Conference Realignment

[orientalnc]

Here’s the Narrative. Do any of these look familiar? The Top 25 highest spending football programs (2021). If you want to be in the CFP, spend more than $120 million a year ….

Ohio State – $215,209,566
Michigan – $180,841,523
Texas – $173,648,028
Alabama – $173,141,125
Texas A&M – $159,136,624
Penn State – $157,908,311
Oklahoma – $157,494,527
Florida State – $155,656,855
LSU – $155,591,015
Wisconsin – $149,196,055
Iowa – $149,161,886
Michigan State – $148,453,353
Tennessee – $140,824,626
Kentucky – $140,578,623
Florida – $139,935,182
Louisville – $138,830,169
Georgia – $138,757,891
Auburn – $135,816,431
South Carolina – $133,776,318
Clemson – $131,781,294
Washington – $128,976,495
Minnesota – $124,818,508
Arkansas – $123,857,351
Illinois – $121,638,435
Oregon – $120,884,588

These data are misleading if I am reading correctly. These are AA spending on all sports, not just football. Granted, the football only expenditures may match this ranking exactly.

 

[Vespidae]

These data are misleading if I am reading correctly. These are AA spending on all sports, not just football. Granted, the football only expenditures may match this ranking exactly.

Take it up with Sportico. Here’s the takeaway:

”Every program that has won a football national title over the last two decades ranks in the top 25 (except USC, a private institution).“

”The University of Georgia still ranks in the top 25 for overall spending but it’s not all spent equally. The Bulldogs spend more than any other D-I program on one thing – recruiting.”

Folks can complain all they want about this conference or that, but what separates those that can compete from others is money. The ability to raise it and spend it. Eighteen of the programs on that list are either SEC or B1G. Is it any surprise the sport has completely bifurcated?

 

[orientalnc]

Take it up with Sportico. Here’s the takeaway:

”Every program that has won a football national title over the last two decades ranks in the top 25 (except USC, a private institution).“

”The University of Georgia still ranks in the top 25 for overall spending but it’s not all spent equally. The Bulldogs spend more than any other D-I program on one thing – recruiting.”

Folks can complain all they want about this conference or that, but what separates those that can compete from others is money. The ability to raise it and spend it. Eighteen of the programs on that list are either SEC or B1G. Is it any surprise the sport has completely bifurcated?

I agree about the words you quoted. But, the text doesn't say football recruiting. The article says "athletics" spending.

 

[stinger78]

Is there a "full" list somewhere? As was mentioned by Augusta, Miami is likely on this list but private, I'd have to think USC is as well and a little surprised UCLA isn't on the list.

Also as mentioned, there are 5-6 teams on the list who are never going to compete for a natty. Arkansas for example spent all that money to go 4-8, their best season of the last decade was 9 wins, and they have more losing seasons than winning seasons since their last double digit win season. They are flushing huge amounts of money down the drain chasing a dream that's never going to happen.

Shhh. All you have to do is spend money. Don’t you know?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Let’s review, for the sake of this conversation, why the SEC is a pivotal example of what the factors might be in creating a stronger ACC.

1. First, get the PR campaign up to full speed. Leave this step out and nothing else matters. The SEC made this decision decades ago when they were the third best conference. The better SEC teams had good records but often got shown up on those rare occasions when they played out of conference. Think Bear Bryant against Notre Dame or Southern Cal.

2. Luck. And Timing. Don’t recoil from this. It’s a fact. The point is luck happens to everybody sooner or later but what you do with that luck is the real issue. The SEC said “we are the best” and sometime after that, coincidentally, some of the best coaches in the history of college football retired from other conferences. Nick Saban was not a big time winner right away at Alabama but he did not have to recruit against some of the legends of football and this gave him time to “build it right.” Timing was everything. Saban was, in my opinion, destined to be a great coach. But the vacuum he moved into allowed fans to be more patient with his process as he built his system.

3. Money. As others have pointed out so well, money is perhaps the biggest factor at this point. But money follows when you do an effective campaign. As pointed out in other comments, look at the rise of the SEC after they were joined in marriage to ESPN. This was the perfect synergy of PR and massive capital infusions coming together. The bulk of SEC success on the national stage coincides with this synergy.

4. Once the gravy train is in place, a conference will have its pick of the best coaches and best recruits. This sets up a continuous feedback loop of getting players into the NFL reinforcing with the best recruits why the SEC is their choice for a pro career.

5. Academics. Every time I read about Joe Namath I’m reminded of 100s of similar stories I’ve heard over the years. He wanted desperately to go to Maryland to play football. Loved the school, loved the coach. Twice he took his college entrance tests and twice he came up a few points short of Maryland’s entrance requirements. The Maryland coach called Bear Bryant and told him about Namath and the rest is history. The coaching community no longer has to funnel players to schools where they can get in. The rise of football factories, particularly in the SEC, means most recruits know where to go to avoid difficult academic standards.

So what is step one for the ACC? In my opinion it is the step that so many of us are pulling our hair out about. DEFEND your conference and your teams. Fake it till you make it like the SEC did. Do this first! No one is naive enough to believe that alone will solve the issue. Luck, timing, and massive infusions of money all have to follow. But if you don’t sell the IDEA of the ACC you won’t be ready to take advantage of any lucky moments and you certainly won’t convince your donors or have leverage for TV contracts. Adjustments for academics can be made but most ACC schools will not stoop to the level of a uga or some of the other factories. That’s a good thing and should have been part of Tech’s PR campaign from the beginning.

The blueprint is out there for how the ACC can turn around perception. As for Tech, the better bet might be to join the B1G rather they wait for the ACC to turn things around. But, continuing with the status quo will continue to be frustrating and morale sapping.

 

[RonJohn]

I agree about the words you quoted. But, the text doesn't say football recruiting. The article says "athletics" spending.

There is a link to an On3 article in his post that ranks schools based on recruiting spending. However the On3 article links to an Athleticdirectoru article that is the source of the numbers https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/an-analysis-of-football-recruiting-costs/ The Athleticdirectoru article specifically says "while schools track the same types of expenses under the category of recruiting, the way they do their accounting could vary from school to school". The mutts are specifically quoted as saying that the numbers are skewed. Places like On3 "report" data and apply (or at least imply) significance to that data, while the data may or may not actually be significant. In this case, their source of the data specifically says that it might not be significant. My skeptical view of news and news sources doesn't allow me to rely on On3 as a source of data. I resort to checking their source of data to see if it actually matches. I don't trust On3's conclusions or editorial takes on their face.

It is further evidence of my belief that people will decide on a conclusion, then they will "find" "proof" that their conclusion is correct. I think that @Vespidae 's conclusion that programs that spend more money are more successful is reasonable in general. However, links to an article that links to a source, which specifically says that the data isn't accurate don't impress me as proof of that conclusion.

It is also a rabbit hole to the discussion. Whether the SEC gets unreasonable positive spin from the media in general and ESPN in particular is a very different question than whether the SEC spends a lot of money on athletics programs. Did the SEC get a team into the playoffs this year because the entire conference has been building football programs that are far better top-to-bottom than any other team in the universe? Did the media in general, and ESPN in particular highlight things positive to the SEC and ignore things negative to the SEC? Deflection and redirection seem to be the normal course of action for those who support the SEC.

 

[stinger78]

Let’s review, for the sake of this conversation, why the SEC is a pivotal example of what the factors might be in creating a stronger ACC.

1. First, get the PR campaign up to full speed. Leave this step out and nothing else matters. The SEC made this decision decades ago when they were the third best conference. The better SEC teams had good records but often got shown up on those rare occasions when they played out of conference. Think Bear Bryant against Notre Dame or Southern Cal.

2. Luck. And Timing. Don’t recoil from this. It’s a fact. The point is luck happens to everybody sooner or later but what you do with that luck is the real issue. The SEC said “we are the best” and sometime after that, coincidentally, some of the best coaches in the history of college football retired from other conferences. Nick Saban was not a big time winner right away at Alabama but he did not have to recruit against some of the legends of football and this gave him time to “build it right.” Timing was everything. Saban was, in my opinion, destined to be a great coach. But the vacuum he moved into allowed fans to be more patient with his process as he built his system.

3. Money. As others have pointed out so well, money is perhaps the biggest factor at this point. But money follows when you do an effective campaign. As pointed out in other comments, look at the rise of the SEC after they were joined in marriage to ESPN. This was the perfect synergy of PR and massive capital infusions coming together. The bulk of SEC success on the national stage coincides with this synergy.

4. Once the gravy train is in place, a conference will have its pick of the best coaches and best recruits. This sets up a continuous feedback loop of getting players into the NFL reinforcing with the best recruits why the SEC is their choice for a pro career.

5. Academics. Every time I read about Joe Namath I’m reminded of 100s of similar stories I’ve heard over the years. He wanted desperately to go to Maryland to play football. Loved the school, loved the coach. Twice he took his college entrance tests and twice he came up a few points short of Maryland’s entrance requirements. The Maryland coach called Bear Bryant and told him about Namath and the rest is history. The coaching community no longer has to funnel players to schools where they can get in. The rise of football factories, particularly in the SEC, means most recruits know where to go to avoid difficult academic standards.

So what is step one for the ACC? In my opinion it is the step that so many of us are pulling our hair out about. DEFEND your conference and your teams. Fake it till you make it like the SEC did. Do this first! No one is naive enough to believe that alone will solve the issue. Luck, timing, and massive infusions of money all have to follow. But if you don’t sell the IDEA of the ACC you won’t be ready to take advantage of any lucky moments and you certainly won’t convince your donors or have leverage for TV contracts. Adjustments for academics can be made but most ACC schools will not stoop to the level of a uga or some of the other factories. That’s a good thing and should have been part of Tech’s PR campaign from the beginning.

The blueprint is out there for how the ACC can turn around perception. As for Tech, the better bet might be to join the B1G rather they wait for the ACC to turn things around. But, continuing with the status quo will continue to be frustrating and morale sapping.

Fabulous summation.

 

[orientalnc]

When I last lived in Atlanta (Inman Park) I had neighbors who spent a ton of money on redoing houses that were simply junk top to bottom without measurably changing them. Others turned junky flop houses into mansions. The amount of money you spend is not a 100% assurance that you will achieve your goal. uga has been spending at that level (compared to us) for decades without much success. Now they are the bell cow of college football. Kirby Smart has done a great job in Athens and deserves the credit. But uga is also improving their other programs in much the same way. The spending in Athens is not just on football.

 

[Vespidae]

I agree about the words you quoted. But, the text doesn't say football recruiting. The article says "athletics" spending.

The article examined the spending at the Top 25 college football. So, yes ... you are correct. It is not specifically football, but I think the point is valid. Money, and the ability to raise it and spend it, is essential. And 72% of the teams on that list are either B1G or SEC, so that's what you are going to hear, day in and day out, in college sports media.

 

[MWBATL]

The ACC starts with a huge handicap.Its universities are simply much smaller in enrollments than the big state schools of either the SEC or the Big Ten. Alumni and relations are the largest source of athletics funding. Moreover, schools who are considered "flagship" universities for their state (LSU, UT, etc) make more with the non-alumni sidewalk fans because so many folks identify the school with the state.

Those are huge handicaps for a place like Georgia Tech (or Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest, etc etc) to overcome.

 

[WreckinGT]

The article examined the spending at the Top 25 college football. So, yes ... you are correct. It is not specifically football, but I think the point is valid. Money, and the ability to raise it and spend it, is essential. And 72% of the teams on that list are either B1G or SEC, so that's what you are going to hear, day in and day out, in college sports media.

I mean, FSU is on that list as well. Pretty high up on that list. They spend boat loads of money. What did the media do for them? ESPN was already setting the narrative to exclude FSU from the playoffs even before Travis got hurt. In their own conference championship game ESPN announcers spent half of the time trashing them. Then after the conference championship games they went on a full onslaught before the CFP selection to exclude them. None of that would have happened if FSU were in the SEC spending the same amount of money. Spending money and committing to their program could not override the fact that they weren't in the SEC or the Big 10. They could have spent 500 million and it still wouldn't have changed anything.

 

[stinger78]

I mean, FSU is on that list as well. Pretty high up on that list. They spend boat loads of money. What did the media do for them? ESPN was already setting the narrative to exclude FSU from the playoffs even before Travis got hurt. In their own conference championship game ESPN announcers spent half of the time trashing them. Then after the conference championship games they went on a full onslaught before the CFP selection to exclude them. None of that would have happened if FSU were in the SEC spending the same amount of money. Spending money and committing to their program could not override the fact that they weren't in the SEC or the Big 10. They could have spent 500 million and it still wouldn't have changed anything.

Truth.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The ACC starts with a huge handicap.Its universities are simply much smaller in enrollments than the big state schools of either the SEC or the Big Ten. Alumni and relations are the largest source of athletics funding. Moreover, schools who are considered "flagship" universities for their state (LSU, UT, etc) make more with the non-alumni sidewalk fans because so many folks identify the school with the state.

Those are huge handicaps for a place like Georgia Tech (or Vanderbilt, or Wake Forest, etc etc) to overcome.

This is painfully true.

Perhaps it will never be the case again but once upon a time GT was considered the home town team of Atlanta as well as representing the pride of the south. The key was that back then the Atlanta newspapers were in Tech’s back pocket, kind of like ESPN and the SEC today.

 

[Root4GT]

This is painfully true.

Perhaps it will never be the case again but once upon a time GT was considered the home town team of Atlanta as well as representing the pride of the south. The key was that back then the Atlanta newspapers were in Tech’s back pocket, kind of like ESPN and the SEC today.

Wow, the world, the US and Atlanta do not resemble anything like what they were back in the 1950s. GT didn’t really change much while everything else did.

 

[MusicalBuzz]

Wow, the world, the US and Atlanta do not resemble anything like what they were back in the 1950s. GT didn’t really change much while everything else did.

Hmmm, that’s sort of a vague, but interesting, perspective. What manner of change relative to US and Atlanta v Tech comes to mind?

 

[MusicalBuzz]

Take it up with Sportico. Here’s the takeaway:

”Every program that has won a football national title over the last two decades ranks in the top 25 (except USC, a private institution).“

”The University of Georgia still ranks in the top 25 for overall spending but it’s not all spent equally. The Bulldogs spend more than any other D-I program on one thing – recruiting.”

Folks can complain all they want about this conference or that, but what separates those that can compete from others is money. The ability to raise it and spend it. Eighteen of the programs on that list are either SEC or B1G. Is it any surprise the sport has completely bifurcated?

Oh, no. It is not entirely about money. Otherwise — per the chart and another post — we would see Arkansas and other like schools in the competitive small group.

Brand name schools are exactly that. And kids are naturally drawn to them. And it’s also curious that some of these schools spend so much money when perhaps they don’t need it to.

So, two points:
1) I am more interested in the effect of money where it can be demonstrated that schools in the middle-tier, by virtue of spending money, elevate to a top-tier (and I don’t mean a couple years’ splash)

2) Should we consider that simple metric of money generated is principally self-serving to the administrators and powers in place at the time?

I can’t wait for Arkansas to enter the national conversation of a premiere program for all the money spent

 

[cpf2001]

Which is more significant, the set of schools that spends money but fails or the set of schools that don't spend money but succeeds at the top-10 level?

 

[stinger78]

This is painfully true.

Perhaps it will never be the case again but once upon a time GT was considered the home town team of Atlanta as well as representing the pride of the south. The key was that back then the Atlanta newspapers were in Tech’s back pocket, kind of like ESPN and the SEC today.

GA Tech was in the SEC then.

 

[forensicbuzz]

GA Tech was in the SEC then.

Conferences didn't mean much back then. They were just about scheduling. It wasn't until they started aligning bowls with conferences that the conference pride became a thing. That was somewhere in the 1990s. When I was in school, we wanted everyone in our conference to lose every game.

 

[stinger78]

Conferences didn't mean much back then. They were just about scheduling. It wasn't until they started aligning bowls with conferences that the conference pride became a thing. That was somewhere in the 1990s. When I was in school, we wanted everyone in our conference to lose every game.

Conference alignments with bowls was going on long before the 1990’s. The B1G-PAC Rose Bowl deal went way back. The SEC champ in the Sugar and the Big 8 champ in the Orange were going on in the 1970’s. That’s when the money began to flow into conferences. Then the 1984 Dooley-Switzer court decision breaking the NCAA monopoly on CFB TV was the next blow.