Conference Realignment

[CEB]

The SEC's new contract is supposed to be in the 70+ million dollar range. The B1Gs new contract is supposed to be in the 80-100 million dollar a year range. The ACC is paying out about 44 million. The SEC and B1G now also get bigger payouts from the CFP. Even with a reduced payout initially, it is unlikely they would make much less if any less than what they are making now. That is how bad the ACC contract is. Dealing with a reduced payout for a few years and getting much better TV exposure and playoff opportunities is probably something FSU and Clemson would be happy to do when they finally make the jump to leave assuming they could find a home in the P2.

Once again with last year’s base ACC figures vs the PROJECTIONS of BIG / SEC. Not just you, it’s all over the internet as such. It’s a lazy take to push a narrative though.
ACC shouldn’t remain flat and BIG / SEC won’t hit those projections next year. New members to those leagues definitely won't see those numbers for several years.
The BiG and SEC are clearly the premier money conferences but over the next 5-7 years, the ACC will likely pay much better than what a new admitted member gets from the BIG / SEC. That tipping point will come as those leagues near negotiations for their next deals when they can fully compensate new members.

 

[Vespidae]

The ACC (if it still exists) is not going to be a major player 10-15 years from now.

Paraphrasing Mark Twain, "reports of my death (of the ACC) are greatly exaggerated."

As I mentioned before, you can't just talk about the ACC in isolation. It is the path, perhaps the only path, for Notre Dame to remain relevant. ND wins 80% of its games vs ACC opponents. As long as that is the case, the powers will find a way to keep ND in the game.

I think the most likely scenario, even for the SEC, is to require teams to meet a certain criteria to be be a member of a Super League; e.g., stadium size, enrollment, budget, etc. In other words, the sport will set tiers, and perhaps that is long overdue.

 

[Vespidae]

Once again with last year’s base ACC figures vs the PROJECTIONS of BIG / SEC. Not just you, it’s all over the internet as such. It’s a lazy take to push a narrative though.
ACC shouldn’t remain flat and BIG / SEC won’t hit those projections next year. New members to those leagues definitely won't see those numbers for several years.
The BiG and SEC are clearly the premier money conferences but over the next 5-7 years, the ACC will likely pay much better than what a new admitted member gets from the BIG / SEC. That tipping point will come as those leagues near negotiations for their next deals when they can fully compensate new members.

True, but ...

I just looked at the Week 4 expectations. The SEC will have 7 ranked teams that are most likely 3-0 heading into "match-ups" that are worth something (e.g., Alabama vs. Georgia). The ACC will have 2 ranked teams that are 3-0. That's the situation. The ACC has to do a better job getting more teams into contention by the 4th week.

That translates into viewership for the teams are after that.

 

[RonJohn]

Oklahoma, with the storied history and resources that it has, hasn't won a national championship since 2000 - 24 years. Urban Meyer recently said they are about to experience significantly more physicality than what they are used to. Yep ... more challenging.

According to Meyer, the biggest obstacle for Texas and Oklahoma to overcome is dealing with the size and speed of defensive lines in the SEC. While both the Sooners and Longhorns have squared off against quality defensive lines, it is nowhere near as consistent as it will be when they step into the SEC.

“I got educated on the SEC in 2005 when I was in Florida, and we played Tennessee in the swamp,” Meyer said. “And I looked out there and there’s big men that I mean— everybody’s going to have really good skill; some teams have elite, but everybody’s got good skill. The difference is that damn defense line and linebackers. The way they run in the South and in the SEC and the way they take their football.”

UNC would most likely struggle in either league.

I have discussed this before. Before A&M and Missouri announced they were joining the SEC, SEC fans made statements about Texas and Oklahoma not being able to qualify for a bowl game if they played an SEC schedule. The two aforementioned "lesser" Big12 teams joined the SEC instead. One of them promptly went 11-2. The other was in the SEC championship game in years 2 and 3 of being in the SEC. Both of those teams are now about what they were historically in the Big12.

I won't argue that the SEC doesn't have more quality teams than the ACC. However, the narrative that implies that the SEC is equivalent to the NFL and ACC teams are equivalent to high school teams is ridiculous. The narrative will change depending on the situation. As I have also said before, in 2008 Mississippi was a nobody team that didn't actually represent the SEC after they lost to WF. Then they were an example of just how deep the SEC is after they beat UF. Either Mississippi was representative of how deep the SEC was, or they were inconsequential. It can't be both. However, the SEC narrative used both and never owned up to the inconsistency.

 

[Vespidae]

However, the narrative that implies that the SEC is equivalent to the NFL and ACC teams are equivalent to high school teams is ridiculous.

I didn't mean to imply that. Let's just say that the style of play in each league is different.

 

[RonJohn]

I didn't mean to imply that. Let's just say that the style of play in each league is different.

It might be. It used to be that the SEC was known for defense and the Big12 known for offense. Then reportedly Saban decided that he wanted his offense to be better because Hugh Freeze's offense was lighting him up.

There might be a difference in average size and average quality of player in the SEC, but the difference isn't great. It isn't an NFL player vs high school player level. (Not saying that is your argument) It isn't even an FBS player vs FCS player level.

 

[CEB]

True, but ...

I just looked at the Week 4 expectations. The SEC will have 7 ranked teams that are most likely 3-0 heading into "match-ups" that are worth something (e.g., Alabama vs. Georgia). The ACC will have 2 ranked teams that are 3-0. That's the situation. The ACC has to do a better job getting more teams into contention by the 4th week.

That translates into viewership for the teams are after that.

It’s a double edged sword, no doubt. The SEC has the benefit of the doubt regardless of their scheduling. They can play cupcakes in week 1-3 and no one will call them out.

ACC teams can do the same but don’t have the benefit of starting out ranked PRESEASON, so the narrative is just, “wait until they play somebody.”

The top 25 just doesn’t change much in September…. Preseason rankings hold for the majority of the teams because the majority of the preseason ranked teams play pretty weak competition. Round we go! The ACC has kind of seized on the opportunity to put bigger matchups in week 1&2 for exactly the reason you state. Take those ratings whenever you can get them!

The real solution is unfortunately the hardest… win football games… particularly the big ones. Moral victories against SEC opponents won't change the narrative.

 

[stinger78]

As the technical types that we are, it seems to me that we are way overthinking this.

The gravy train is almost maxed. They’re already shortening games to allow more ads. The big 2 cannot keep adding teams w/o per team payouts dropping. It won’t be 64 teams in two mega conferences, it will be about half that: 32 teams in a semi-pro division. That’s where it stands today so there’s little growth potential left.

There will also be a place for the other 35-40 current major programs to play, plus some of the lesser programs in the current G5. It will be fine. Different, but fine.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

You said that something will happen within four years. Then when someone said that four years is unrealistic, instead of defending four years you assume their argument to mean that nothing at all will happen until after 2036.

I don’t have defend anything. It’s just my opinion based on everything we’ve all witnessed the past decade. My opinion is that within 4 years teams will be leaving or will have left the ACC. I have no concrete proof of anything just like I have no concrete proof we will beat FSU or lose to FSU. I’m simply looking at the pace of change and I don’t think everything just stops until 2036 because of a contract signed several years ago. Contracts are re-negotiated every day.

And how many times has the playoff changed from the days of the old dudes saying we’ll never have one? The 2 team playoff model lasted 16 years. The 4 team model lasted 10 years. I believe we’ll see an expanded playoff within 4-6 years once the demand is shown to be there and a lot more teams with 2 losses will be right on the cut off line for the 12. The money will be too great to not expand.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

As the technical types that we are, it seems to me that we are way overthinking this.

The gravy train is almost maxed. They’re already shortening games to allow more ads. The big 2 cannot keep adding teams w/o per team payouts dropping. It won’t be 64 teams in two mega conferences, it will be about half that: 32 teams in a semi-pro division. That’s where it stands today so there’s little growth potential left.

There will also be a place for the other 35-40 current major programs to play, plus some of the lesser programs in the current G5. It will be fine. Different, but fine.

The gravy train is no where near maxed out. Ratings are up. Excitement is up. Just because a few traditionalists are getting up there in age and don’t like change doesn’t mean the sport is dying or maxing out. My son who is a current GT student and all his buddies love this new era. They laugh at the old days where the Champ was picked by random sportswriters. They love having playoff games to watch and don’t care if us old guys call it a Sugar or Orange bowl. They love that GT just bought our first 5 star player. And there hasn’t been this much excitement for football on the GT campus in a looooooong time. I understand it’s a different sport from what you watched decades ago, but the sport is strong and growing, not maxing out.

 

[roadkill]

As the technical types that we are, it seems to me that we are way overthinking this.

The gravy train is almost maxed. They’re already shortening games to allow more ads. The big 2 cannot keep adding teams w/o per team payouts dropping. It won’t be 64 teams in two mega conferences, it will be about half that: 32 teams in a semi-pro division. That’s where it stands today so there’s little growth potential left.

There will also be a place for the other 35-40 current major programs to play, plus some of the lesser programs in the current G5. It will be fine. Different, but fine.

I believe your thinking is directionally correct. The result could be a 32-team "Premier" league. Ultimately it's going to converge on whatever arrangement generates the most income.

There may be a way for the top-tier league to have more than 32 teams if the payouts were weighted by playoff appearances. That's essentially already here if you add up the payouts from the conferences to that from the CFP. So for example, you could have a 64-team league with a 32-team CFP, and divvy up the proceeds similarly to what is already being done. I think there is enough revenue potential for an expanded playoff to make it work.

 

[WreckinGT]

As the technical types that we are, it seems to me that we are way overthinking this.

The gravy train is almost maxed. They’re already shortening games to allow more ads. The big 2 cannot keep adding teams w/o per team payouts dropping. It won’t be 64 teams in two mega conferences, it will be about half that: 32 teams in a semi-pro division. That’s where it stands today so there’s little growth potential left.

There will also be a place for the other 35-40 current major programs to play, plus some of the lesser programs in the current G5. It will be fine. Different, but fine.

I think for the most part you are correct, although I think it will be more than 32 teams. I think it will be closer to 40. Where I disagree is in the idea that all of the teams not in that group will be fine. They won't be. They will be relegated and it will hurt them tremendously in many areas. You can't even call them major programs anymore if they aren't playing at the highest level.

 

[stinger78]

I think for the most part you are correct, although I think it will be more than 32 teams. I think it will be closer to 40. Where I disagree is in the idea that all of the teams not in that group will be fine. They won't be. They will be relegated and it will hurt them tremendously in many areas. You can't even call them major programs anymore if they aren't playing at the highest level.

That's a semantic issue. If the top are the "premier" teams why cannot the next level be "major." That's all semantics. Everything will adjust and - IMPO - will be a better "college" football experience for all of us.

 

[CEB]

These last several posts are interesting…

@SOWEGA Jacket -The on field product is certainly strong. Interest is definitely there. People are still excited. No “traditionalists” are complaining about the GAME and no one is longing for the days when multiple top 5 teams could run the table and never see each other on the field. There isn’t much of anything wrong with the game… the fear is everything happening around the game that is conspiring to ruin the on field product. The “gravy train” slowing is the embarrassment of riches extracted from media deals… not the popularity college football (yet). If “traditionalists” are grumbling about anything it’s the fact that many of us see the goose that laid the golden egg with his neck across the chopping block.

@stinger78 and @roadkill - you’re not alone in thinking that there has to be a separation of leagues…. If the largest programs want to keep extracting more media money, they’ll have to shed some “dead weight” and lock up as much broadcast time as possible. All signs seem to point to a massive realignment of LEAGUES, not just conferences. Again, however, I see the goose’s neck on the chopping block. Part of the allure of college football is that everyone has a team in the hunt… even if the odds are astronomically long for most. Big part of what makes it fun is rivalry and all of the reshuffling is killing a lot of those too. I get that some fans will adopt their team and watch the premier league. Even still, I don’t believe you can cut 60-70% of the teams out and still retain anything close to the same level of viewership. IMO you’ll be splitting a much smaller pie and I think it’s terribly short sighted.

Scary, exciting and crazy all at the same time….

 

[Richard7125]

It might be. It used to be that the SEC was known for defense and the Big12 known for offense. Then reportedly Saban decided that he wanted his offense to be better because Hugh Freeze's offense was lighting him up.

There might be a difference in average size and average quality of player in the SEC, but the difference isn't great. It isn't an NFL player vs high school player level. (Not saying that is your argument) It isn't even an FBS player vs FCS player level.

There's not a lot of difference between the middle/crap teams of the SEC and the middle/crap teams of the ACC. There's not a big difference in the top teams of the SEC and the top teams of the ACC. The difference is the SEC has 4 to 5 teams at the top level whereas the ACC has 1 to 2 teams at the top level.

"SEC Speed" was good marketing but was used ad nauseum by lazy announcers. When they refer to "SEC Speed" while televising Bama, UGA, and LSU, they aren't talking about SEC Speed, they are talking about Bama, UGA and LSU speed.

 

[stinger78]

"SEC Speed" was good marketing but was used ad nauseum by lazy announcers. When they refer to "SEC Speed" while televising Bama, UGA, and LSU, they aren't talking about SEC Speed, they are talking about Bama, UGA and LSU speed ... while at the same time, knowingly or unknowingly, contributing to The Narrative that is so false and destructive to all other programs.

FTFY,

 

[cpf2001]

“SEC speed” was brilliant marketing given that it wasn’t really even an approach innovated by the SEC. As I recall, Miami really was the pioneer there, and it really took off after Miami shut down the Nebraska option and the defensive speed got the credit.

At most it was a regional thing that got turned into a conference thing by opportunistic marketing.

this came back up when GT hired Johnson and Miami fans in particular were very obnoxious about how much it wasn’t going to work all the way up through that 2008 blowout.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

“SEC speed” was brilliant marketing given that it wasn’t really even an approach innovated by the SEC. As I recall, Miami really was the pioneer there, and it really took off after Miami shut down the Nebraska option and the defensive speed got the credit.

It’s all marketing and the guys who run the SEC and BIG have run circles around ACC leaders for decades which is why the majority of best players have signed there. Thankfully NIL can now overcome years of indoctrination by the media.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

These last several posts are interesting…

@SOWEGA Jacket -The on field product is certainly strong. Interest is definitely there. People are still excited. No “traditionalists” are complaining about the GAME and no one is longing for the days when multiple top 5 teams could run the table and never see each other on the field. There isn’t much of anything wrong with the game… the fear is everything happening around the game that is conspiring to ruin the on field product. The “gravy train” slowing is the embarrassment of riches extracted from media deals… not the popularity college football (yet). If “traditionalists” are grumbling about anything it’s the fact that many of us see the goose that laid the golden egg with his neck across the chopping block.

@stinger78 and @roadkill - you’re not alone in thinking that there has to be a separation of leagues…. If the largest programs want to keep extracting more media money, they’ll have to shed some “dead weight” and lock up as much broadcast time as possible. All signs seem to point to a massive realignment of LEAGUES, not just conferences. Again, however, I see the goose’s neck on the chopping block. Part of the allure of college football is that everyone has a team in the hunt… even if the odds are astronomically long for most. Big part of what makes it fun is rivalry and all of the reshuffling is killing a lot of those too. I get that some fans will adopt their team and watch the premier league. Even still, I don’t believe you can cut 60-70% of the teams out and still retain anything close to the same level of viewership. IMO you’ll be splitting a much smaller pie and I think it’s terribly short sighted.

Scary, exciting and crazy all at the same time….

But folks are talking about how the sport is being ruined and is doomed yet, as you agree, the sport is strong from all perspectives. To me, folks are simply being negative because they don’t like the changes so they whine and act like the world is ending. College football has one of the strongest and most loyal fanbase of all sports because people actually believe that the school represents them. And with enrollments being up at all schools, the fanbases continue to grow year after year. I know we all make fun of GT’s student body not caring but the enrollment keeps going up and as we win interest will increase. And the big state schools are enrolling new fans in huge numbers every fall that dwarf the fan losses from deaths in much smaller classes in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s.

This talk of killing the golden goose is a total misnomer and in reality means nothing. I could list dozens of schools who haven’t been top tier competitive in a long time yet their fans still show up and spend money because of loyalty (Vandy, GT, South Carolina, Miss St, Ole Miss, UNC, NC State, UVA, Purdue, Wisconsin, etc, etc). I’ve said many times that I know GT doesn’t care if I’m alive or dead yet I still give them my money because I’m a sucker for a place I lived for 5 years. It’s called irrationality.

Look at Ole Miss, a place most of us saw up close last season. An awesome and loyal fanbase who shows up year after year even though they have won absolutely nothing of value in decades. Those fans are the golden goose and if they haven’t left after decades of nothing they simply won’t because it’s more about tradition and “their school” than being a top tier team.

 

[reckrider]

The more I read in this thread the less interest in college sports I find. Over 10000 posts of absolute nonsense. Just watch the games and STFU.