Conference Realignment

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,991
Then give it to us. Show me the law that says GT can’t support their athletic association. You guys will do anything to keep your 60 years worth of excuses going. There are no more excuses. You either do what it takes to win or get relegated. GT hid behind “calculus” for decades and our fans bought in to that excuse and even wore it as a badge of honor as our program dwindled. Now we hide behind the “money” excuse. Give me a break. Bottom line is GT does not care enough about athletics to.do what it takes. And they wonder why our stadium is a 3rd full and red every other November.
Even ALABAMA has never co-mingled funds in the way you suggest.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,976
Location
Augusta, Georgia

It's complicated. The legislature has empowered the BOR to set policy. Here is their policy, which does seem to allow for some very limited support, as far as I can glean:

From the Board of Regents Policy Manual:

4.5.8 Funding of Intercollegiate Athletic Programs​

For the purpose of this policy, the USG has adopted the definitions of revenues and expenses provided by the NCAA for the Financial Reporting System as outlined below and to be further defined in the USG Business Procedures Manual. The NCAA Financial Reporting System aims to capture all revenues and expenses on behalf of an institution’s intercollegiate athletics program, including those by outside entities (e.g. foundations, booster clubs) and institutions similarly shall include all intercollegiate athletics revenue and expense to include entities operating on behalf of the institution’s athletics program.

As used in this Policy, “Athletics Operating Revenue” is the total revenue generated by the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. “Direct Institutional Support” is the direct financial support provided by the institution to the athletics programs (e.g., tuition funds) used to support intercollegiate athletic activities. “Subsidy” is the sum of direct institutional support and student fees and does not include the value of out-of-state tuition waivers. “Subsidy Percentage” is the subsidy divided by athletics operating revenue as defined in the USG Business Procedures Manual. “Athletics Operating Expense” is the total expense spent by the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. Athletics Operating Revenue, Direct Institutional Support, Subsidy, Subsidy Percentage, and Athletic Operating Expense shall be further defined in the USG Business Procedures Manual.

Institutions may expend Education & General fund resources on behalf of the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program except as noted: Institutions must not expend Fund 10000 state appropriations on athletics and must not expend Education & General fund resources in support of athletic scholarships.

A. A form will be provided to ensure a standardized reporting format for each institution to annually report its intercollegiate athletics revenues and expenses in accordance with Section 4.5.6.1.

B. The subsidy percentage shall not exceed:

  • 10% for NCAA DI-A institutions affiliated with the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC; often referred to as the Power 5;
  • 65%: NCAA DI-A institutions affiliated with other conferences;
  • 75% for NCAA Division I-AA institutions;
  • 80% for NCAA Division II institutions;
  • 85% for NAIA and NJCAA institutions.
C. Except for the Power 5 institutions, total athletic operating expenses may not increase by more than 5% annually unless approved in advance by the Chancellor.

D. Effective July 1, 2016, each institution exceeding the allowable subsidy percentage in the prior fiscal year shall submit to the Chancellor a plan for approval that reduces the subsidy over a fiscal year period, not to exceed four years, until the subsidy percentage complies with the requirements of subsection B. Failure to be in compliance in four years shall, at the discretion of the Chancellor, result in athletics programming mandates from the Chancellor including but not limited to reduction or change in sport offerings, change in conference affiliation, and change in governing body or division membership. Any institutions below these caps will have one year to get back in compliance.

The problem is that in the past he has questioned why we can't take money designated for baseball and golf, for example, who have parties that give to them exclusively for their use and funnel it to football instead. It has been explained why the academic grants, of which GT gets tons, cannot legally be funneled to football. We can explain many times again, but he'd rather hit you with a poorly thought out hot take rather than debate on the actual merits.
 

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,739

It's complicated. The legislature has empowered the BOR to set policy. Here is their policy, which does seem to allow for some very limited support, as far as I can glean:

From the Board of Regents Policy Manual:

4.5.8 Funding of Intercollegiate Athletic Programs​

For the purpose of this policy, the USG has adopted the definitions of revenues and expenses provided by the NCAA for the Financial Reporting System as outlined below and to be further defined in the USG Business Procedures Manual. The NCAA Financial Reporting System aims to capture all revenues and expenses on behalf of an institution’s intercollegiate athletics program, including those by outside entities (e.g. foundations, booster clubs) and institutions similarly shall include all intercollegiate athletics revenue and expense to include entities operating on behalf of the institution’s athletics program.

As used in this Policy, “Athletics Operating Revenue” is the total revenue generated by the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. “Direct Institutional Support” is the direct financial support provided by the institution to the athletics programs (e.g., tuition funds) used to support intercollegiate athletic activities. “Subsidy” is the sum of direct institutional support and student fees and does not include the value of out-of-state tuition waivers. “Subsidy Percentage” is the subsidy divided by athletics operating revenue as defined in the USG Business Procedures Manual. “Athletics Operating Expense” is the total expense spent by the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. Athletics Operating Revenue, Direct Institutional Support, Subsidy, Subsidy Percentage, and Athletic Operating Expense shall be further defined in the USG Business Procedures Manual.

Institutions may expend Education & General fund resources on behalf of the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program except as noted: Institutions must not expend Fund 10000 state appropriations on athletics and must not expend Education & General fund resources in support of athletic scholarships.

A. A form will be provided to ensure a standardized reporting format for each institution to annually report its intercollegiate athletics revenues and expenses in accordance with Section 4.5.6.1.

B. The subsidy percentage shall not exceed:

  • 10% for NCAA DI-A institutions affiliated with the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC; often referred to as the Power 5;
  • 65%: NCAA DI-A institutions affiliated with other conferences;
  • 75% for NCAA Division I-AA institutions;
  • 80% for NCAA Division II institutions;
  • 85% for NAIA and NJCAA institutions.
C. Except for the Power 5 institutions, total athletic operating expenses may not increase by more than 5% annually unless approved in advance by the Chancellor.

D. Effective July 1, 2016, each institution exceeding the allowable subsidy percentage in the prior fiscal year shall submit to the Chancellor a plan for approval that reduces the subsidy over a fiscal year period, not to exceed four years, until the subsidy percentage complies with the requirements of subsection B. Failure to be in compliance in four years shall, at the discretion of the Chancellor, result in athletics programming mandates from the Chancellor including but not limited to reduction or change in sport offerings, change in conference affiliation, and change in governing body or division membership. Any institutions below these caps will have one year to get back in compliance.
Assuming we are hitting the max 10% now, do we know how much that is? It sounds like if we were to join a non-P5 conference or go independent, we could increase that amount substantially, although we would lose at least a significant portion of the ACC payout relative to whatever new media contract we could put together.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,147
Location
Auburn, AL
Assuming we are hitting the max 10% now, do we know how much that is? It sounds like if we were to join a non-P5 conference or go independent, we could increase that amount substantially, although we would lose at least a significant portion of the ACC payout relative to whatever new media contract we could put together.
Most, if not all, of the contributions by Tech are in the form of non cash tuition waivers for out of state players.
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,937
The problem is that in the past he has questioned why we can't take money designated for baseball and golf, for example, who have parties that give to them exclusively for their use and funnel it to football instead. It has been explained why the academic grants, of which GT gets tons, cannot legally be funneled to football. We can explain many times again, but he'd rather hit you with a poorly thought out hot take rather than debate on the actual merits.
Nope. Never said take money from one sport to give to another. As pointed above the BOR has the power. And who runs the BOR? And which school got an engineering program approved by the BOR? And which school gets everything they want and which school has fans scared to death of the almighty NCAA? GT is good at one thing when it comes to athletics - excuses.
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,937
You seem to have a willful disregard for the law, as it has been explained to you many times over why this isn't allowed...
Not at all. I have a willful disregard for playing a game with a different set of rules than others. GT needs to change the process like UGA did when they wanted an engineering program. How many here said “no way they’ll get an engineering program because of current rules and laws”. And what did the BOR do? They changed the freaking rules. That’s all I’m saying. GT has serious clout and uses it in everything other than athletics where all we hear are excuses.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,147
Location
Auburn, AL
Not at all. I have a willful disregard for playing a game with a different set of rules than others. GT needs to change the process like UGA did when they wanted an engineering program. How many here said “no way they’ll get an engineering program because of current rules and laws”. And what did the BOR do? They changed the freaking rules. That’s all I’m saying. GT has serious clout and uses it in everything other than athletics where all we hear are excuses.
Didn’t the BOR let Tech start a business school when others, including Athens, already had pretty good ones?

Tech is no different than 100 other schools that are also struggling with rapid change in their athletic programs. Ultimately, Tech will make a decision that is best for Tech. The reality is there are no easy answers.

I’m proud of the fact that despite ALL of the challenges, Tech is still playing D1 sports. That alone is impressive.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,662
Location
Oriental, NC
The problem is that in the past he has questioned why we can't take money designated for baseball and golf, for example, who have parties that give to them exclusively for their use and funnel it to football instead. It has been explained why the academic grants, of which GT gets tons, cannot legally be funneled to football. We can explain many times again, but he'd rather hit you with a poorly thought out hot take rather than debate on the actual merits.
This discussion about the BOR and moving money around needs a new thread. It's not related to the B1G expansion.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,038
This discussion about the BOR and moving money around needs a new thread. It's not related to the B1G expansion.
Is this the pitch for big 10??

Please let us in big 10 or SEC super conference
Just look at our accn record - gt takes the tv money from the big games and raise less money ( donations + tickets) than anyone).
If you let us get the big football tv money we can get even lower donations from the all our millionaires who make jokes about being your boss.

Sadly, even if we win on field this year or the next but don't show sustainablity, which is spelled w capitol $$$$ we are a Vanderbilt with slide rule.

Tv wants exciting games. Gt is a great candidate. If we get the $$$ flowing we will compete at top of acc and midlevel at super conference
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,109
Didn’t the BOR let Tech start a business school when others, including Athens, already had pretty good ones?

Tech is no different than 100 other schools that are also struggling with rapid change in their athletic programs. Ultimately, Tech will make a decision that is best for Tech. The reality is there are no easy answers.

I’m proud of the fact that despite ALL of the challenges, Tech is still playing D1 sports. That alone is impressive.
If the BOR hadn't done that, we'd be in the Southern Conference right now. But I think both were established in 1912.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,982
...and here it is. I believe this is the first time it's been explicitly stated by someone representing the B1G regarding their long term plans. National level conference.


Everything is about to change.

“I think Big Ten football, through the chancellors and presidents, has made the decision to try to be national,” Carter said.
......

“That’s one of the reasons I wanted to see expansion. For our league to have national exposure in four time zones is fantastic.

“How big should it be? I don’t have the answer to that. Do we need four more Pac-12 teams that want to join? Time is going to tell.”


Years ago I said B1G and SEC were playing a different game from the rest of the college landscape (and NCAA). Lots of posters here couldn't wrap their heads around it. We are coming ever closer to semi pro (if not full on professionalizing) college sports.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,705
...and here it is. I believe this is the first time it's been explicitly stated by someone representing the B1G regarding their long term plans. National level conference.


Everything is about to change.

“I think Big Ten football, through the chancellors and presidents, has made the decision to try to be national,” Carter said.
......

“That’s one of the reasons I wanted to see expansion. For our league to have national exposure in four time zones is fantastic.

“How big should it be? I don’t have the answer to that. Do we need four more Pac-12 teams that want to join? Time is going to tell.”


Years ago I said B1G and SEC were playing a different game from the rest of the college landscape (and NCAA). Lots of posters here couldn't wrap their heads around it. We are coming ever closer to semi pro (if not full on professionalizing) college sports.
That article also quotes the Nebraska president as saying:
'On where Big Ten presidents are philosophically: “Here’s the deal. I don’t know. Who are the Big Ten presidents? Eight have turned over in the last year. I don’t know what they’re thinking right now. There’s going to be some really interesting Big Ten meetings in the future.”'

It reads like the reporter took snippets and made a narrative out of it. The president said that he "wanted" to see expansion, not that he still wants expansion. He said that he doesn't know if the expansion to USC and UCLA is enough or not. Maybe they take four more PAC-12 teams, maybe not. He basically said the ACC situation is messy, and that he isn't clear on all of the details.

It is interesting to read that a Big10 president said there might be more expansion. However, like I said, I think this reporter took snippets and mixed them with innuendo to make a larger story than it is.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,982
That article also quotes the Nebraska president as saying:
'On where Big Ten presidents are philosophically: “Here’s the deal. I don’t know. Who are the Big Ten presidents? Eight have turned over in the last year. I don’t know what they’re thinking right now. There’s going to be some really interesting Big Ten meetings in the future.”'

It reads like the reporter took snippets and made a narrative out of it. The president said that he "wanted" to see expansion, not that he still wants expansion. He said that he doesn't know if the expansion to USC and UCLA is enough or not. Maybe they take four more PAC-12 teams, maybe not. He basically said the ACC situation is messy, and that he isn't clear on all of the details.

It is interesting to read that a Big10 president said there might be more expansion. However, like I said, I think this reporter took snippets and mixed them with innuendo to make a larger story than it is.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out where this is all going for the B1G. B1G presidents (and commissioners) change, but I highly doubt the master plan for the B1G conference changes. Target schools may change due to rapidly changing regional population shifts, but the overall plan ex commissioner Kevin Warren put into motion seems to be on track: Acquire schools in large media markets where there's also a professional sports presence. HIring the new B1G commissioner who is proficient in sports media and media properties just affirms it. NU president saying those things wasn't done in a vacuum...as I'm sure he's repeating what he's either seen or heard himself. No one makes a statement like that out of the blue.

Before that article, no one from the B1G would mention the word "national" with the conference. You really have to have blinders on at this point to deny B1G has national aspirations. The only two regions the B1G lacks now is the Southwest and Southeast. The only "properties" worth taking in the Southwest is Texas, and both major TX schools (UTexas and TAMU) are in the SEC. The only thing preventing the B1G acquiring property in the Southeast is the ACC's GOR. Practically everyone understands that if not for the GOR (and GT's short sightedness), B1G would be in the South already.

IMO, if GT had said "Yes" to the B1G a decade ago, I'm sure it would have been more than just GT in the B1G from the ACC Southeast. Maybe I'm overplaying GT's importance, but I think it was a masterstroke by Swofford to convince GT to remain in the ACC. ACC kept their largest media market thus ability to extract more media $$$ in their next negotiations (which was ultimately bungled by the detrimentally long GOR). The only party that didn't understand GT's worth was GT's decision makers.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,991
It doesn't take a genius to figure out where this is all going for the B1G. B1G presidents (and commissioners) change, but I highly doubt the master plan for the B1G conference changes. Target schools may change due to rapidly changing regional population shifts, but the overall plan ex commissioner Kevin Warren put into motion seems to be on track: Acquire schools in large media markets where there's also a professional sports presence. HIring the new B1G commissioner who is proficient in sports media and media properties just affirms it. NU president saying those things wasn't done in a vacuum...as I'm sure he's repeating what he's either seen or heard himself. No one makes a statement like that out of the blue.

Before that article, no one from the B1G would mention the word "national" with the conference. You really have to have blinders on at this point to deny B1G has national aspirations. The only two regions the B1G lacks now is the Southwest and Southeast. The only "properties" worth taking in the Southwest is Texas, and both major TX schools (UTexas and TAMU) are in the SEC. The only thing preventing the B1G acquiring property in the Southeast is the ACC's GOR. Practically everyone understands that if not for the GOR (and GT's short sightedness), B1G would be in the South already.

IMO, if GT had said "Yes" to the B1G a decade ago, I'm sure it would have been more than just GT in the B1G from the ACC Southeast. Maybe I'm overplaying GT's importance, but I think it was a masterstroke by Swofford to convince GT to remain in the ACC. ACC kept their largest media market thus ability to extract more media $$$ in their next negotiations (which was ultimately bungled by the detrimentally long GOR). The only party that didn't understand GT's worth was GT's decision makers.
This rings true to me. Had Tech gone to the B1G I think Virginia and Duke might have followed. The B1G settled for Maryland and Rutgers almost by default.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,705
It doesn't take a genius to figure out where this is all going for the B1G. B1G presidents (and commissioners) change, but I highly doubt the master plan for the B1G conference changes. Target schools may change due to rapidly changing regional population shifts, but the overall plan ex commissioner Kevin Warren put into motion seems to be on track: Acquire schools in large media markets where there's also a professional sports presence. HIring the new B1G commissioner who is proficient in sports media and media properties just affirms it. NU president saying those things wasn't done in a vacuum...as I'm sure he's repeating what he's either seen or heard himself. No one makes a statement like that out of the blue.

Before that article, no one from the B1G would mention the word "national" with the conference. You really have to have blinders on at this point to deny B1G has national aspirations. The only two regions the B1G lacks now is the Southwest and Southeast. The only "properties" worth taking in the Southwest is Texas, and both major TX schools (UTexas and TAMU) are in the SEC. The only thing preventing the B1G acquiring property in the Southeast is the ACC's GOR. Practically everyone understands that if not for the GOR (and GT's short sightedness), B1G would be in the South already.

IMO, if GT had said "Yes" to the B1G a decade ago, I'm sure it would have been more than just GT in the B1G from the ACC Southeast. Maybe I'm overplaying GT's importance, but I think it was a masterstroke by Swofford to convince GT to remain in the ACC. ACC kept their largest media market thus ability to extract more media $$$ in their next negotiations (which was ultimately bungled by the detrimentally long GOR). The only party that didn't understand GT's worth was GT's decision makers.
I don't disagree that the Big10 is moving to be a national conference. They pretty much already will be since they will be in the Northeast, Midwest, and West very soon. I am not saying that the points in the article are provably false. I am stating that the article is trash.

My complaint is that the article makes it sound like adding additional PAC12 schools is imminent. The author paraphrases recent blogging about the "magnificent seven", and such. Even the direct quotes from the NU president are confusing. He stated "I think we have another year or two of the status quo, with a few minor changes. But I think over the next year there’s going to be a lot of big changes that are going to happen." So which is it? Will there be another year or two of the status quo, or will big changes happen within the next year? Is this a formal, recorded, sit-down interview with the NU president? Can a major university president not contradict himself in consecutive sentences? Are these snippets that the reporter didn't record but remembered when chatting while walking down a hall? The writing style is not good. The article mixes Twitter innuendo with supposed quotes. The supposed quotes

The writing style is not good. The article mixes Twitter innuendo with supposed quotes. The supposed quotes sound more like someone who doesn't have an education than from a university president. Such things make me doubt the legitimacy and integrity of the author. It appears to me that he is blowing smoke to "prove" that there is a huge fire underneath it. This reporting is not any better than the Twitter and blogger threads that predicted that the ACC was going to dissolve last week at the meetings.

EDIT: I have stated before that I take in information from as many sources as I can access, and make decisions for myself about what to believe. There are sources of information that I have more trust in because I have seen them to be accurate before. I pay attention to quality of the information, and will disregard information if it appears to be lacking in facts or integrity. I usually ignore all of the commentating in articles and try to concentrate on actual facts. I don't know this author, and this article appears to be intentionally misleading.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,982
I don't disagree that the Big10 is moving to be a national conference. They pretty much already will be since they will be in the Northeast, Midwest, and West very soon. I am not saying that the points in the article are provably false. I am stating that the article is trash.

My complaint is that the article makes it sound like adding additional PAC12 schools is imminent. The author paraphrases recent blogging about the "magnificent seven", and such. Even the direct quotes from the NU president are confusing. He stated "I think we have another year or two of the status quo, with a few minor changes. But I think over the next year there’s going to be a lot of big changes that are going to happen." So which is it? Will there be another year or two of the status quo, or will big changes happen within the next year? Is this a formal, recorded, sit-down interview with the NU president? Can a major university president not contradict himself in consecutive sentences? Are these snippets that the reporter didn't record but remembered when chatting while walking down a hall? The writing style is not good. The article mixes Twitter innuendo with supposed quotes. The supposed quotes

The writing style is not good. The article mixes Twitter innuendo with supposed quotes. The supposed quotes sound more like someone who doesn't have an education than from a university president. Such things make me doubt the legitimacy and integrity of the author. It appears to me that he is blowing smoke to "prove" that there is a huge fire underneath it. This reporting is not any better than the Twitter and blogger threads that predicted that the ACC was going to dissolve last week at the meetings.

I don't disagree that the execution was clunky. I do think the overall message was correct: B1G is heading to a national level conference.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,705
I don't disagree that the execution was clunky. I do think the overall message was correct: B1G is heading to a national level conference.
I don't disagree with that assessment, but I wouldn't have disagreed with it before reading this article either.

Where things are going to go is still unknown, and most likely unknown even to the people who have the most knowledge. Is the SEC really interested in ACC teams at all? North Carolina might make sense. Virginia might make sense. The Florida teams might add some compelling matchups, but think outside of what people in the Southeast are thinking. Oregon in the SEC could make for as compelling matchups as either FSU or Miami. It would spread the SEC outside of the Southeast/Southwest. People in the Southeast seem to forget that the Southeast isn't the entire country. Not everyone in the country is as involved in SEC sports as people in Atlanta. What if the SEC added Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and Colorado instead of four ACC teams? The importance of TV markets is declining, but if the SEC remains geo-locked into the South, as the Big 10 becomes a national conference, where will most of the people in the country spend their attention? In the redneck South? or in the national brand that is either in their state or one state over?

I think the Big 10 will expand more. I think the SEC will expand more, and probably to areas that people are not thinking about currently. I think the teams in the ACC are locked in for at least another 7-10 years. The new Big 10 TV contract that eclipses the ACC contract will expire in 2030. The new SEC contract that eclipses the ACC contract will expire in 2034. I don't have a crystal ball, but that is when I expect things to really shake up. The Big 10 or SEC might add Oregon and Washington very soon as the PAC12 doesn't have a new TV contract yet. However, I don't see any teams leaving the ACC until years from now.
 
Top