Conference Realignment

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,874
Location
Atlanta, GA
I’m not saying I agree with that, I’m saying it’s the argument. I think Travis as the Heisman favorite keeps FSU in. I personally would select Texas over Alabama in that scenario, but it seems less likely. Also, they would probably talk about how the Big 12 was weaker. Evidently, the SEC is at least 1 win better than all other conferences. All I know is that they would find an excuse.
All I am saying is that they were going to find an excuse to get Bama in the playoff, even it meant also adding Texas over FSU. Bama and Texas are joined at the hip due to that early season game and how the season played out. The injury to Travis is a red herring.

To be clear, I said this weeks prior to the selection, but was told I was crazy and that it would not happen. Now, fonts are arguing it would not happen if Travis was not hurt. I disagree. The same four teams make it even if Travis was available.
 

cpf2001

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
826
Dude, they’ve won the conference half the time they’ve been in the darn thing. You can dismiss that if you want to because it’s so old (kind of like our ancient Natties we have banners for in our stadium that don’t mean a darn thing according to your view). Then look at this year. They didn’t lose a game even without their starting QB. Listen, I’m not a FSU fan, but what happened to them will bite everyone in this conference at some point so just get ready. But, in reality this conference is in a death spiral so we’ll be out soon. Just wait until you see how the committee screws the ACC in late April when we get 5 bids and the SEC gets 9. And then see who hosts the regionals and super regionals. The die has been cast and this dying conference has been purged by the media.
Bringing up FSU dominating the conference in prior decades is the same sort of argument SEC fanatics make about why so many SEC teams deserve it. It doesn’t impress me (and no, nor would I expect the Big 10 to be like “ooh, titles from the fifties and before!!” to get GT an in there).

They wanted a conference they could dominate, they got it, then they stumbled and fell and now they’re pissed off about it and blaming everyone else.
 

TechPhi97

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
563
Location
Davidson, NC
All I am saying is that they were going to find an excuse to get Bama in the playoff, even it meant also adding Texas over FSU. Bama and Texas are joined at the hip due to that early season game and how the season played out. The injury to Travis is a red herring.

To be clear, I said this weeks prior to the selection, but was told I was crazy and that it would not happen. Now, fonts are arguing it would not happen if Travis was not hurt. I disagree. The same four teams make it even if Travis was available.
We both agree that Bama gets in, it’s just the excuse to leave someone out that we disagree over. Since it’s impossible to know it’s not worth arguing over, probably like most of this thread.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,876
Not sure what your point is. GT's biggest issues are a real lack of fan support and a massive financial debt in the Athletic Department as well as not being a strong Regional or National Brand currently. The last one could change with several really good seasons in FB and BB.

In my opinion our best case situation is the ACC remains viable and closes the money gap with the SEC and B1G.

Few things here:

Debt is not a factor in conference expansion (I'll assume if it threatens the viability of a program it would be, but that's not the case with GT). A lot of teams carry debt for various reasons (Michigan has about $15million less in debt than GT, new B1G member Washington has roughly $245 million in debt, Illinois has much more debt than GT at almost $300million) and if GT joins the B1G, our debt can be paid down quickly. Had GT joined back in 2012, we probably would have minimal debt on the books. I've written this before, GT has lost out on hundreds of millions the past decade since turning down the B1G.



When B1G invited GT to join in 2012, our average attendance was 43K+. In of 2023, our average home attendance is 34K. In CPJ's last year 2018, it was at 43K+. Clearly, the Collins years have turned away fans. If Key continues on the trajectory he's been on, more fans will turn out. If GT plays a B1G schedule, GT is probably at capacity for a lot of the games given the unique matchups and amount of B1G alums in Atlanta. That's a consideration for conferences. Also, conferences also understand these figures change year to year given the circumstances surrounding a team.

GT's brand is a LOT stronger than you think, and it's from multiple metrics:

#9 most recognized Logo


#32 most recognized brand by top recruits (2022 survey)


#34 in Brand Value (2019 study, it's behind a Wall Street Journal paywall so I'll take the Reddit poster at their word)



This is an interesting one since it hits at the heart of why conferences expand in the first place. What additive value would a college bring to conference's media contract? By the metrics in the link above (and not including ND who is a football independent...and the "holy grail" for all conference expansion targets) GT is the 4th most valuable brand in the ACC. In terms of "true target" value for the B1G, GT is the 2nd most valuable school. Clemson, given their market and academics, is not a target for the B1G. The same can be said of VT. This puts us above UNC/UVA/Miami who have been historically linked to the B1G along with GT.

Choosing a team for expansion is a 50+ year decision. "Several really good seasons in FB and BB" (as you said) would not move the needle when a conference is looking at what the school would bring far into the future, not what's currently going on. If you look at the links I provided in my earlier post, those are the factors that school presidents, conferences, and media companies look at when forecasting the next 50+ years. A few good seasons, or a few bad seasons, doesn't change the the value of a school in the long run.
 
Last edited:

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,013
Location
Auburn, AL
For fun, I just looked at the final AP poll (which is determined by opinion, no set criteria) and final strength of schedule. If you apply the same scoring system to strength of schedule… you get these as the Top 4 Teams (on a combined basis):

Michigan
Alabama
Ohio State
Texas

FSU came in around 10th. Personally, I think teams should be rewarded for playing tougher schedules, which is why a winning Liberty doesn’t get in.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,494
Few things here:

Debt is not a factor in conference expansion (I'll assume if it threatens the viability of a program it would be, but that's not the case with GT). A lot of teams carry debt for various reasons (Michigan has about $15million less in debt than GT, new B1G member Washington has roughly $245 million in debt, Illinois has much more debt than GT at almost $300million) and if GT joins the B1G, our debt can be paid down quickly. Had GT joined back in 2012, we probably would have minimal debt on the books. I've written this before, GT has lost out on hundreds of millions the past decade since turning down the B1G.



When B1G invited GT to join in 2012, our average attendance was 43K+. In of 2023, our average home attendance is 34K. In CPJ's last year 2018, it was at 43K+. Clearly, the Collins years have turned away fans. If Key continues on the trajectory he's been on, more fans will turn out. If GT plays a B1G schedule, GT is probably at capacity for a lot of the games given the unique matchups and amount of B1G alums in Atlanta. That's a consideration for conferences. Also, conferences also understand these figures change year to year given the circumstances surrounding a team.

GT's brand is a LOT stronger than you think, and it's from multiple metrics:

#9 most recognized Logo


#32 most recognized brand by top recruits (2022 survey)


#34 in Brand Value (2019 study, it's behind a Wall Street Journal paywall so I'll take the Reddit poster at their word)



This is an interesting one since it hits at the heart of why conferences expand in the first place. What additive value would a college bring to conference's media contract? By the metrics in the link above (and not including ND who is a football independent...and the "holy grail" for all conference expansion targets) GT is the 4th most valuable brand in the ACC. In terms of "true target" value for the B1G, GT is the 2nd most valuable school. Clemson, given their market and academics, is not a target for the B1G. The same can be said of VT. This puts us above UNC/UVA/Miami who have been historically linked to the B1G along with GT.

Choosing a team for expansion is a 50+ year decision. "Several really good seasons in FB and BB" (as you said) would not move the needle when a conference is looking at what the school would bring far into the future, not what's currently going on. If you look at the links I provided in my earlier post, those are the factors that school presidents, conferences, and media companies look at when forecasting the next 50+ years. A few good seasons, or a few bad seasons, doesn't change the the value of a school in the long run.

Some decent arguments and good information. Thanks.

Why for the past 15+ years have GT fans complained that we don’t have the money to compete. We have a lot of debt and don’t generate a lot of revenue. B1G teams Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State would draw big crowds. Maybe 1 or 2 others. The other 13 B1G teams are about like our current ACC teams as far as drawing power.

We didn’t join the B1G in the early 2010s and don’t have that assumed revenue.

The B1G’s contract with Fox runs thru the 2029-30 season. Anyone coming in before then comes at a reduced rate. With current 18 teams in the B1G adding any team would need to bring enough value that the current 18 teams don’t see reduced revenue.

If GT came in around our current TV value then we would need to generate an additional $18M for the B1G or the current teams would lose money. Not sure how that happens.

Fox has zero reason to renegotiate a contract prior to the current contract expiring. How do you keep current teams from losing money when adding new teams under an existing TV contract. Similar to how SMU joined the ACC, sorry guys no money or as Cam/Stanford did, well we will give you chump change.

Hard to say how this all plays out. Just thinking GT has a quick and easy path to the B1G seems overly optimistic to me. Maybe in 2030 but unless all Conferences explode prior to that I have serious doubts.
 

GT33

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,819
This is a couple days old, but it may turn out to be an excellent example of why you let your lawyer do the talking. Alford just admitted that it's all about the money. I think that he may well regret those words when he hears them repeated in court...


Yeah a math problem. Fsu adds zero to the conference because an undefeated Fsu cannot make the CFP's. They cost the conference $4M by being inpet and each of the other schools should sue them for loss of revenue.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,075
This is a couple days old, but it may turn out to be an excellent example of why you let your lawyer do the talking. Alford just admitted that it's all about the money. I think that he may well regret those words when he hears them repeated in court...


If it is a math problem, they should have done the math before they signed the contract, not after. They agreed to share equally, and now they want to take their ball and go home.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,075
Yeah a math problem. Fsu adds zero to the conference because an undefeated Fsu cannot make the CFP's. They cost the conference $4M by being inpet and each of the other schools should sue them for loss of revenue.
Well, I don't see that. They played the schedule the ACC gave them and added Florida and LSU OOC. What were they supposed to do?
 

57jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
973
Few things here:

Debt is not a factor in conference expansion (I'll assume if it threatens the viability of a program it would be, but that's not the case with GT). A lot of teams carry debt for various reasons (Michigan has about $15million less in debt than GT, new B1G member Washington has roughly $245 million in debt, Illinois has much more debt than GT at almost $300million) and if GT joins the B1G, our debt can be paid down quickly. Had GT joined back in 2012, we probably would have minimal debt on the books. I've written this before, GT has lost out on hundreds of millions the past decade since turning down the B1G.



When B1G invited GT to join in 2012, our average attendance was 43K+. In of 2023, our average home attendance is 34K. In CPJ's last year 2018, it was at 43K+. Clearly, the Collins years have turned away fans. If Key continues on the trajectory he's been on, more fans will turn out. If GT plays a B1G schedule, GT is probably at capacity for a lot of the games given the unique matchups and amount of B1G alums in Atlanta. That's a consideration for conferences. Also, conferences also understand these figures change year to year given the circumstances surrounding a team.

GT's brand is a LOT stronger than you think, and it's from multiple metrics:

#9 most recognized Logo


#32 most recognized brand by top recruits (2022 survey)


#34 in Brand Value (2019 study, it's behind a Wall Street Journal paywall so I'll take the Reddit poster at their word)



This is an interesting one since it hits at the heart of why conferences expand in the first place. What additive value would a college bring to conference's media contract? By the metrics in the link above (and not including ND who is a football independent...and the "holy grail" for all conference expansion targets) GT is the 4th most valuable brand in the ACC. In terms of "true target" value for the B1G, GT is the 2nd most valuable school. Clemson, given their market and academics, is not a target for the B1G. The same can be said of VT. This puts us above UNC/UVA/Miami who have been historically linked to the B1G along with GT.

Choosing a team for expansion is a 50+ year decision. "Several really good seasons in FB and BB" (as you said) would not move the needle when a conference is looking at what the school would bring far into the future, not what's currently going on. If you look at the links I provided in my earlier post, those are the factors that school presidents, conferences, and media companies look at when forecasting the next 50+ years. A few good seasons, or a few bad seasons, doesn't change the the value of a school in the long run.

Damn Techster. you are on fire. Best post s by far. Look forward to all of yours in the future. More, more, more......please
 

GT33

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,819
Well, I don't see that. They played the schedule the ACC gave them and added Florida and LSU OOC. What were they supposed to do?
They're incapable of doing anything. If that was Clemson, we would be watching Michigan play Texas and Clemson against Washington. Fsu just showed how weak a brand they are.
 

cpf2001

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
826
My read of the Sagarin ratings, for instance, says that they could’ve and should’ve won by more points against that schedule?

The twelve team change will make it less of an issue, but ultimately CFB is still stuck in a world of beauty pageants and unless everyone decides that’s not what they want none of the fundamental issues here will change.

The consolidation of teams into fewer conferences, instead of moving to an auto-bid for all- or major-conferences model, suggests that “beauty pageants, but with more media revenue” is what the powerful programs want.
 

LT 1967

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
241
Few things here:

Debt is not a factor in conference expansion (I'll assume if it threatens the viability of a program it would be, but that's not the case with GT). A lot of teams carry debt for various reasons (Michigan has about $15million less in debt than GT, new B1G member Washington has roughly $245 million in debt, Illinois has much more debt than GT at almost $300million) and if GT joins the B1G, our debt can be paid down quickly. Had GT joined back in 2012, we probably would have minimal debt on the books. I've written this before, GT has lost out on hundreds of millions the past decade since turning down the B1G.



When B1G invited GT to join in 2012, our average attendance was 43K+. In of 2023, our average home attendance is 34K. In CPJ's last year 2018, it was at 43K+. Clearly, the Collins years have turned away fans. If Key continues on the trajectory he's been on, more fans will turn out. If GT plays a B1G schedule, GT is probably at capacity for a lot of the games given the unique matchups and amount of B1G alums in Atlanta. That's a consideration for conferences. Also, conferences also understand these figures change year to year given the circumstances surrounding a team.

GT's brand is a LOT stronger than you think, and it's from multiple metrics:

#9 most recognized Logo


#32 most recognized brand by top recruits (2022 survey)


#34 in Brand Value (2019 study, it's behind a Wall Street Journal paywall so I'll take the Reddit poster at their word)


This is an interesting one since it hits at the heart of why conferences expand in the first place. What additive value would a college bring to conference's media contract? By the metrics in the link above (and not including ND who is a football independent...and the "holy grail" for all conference expansion targets) GT is the 4th most valuable brand in the ACC. In terms of "true target" value for the B1G, GT is the 2nd most valuable school. Clemson, given their market and academics, is not a target for the B1G. The same can be said of VT. This puts us above UNC/UVA/Miami who have been historically linked to the B1G along with GT.

Choosing a team for expansion is a 50+ year decision. "Several really good seasons in FB and BB" (as you said) would not move the needle when a conference is looking at what the school would bring far into the future, not what's currently going on. If you look at the links I provided in my earlier post, those are the factors that school presidents, conferences, and media companies look at when forecasting the next 50+ years. A few good seasons, or a few bad seasons, doesn't change the the value of a school in the long run.


Great information! It certainly gives me a better feeling about the Jackets amidst all the uncertainty surrounding the current situation with FSU and the conference. Gives hope that we have a good shot at a B1G invitation if the ACC falls apart.

I still adhere to the Jim Williams' belief and supposed info that he had obtained that GT and Miami have the best profile for what the B1G wants:

AAU
Large Metro area with large B1G Alum base
Southern Recruiting Base (Remember the Jim Harbaugh Camps in GA)
Large Research Operation
 

cpf2001

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
826
If ESPN has an option to terminate the media deal after 2027 in 2025 would the GOR survive it? If a potential replacement media deal sucked, would enough teams vote to dissolve the conference that the GOR goes away that way? Did adding SMU/Cal/Stanford make the math for that worse?

(And why on earth would the ACC and its schools have extended the GOR to 2036 if they could only secure a media deal ending in 2027 with an optional extension? Other than well-documented ACC idiocy/incompetence? But why would FSU, Clemson, *anyone else* except for Duke or Wake or such not make a stink about that at the time?)
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,129
If ESPN has an option to terminate the media deal after 2027 in 2025 would the GOR survive it? If a potential replacement media deal sucked, would enough teams vote to dissolve the conference that the GOR goes away that way? Did adding SMU/Cal/Stanford make the math for that worse?

(And why on earth would the ACC and its schools have extended the GOR to 2036 if they could only secure a media deal ending in 2027 with an optional extension? Other than well-documented ACC idiocy/incompetence? But why would FSU, Clemson, *anyone else* except for Duke or Wake or such not make a stink about that at the time?)
It was reasonable to assume when the GOR was last signed in 2016 that, even if the ESPN deal fell through in 2027, a media deal of some sort would be available to the ACC through 2036. Under this assumption, the GOR would continue to provide a powerful incentive to members to stay put, since the conference would still have media rights to home games, regardless of who is broadcasting them or for how much $. The GOR was, and still is, all about preserving stability.
 

cpf2001

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
826
It was reasonable to assume when the GOR was last signed in 2016 that, even if the ESPN deal fell through in 2027, a media deal of some sort would be available to the ACC through 2036. Under this assumption, the GOR would continue to provide a powerful incentive to members to stay put, since the conference would still have media rights to home games, regardless of who is broadcasting them or for how much $. The GOR was, and still is, all about preserving stability.
If it's a unilateral option then I don't think it is reasonable to assume that. I'd be asking myself "what do they know that I don't, what are they trying to protect themselves against, since they're the ones in the media business?"

It's just a plain bad option to sign: if future media deals are worth more, you're giving up 9 years of higher revenue. And if they aren't, you are no longer safe! Signing that deal is close to strictly worse than signing one that just plain ends in 2027[*], and the schools should've been smart enough to not extend the GOR past 2027 if they couldn't get a firm deal past 2027.

[*] well, you might be frontloading some money that ESPN wouldn't give you otherwise, but that doesn't answer the question of not tying the GOR extension to the media deal extension. If you're drowning, why do you want to be tied together anymore?
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,762
How many teams would have gone in ahead of FSU with the 3rd string QB that would not have played had there been a 12-team playoff? UGA, OU, Oregon, Ohio State, Penn State, etc. all would have agitated that they were better.
That’s why the “3rd string quarterback argument” is so fraught with contradictions. He probably won’t even play in the bowl game and certainly would not have played in a playoff game. But teams from other conferences arguing they are better than an undefeated ACC team has become routine.

I remember when Clemson destroyed Alabama by several touchdowns for the national championship and all the pundits, led by Finnebaum, had Alabama as a heavy favorite. Why? Because an ACC team CAN NEVER be as good as an SEC team no matter what the results on the field say.
 
Top