Conference Realignment

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

This is just delusional, No major programs like Stanford, Oregon etc are ever joining the ACC, it’s a death sentence at this point. The ACC is a dead conf walking and you can bet that the teams that are in play for SEC or BIG expansion like Clem, FSU, UM etc are going to figure out a way to break the GOR and kill it with the quickness.

You could have just said you didn't read my post.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

OSU's AD mentioned a couple of years ago that it brings in over $100MM in revenue from its home football games (outside of the TV money). GT's whole budget isn't $100MM. It is very possible to move up in terms of TV payout and find yourself in a worse competitive position than if you do not move up.

This cannot be stated more clearly. Changing conferences isn't a magic pill to cure what's ailing GT football.

 

[Techster]

Interesting analysis:

Big Ten Expansion / ACC Apocalypse Roundtable

With conference realignment rumors in full swing, two things to keep in mind for any rumors that are floated.

www.bcinterruption.com

Key takeaway:

"I do think ESPN is going to find a way to make the ACC whole with respect to TV money. ESPN has zero incentive to watch 2-4 of North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Duke and Florida State head off the Big Ten. Nor do they want to see Virginia Tech and N.C. State go to the SEC, Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Georgia Tech to the Big 12, etc. Unlike the other Big 5 conferences, ESPN is the ACC's lone TV partner. They have more incentive to keep the ACC together more than any of the other four AQ conferences.

Money spent now is money saved down the road. If ESPN sits idle and watches as the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 expand at the ACC's expense, the WWL would be losing share to FOX (Big Ten and Big 12) and CBS (SEC). I doubt ESPN has any interest in propping up two of their main competitors at the expense of their own television inventory.

Put another way, fewer power conferences is bad for ESPN's business. Further conference consolidation of college football's content providers gives those conferences significant more leverage and bargaining power in negotiations with ESPN, driving the price of these media rights contracts even higher."

That's pretty much what I said RE ESPN letting the ACC teams join a conference of their biggest competitor (FOX). Again, GT is stuck between a rock and a hard place...as are the rest of the ACC schools.

 

[forensicbuzz]

This cannot be stated more clearly. Changing conferences isn't a magic pill to cure what's ailing GT football.

No, but if we're not relevant, we won't get the caliber of players necessary to compete, at all. If we're still playing big-boy football, we at least have a chance.

 

[Billygoat91]

No, but if we're not relevant, we won't get the caliber of players necessary to compete, at all. If we're still playing big-boy football, we at least have a chance.

I agree. Money and fan support is the problem outside of our on-the-field results. A better TV deal through another conference is a sure-fire way to increase cash flow while we work out the other problems and try to increase our talent pool.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

No, but if we're not relevant, we won't get the caliber of players necessary to compete, at all. If we're still playing big-boy football, we at least have a chance.

Being a poor team in a rich conference isn't a cure all. Ask Vandy.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Being a poor team in a rich conference isn't a cure all. Ask Vandy.

Who said anything about a cure? If you're not in the game, you can't win.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Who said anything about a cure? If you're not in the game, you can't win.

Still misses the point made. Unless GT manages to make up ground in finances, it matters not where we play, we still won't be in the game. We will fall even further behind our conference opponents while we celebrate how much extra money we have and the fact that we can somehow now "compete" against even more factories who double and even triple the revenue we have available.

 

[gdamian]

I know it's unlikely to happen but what would have to happen for a school to be kicked out of the ACC? Wouldn't a smaller conference of Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, NC State, UNC, UVA, and VT and maybe even joining forces with Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal create a lot more revenue per team?

How much does Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and BC really make for the conference? Duke football is a total drain. And Wake Forest brings nothing.

Hell, why does the SEC keep Vanderbilt around?

Vandy is in a great spot for this reason... if I am on the outside looking in why not approach vandy and make them an offer they can't refuse to leave the sec. For example Oregon or perhaps WV approaches vandy and says I'll give you y% of the SEC revenue for the next x years for swapping places with me. Geography makes a difference for Vandy so they probably aren't interested in having all of their ooc games on the west coast so that is why I mentioned WV, or could just as easily be OK St. I think the weaker teams of the B1G (NW or Purdue or Indiana) could also be approached this way.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Still misses the point made. Unless GT manages to make up ground in finances, it matters not where we play, we still won't be in the game. We will fall even further behind our conference opponents while we celebrate how much extra money we have and the fact that we can somehow now "compete" against even more factories who double and even triple the revenue we have available.

No, you're missing the point. If we're in the game, we have a chance, however small. If we're not in the game, we have zero chance.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

No, you're missing the point. If we're in the game, we have a chance, however small. If we're not in the game, we have zero chance.

We won't be in the game. That's my point. Were we to return to the $EC we still wouldn't be in the game. Being in the same conference isn't the same thing. We won't be in the game unless we fix what's wrong with GT football.

FWIW, I am not arguing that if it ends up as two super-conferences we shouldn't be in one. I'm saying it won't matter even if we are if we don't get our financial house in order and start generating revenue to compete.

 

[stech81]

And here we go…

First for those who were on the hive years ago Mhver3 was a kook from West Virgania and hates the ACC .

 

[GTRX7]

Fans are also misunderstanding the additional revenue. From an intra-conference standpoint every school is getting the same TV payout. So being in a different conference does not help you in terms of competing with your conference brethren (which is probably 75% of your games), it only helps in competing with your OOC opponents. If GT gets $100M for being in the B10, so does every other school. That does nothing to make up the difference that the larger schools with larger brands have the advantage in raising additional revenue. OSU's AD mentioned a couple of years ago that it brings in over $100MM in revenue from its home football games (outside of the TV money). GT's whole budget isn't $100MM. It is very possible to move up in terms of TV payout and find yourself in a worse competitive position than if you do not move up.

I will quibble with this point. When considering differences in spend v. competitive value, one must take into account the economic idea of marginal value. Lets look at three scenarios where, in each, Team A has $100M less to spend on football than Team B.
Scenario 1: Team A has a total football budget of $1M; Team B has a total budget of $101M
Scenario 2: Team A has $50M budget; Team B has $150M
Scenario 3: Team A has $400M budget; Team B has $500M budget

While the absolute difference is the same in each scenario ($100M), Team A has basically zero chance of competing in Scenario 1 and has pretty good chance of competing in Scenario 3.

Right now, it seems like Tech is pretty close to Scenario 2, where our operating budget is absolutely dwarfed by the bigger schools, we barely have enough to operate (in fact I think we operate at a loss), and we have no ability to even make changes when needed or the money to at least be competitive in some areas of spend, even if not all (e.g., coaches salaries, or recruiting budget, or facilities, or etc.)

If we move Tech closer to Scenario 3, now we have a chance to compete with the top schools if we are smart and efficient with our spend. The value of each additional dollar from $400M to $500M in terms of competitive advantage is significantly less than the value of each dollar from $1M to $101M. While we would still be outspent by our competitors by a big amount, we would at least have money to make changes when needed and put resources into being truly competitive in at least some areas (most significantly coaching salaries).

So, while I think we would most likely still be at a huge disadvantage in the B10 if we were to join, the new money would at least give us a margin for error and a fighter's chance in that it would provide us at least enough resources to make some important decisions with money that we cannot even fathom right now. I am not saying we WOULD be competitive. but it gives us a better chance that we COULD be.

 

[slugboy]

B12 possibly getting bigger.


If the B1G was thinking "we can pick those other teams up in 4 years", then maybe this move shakes things up.

Right now, it seems like Tech is pretty close to Scenario 2, where our operating budget is absolutely dwarfed by the bigger schools, we barely have enough to operate (in fact I think we operate at a loss), and we have no ability to even make changes when needed or the money to at least be competitive in some areas of spend, even if not all (e.g., coaches salaries, or recruiting budget, or facilities, or etc.)

I may have to dig around, but a lot of athletic departments seem to run flat revenues or at a loss. We're unusually debt-laden, though.

 

[RamblinRed]

First for those who were on the hive years ago Mhver3 was a kook from West Virgania and hates the ACC .

Is that who Josh Pate is. Talk about one of the kooks of all kooks.
He was definitely a person who was constantly talking about things he really didn't know anything about - and always anti-ACC and always predicting imminent doom for the conference, It became sort of fun over on the Hive to mock him and see just how many wrong predictions he could make.

 

[RamblinRed]

B12 possibly getting bigger.


If the B1G was thinking "we can pick those other teams up in 4 years", then maybe this move shakes things up.



I may have to dig around, but a lot of athletic departments seem to run flat revenues or at a loss. We're unusually debt-laden, though.

Do keep in mind that Dodds has been a long time B12 shill who always paints a rosy picture for that conference. What he is saying may be true, and I think ultimately just due to how close they are in terms of geography and in terms of when their contracts are all up that there is going to be some back and forth between those 2 conferences.

 

[RonJohn]

B12 possibly getting bigger.


If the B1G was thinking "we can pick those other teams up in 4 years", then maybe this move shakes things up.

This is something that actually could end the ACC GOR. If the SEC were to go to 24 by adding 5 ACC teams and 3 big12/pac12 teams, and the Big10 were to go to 24 by adding 4 or 5 ACC teams - ND- Oregon and Stanford, would the remaining 4-5 ACC teams rebuild the ACC as a lesser conference to try to keep the GOR money or would they try to form a new conference with the other teams from the Big12/Pac12? I am not advocating for such a shake-up, but I do think such a thing might be possible. The ACC might not even exist a year from now.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

This is something that actually could end the ACC GOR. If the SEC were to go to 24 by adding 5 ACC teams and 3 big12/pac12 teams, and the Big10 were to go to 24 by adding 4 or 5 ACC teams - ND- Oregon and Stanford, would the remaining 4-5 ACC teams rebuild the ACC as a lesser conference to try to keep the GOR money or would they try to form a new conference with the other teams from the Big12/Pac12? I am not advocating for such a shake-up, but I do think such a thing might be possible. The ACC might not even exist a year from now.

They could do both...

 

[RamblinRed]

I will quibble with this point. When considering differences in spend v. competitive value, one must take into account the economic idea of marginal value. Lets look at three scenarios where, in each, Team A has $100M less to spend on football than Team B.
Scenario 1: Team A has a total football budget of $1M; Team B has a total budget of $101M
Scenario 2: Team A has $50M budget; Team B has $150M
Scenario 3: Team A has $400M budget; Team B has $500M budget

While the absolute difference is the same in each scenario ($100M), Team A has basically zero chance of competing in Scenario 1 and has pretty good chance of competing in Scenario 3.

Right now, it seems like Tech is pretty close to Scenario 2, where our operating budget is absolutely dwarfed by the bigger schools, we barely have enough to operate (in fact I think we operate at a loss), and we have no ability to even make changes when needed or the money to at least be competitive in some areas of spend, even if not all (e.g., coaches salaries, or recruiting budget, or facilities, or etc.)

If we move Tech closer to Scenario 3, now we have a chance to compete with the top schools if we are smart and efficient with our spend. The value of each additional dollar from $400M to $500M in terms of competitive advantage is significantly less than the value of each dollar from $1M to $101M. While we would still be outspent by our competitors by a big amount, we would at least have money to make changes when needed and put resources into being truly competitive in at least some areas (most significantly coaching salaries).

So, while I think we would most likely still be at a huge disadvantage in the B10 if we were to join, the new money would at least give us a margin for error and a fighter's chance in that it would provide us at least enough resources to make some important decisions with money that we cannot even fathom right now. I am not saying we WOULD be competitive. but it gives us a better chance that we COULD be.

Good points.

I'll say I don't think GT will ever get close to Scenario 3 - even if it jumped to the B10. It would probably be something more like GT has a $150M budget and the Top schools in the conference have $250-300M budgets. I think that is the most realistic outcome of a jump to one of the Top 2 conferences.

There is a 4th scenario. Say a school has a $75M budget and then ends up in a conference where it ends up with a $100M budget and all the other members of that conference end up with 90-120M budgets.
Or maybe its a tier 2 conference and the rights ultimately go down, more in line with $60-90M budgets You actually have more room for error to compete with your other conference members in this case as you are all closer in resources. Also in this case you aren't competing at all with the conferences where you have $200-300M budgets. You are not playing for the same championship. You are playing for a different championship.

That is where I sort of feel like FBS college football is headed. To multiple tiers with multiple championships. More like HS sports actually where you have championships for AAAA, AAA, AA, A, etc. For the schools involved are those championships feeling any different based on the classification?

I think the decision as a fan ultimately comes down to what is most important to you. Is it competing for a championship at the Big 2 level, or is it competing for a championship at a level that matches what you are. Different fans are going to have different feelings about that and they are all legitimate. Fans are talking about if you don't end up in the Big 2 you won't receive the money that allows you to recruit the recruits that end up in the Big 2. That is absolutely correct. But that is not necessarily the most important question. The most important question is will you have the resources to compete at whatever level (tier) you are in.

My viewpoint is likely shaped by my background (undergrad from GT, grad school at Penn). It is not as important to me to be competing at the 'highest' level in terms of resources. It is important to me to be competing at a level where we have a legit shot against our opponents and our opponents have the beliefs in terms of the rules and regulations as we do.

These are all very interesting discussions, but I am also not really expecting alot of movement in ACC schools in the next couple of years. I think it is less likely than more likely that even 1 ACC school departs in the next 2 years. Now come the end of 2024 I think that could be different, But right now I think the biggest task is to figure out where you want to be long term and put yourself in the best position to get there over the next few years.

 

[RonJohn]

They could do both...

They could form a leque with the remaining Big12/Pac12 schools and still call themselves the ACC. I am not a lawyer, but I think if they were operating as a different entity it would open up all kinds of avenues for contesting the contracts. It would probably take years of courts and negotiations, but would probably result in a settlement.