlikely to get out of the Big East in time for the 2013-2014 season.  At least part of the issue is what is going on with the so-called “Catholic 7” and their formation of a new league.  Notre Dame certainly does not want to be in a hoops conference with the leftovers from the Big East.  But if the Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, and DePaul group is still around for 2013-2014, the urgency to leave is reduced substantially.

We can expect the anti-ACC (i.e. West Virginia bloggers) to say that this is “proof” that the ACC is about to be raided and/or that Notre Dame is getting cold feet.  If that is true, it will only be dumb luck for those bloggers.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  If you throw out rumors every week, you will be bound to get a few right over a long enough period of time.

On another note, Frank the Tank has an interesting update on the Catholic 7 and the Big 10’s possible interest in Johns Hopkins for lacrosse only.  The Confidential continues to ponder whether the ACC should consider Navy for football only.  Another partner for Notre Dame.

 

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Football, Lacrosse and tagged , , , ,
07 Feb 2013
7 Comments

Reviewing Signing Day 2013: How Did The ACC Do?

Well, another signing day has come and gone for college football.  Your question, naturally, is how did the ACC do?  Actually, your real question is how YOUR team did.  But you’ll have to settle for this broad analysis for now.

Our friends over at ESPN have taken the time to rank the recruiting classes.  The ACC did quite well.  Future partial member Notre Dame was deemed to have the #4 class.  Florida State cracked the top 10 at #9.  Clemson was not far behind at #13.  We’ll have to see whether the Confidential correspondents agree with that order.  Virginia Tech, North Carolina, and Miami finished from #19 through #21.

So that is 5 of the top 21 teams being current ACC, with Notre Dame being a 6th team.  By comparison, the Big 10 had two teams in the top 21, with Ohio State and Michigan in the top 6.  Nebraska and Penn State at least finished at #24.  The Pac-12 had 3, with UCLA, USC, and Washington all slotting between #12 and #18.  The Big XII had two, with Texas and Oklahoma finishing #15 and #16.  The rest of the top 21 was SEC… meaning 8 of the top 21 teams were SEC.

All 14 SEC teams finished in the top 38, which is simply amazing.  Indeed, where the ACC struggles is with the second tier.  Only Virginia cracked the top 40.  See this:

SEC               10 in top 25                    14 in top 40

ACC               5 in top 25 (+ ND)        6 in top 40 (+ ND)

Pac-12           3 in top 25                      7 in top 25

Big 10            4 in top 25                      6 in top 25 (+ Rutgers)

Big XII          2 in top 25                      5 in top 25

Really, none of this is surprising.  The biggest problem with the ACC is that the lower-echelon teams are not given enough credit–fairly or unfairly.  But the ACC has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of at the top.  It is as strong as anyone–it just needs to win more BCS games and get more titles to prove it.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Football, Opinion, Rankings and tagged , , , , , , , ,
06 Feb 2013
1 Comment

Signing Day!

Today is the day that teenagers–at least the slow-to-decide or overly-dramatic ones–decide which college football franchise they will be associated with  for the next 4-5 years.  There are lots of battles to watch today–will Clemson overcome Florida State in the recruiting rankings?  Can Louisville or Miami make a run at them?  Can the new coaching staffs at North Carolina State, Boston College, and Syracuse close strong?  Will Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, and Virginia keep themselves close to the upper echelon, despite disappointing seasons?  Is Notre Dame back?  How about the rest of tobacco road–will Duke, North Carolina, and Wake Forest show that they are not just places for hoops recruits?  And does anyone, anywhere really give a crap about Maryland?

Well, we know the answer to the last question–no!  Even the Big 10 shrugs with a “meh,” and refers to maps and markets.  But everything else is unanswered.  Tune in here and elsewhere for recruiting information on this huge day.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Recruiting and tagged , , , , , , , ,
05 Feb 2013
17 Comments

The ACC’s Lack of a Grant of Rights Needs to Be Addressed

The Confidential is on record as disagreeing with the notion that the Big XII’s grant of rights is impenetrable.  That being said, the Confidential also disagrees with the notion that a grant of rights is merely an exit fee with lipstick.  Depending on the legalese, a grant of rights should be a property transfer, made voluntarily and for consideration, by a school.  It should be much much stronger than an exit fee.  As such, the ACC needs to address its current perceived weakness relative to the Big XII by pursuing, successfully, a grant of rights of some length.

The response is always that a grant of rights is not wanted by the membership.  Who does not want it?  If UNC, Duke, and Virginia do not want the grant of rights, then that tells you everything you need to know about the viability of the ACC.  Maryland did not like the exit fee and now it is in litigation with the ACC.  If these three schools are not bound to each other, and willing to reduce that to paper, then the ACC is doomed.

If those three agreed, one would have to think that Syracuse, Wake Forest, BC, and North Carolina State would be on board immediately.  For the most part, these schools are at risk for being left out when the chairs reshuffle.  Pitt could dabble with the Big XII, but the Big 10 is not an option, so Pitt should also be in favor.  While Virginia Tech–like North Carolina State–is rumored to be attractive to the SEC, it is unclear that the SEC is actually interested in these schools are their first choice.  If UNC and UVa went the Big 10 route, then perhaps a marriage would make sense.  But as long as UVa and UNC are solidly ACC, it is difficult to believe that a separation would be desired by Va Tech and NC State.

So that leaves Georgia Tech, Miami, Clemson, and FSU.  All four duplicate SEC markets (Georgia, South Carolina, Florida).  The Big 10 is not at all likely for Clemson alone.  Georgia Tech, FSU and Miami are possible, but have many reasons that they do not fit the Big 10.  At least not in the same way that North Carolina and Virginia do–proximity and academics.  Plus, Georgia Tech is a clear also-ran in its market.

The Big XII complicates things.  All four schools could make more money in the Big XII.  Probably.  It is unclear why Clemson and Georgia Tech would make $26+M per year for the Big XII.  Again, both are secondary schools in their markets.  And it is not like South Carolina is a big market.  Miami and Florida State are a different story.  Together, they would give the Big XII a strong Eastern flank and presence throughout Florida.  It would likely be worth it for the Big XII to take these two (or perhaps all four).  So these are the four truly “problem” schools.  At the same time, if the ACC had a legitimate plan to increase overall revenue, it is unclear that the monetary difference would be worth the move.  Certainly not in the same sense as Maryland’s move to the Big 10 (a relative no-brainer for a mismanaged athletic department that needs money badly and had the one thing the Big 10 needs–a new market).  But joining the Big XII would mean a grant of rights.  So, while it is unlikely that the SEC would come calling for Florida State or Clemson, a grant of rights with the Big XII would take them out of consideration.  Of course, a grant of rights with the ACC does the same thing.  So, yeah, the hesitance is there.

So this is the point where the ACC and ESPN need to sit down and talk seriously.  Without a grant of rights, the ACC is at a real risk of dissolving or turning into something unrecognizable.  If that happens, the good ACC markets will be divided between the Big 10, Big XII, and SEC.  If 10 teams leave the ACC, but only two go to the SEC (i.e. 6 to the Big XII and 2 to the Big 10), that means that 80% of those schools will shift over to conferences with a significant Fox relationship.  If Fox throws more money at these conferences, ESPN will be marginalized further with the lucrative college sports market (and ad revenue generated).  If ESPN is cool with that, so be it.  But if ESPN is not, then they need to step up to the plate and agree to something to make the ACC stronger.   And, by stronger, the ACC needs something tangible to convince everyone in the ACC to be willing to sign a grant of rights.

The length does not matter.  A five-year grant of rights would be enough to at least quiet the realignment talk a little.  It is shorter than the Big XII’s current grant of rights, meaning that schools with an eye on other conferences will still have an edge.  But it would allow for a bit of a “cease fire” and chance for the ACC to rebrand itself with its new additions.

If anyone does not want a grant of rights for even a relative short period, then it is clear that the ACC is not long for this world.  It is what it is.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Opinion and tagged , , , , ,

Post Navigation

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →