Conference Realignment

[Sheboygan]

I disagree with the poster but I think you miss their point. You open up the Dallas market for all the alumni from the ACC in the Dallas area. And even SMU fans might show up to see FSU, Clemson or Miami.

Well certainly SMU wouldn't seem to be "hampered" by tough academic requirements.

 

[bobongo]

I disagree with the poster but I think you miss their point. You open up the Dallas market for all the alumni from the ACC in the Dallas area. And even SMU fans might show up to see FSU, Clemson or Miami.

There may be some value there but the Mustangs? Diluting the conference for a thin slice of a mostly cornered media market seems a chase after fools' gold. ACC alumni aren't going to amount to much compared to the hordes of Aggie and Longhorn fans. In the long run, conferences would do well to give much greater consideration to compelling matchups than media markets. Or so it seems to me.

 

[slugboy]

If you look at the differences between the contracts, the ACC is in nearly as many markets as the SEC or B1G, and has very good coverage for large markets.
The difference is the anchor or premium broadcasts. The SEC and B1G are getting more "headliner” games on FOX, ABC, And ESPN, and they're getting paid more for them. It's the big, top 25 marquee matchups--rivalries and big games.
What the ACC needs are more big and exciting games and full stadiums. We need good and exciting matchups every week.
It hurts us that Miami and VT and UNC and FSU aren't great right now. A great GT would help. Clemson having a bad year hurts us. We have too many teams outside the top 10 and top 25.

 

[iceeater1969]

If you look at the differences between the contracts, the ACC is in nearly as many markets as the SEC or B1G, and has very good coverage for large markets.
The difference is the anchor or premium broadcasts. The SEC and B1G are getting more "headliner” games on FOX, ABC, And ESPN, and they're getting paid more for them. It's the big, top 25 marquee matchups--rivalries and big games.
What the ACC needs are more big and exciting games and full stadiums. We need good and exciting matchups every week.
It hurts us that Miami and VT and UNC and FSU aren't great right now. A great GT would help. Clemson having a bad year hurts us. We have too many teams outside the top 10 and top 25.

Isn't winning made way more likely by the long term alumni and fan donations + season ticket purchases? Since all the acc teams get equal cut of tv, the ones with the most donations and tickets have more to spend on coaches.

What quality coach would come to a school w cheap alumni?

First comes the difficult giving then comes winning.

Gt ATL location and national reputation are a major plus and could save us from oblivion. We need to improve in win column this year and start a major championship fund raising drive.

There is a web site that shows where each college gets their players. Lots of players near ATL.
A big 10 coach would love to be able to tell an Atl area recruit he play in or near ATL at several times while in big 1

 

[Northeast Stinger]

There may be some value there but the Mustangs? Diluting the conference for a thin slice of a mostly cornered media market seems a chase after fools' gold. ACC alumni aren't going to amount to much compared to the hordes of Aggie and Longhorn fans. In the long run, conferences would do well to give much greater consideration to compelling matchups than media markets. Or so it seems to me.

I agree. Like I said, I disagree with the poster. The B1G adding SMU makes more sense since their alumni base is huge and they populate all the major TV markets.

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

If you look at the differences between the contracts, the ACC is in nearly as many markets as the SEC or B1G, and has very good coverage for large markets.
The difference is the anchor or premium broadcasts. The SEC and B1G are getting more "headliner” games on FOX, ABC, And ESPN, and they're getting paid more for them. It's the big, top 25 marquee matchups--rivalries and big games.
What the ACC needs are more big and exciting games and full stadiums. We need good and exciting matchups every week.
It hurts us that Miami and VT and UNC and FSU aren't great right now. A great GT would help. Clemson having a bad year hurts us. We have too many teams outside the top 10 and top 25.

The next 10 years needs to have dominate Clemson, FSU, and Miami with good teams in some years amongst UNC, VT, or maybe GT, Louisville, NC State, or Virginia.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Once the big 1 and Sec get to 20 FOOTBALL teams each do they need the NCAA.for football. Our ex prez was president of ncaa board of governors.
NCAA has been late on most of the recent events

Nope. And I hope I live to see the day the NCAA no longer exists. It’s one of the most corrupt organizations I can think of who pretend they care about ”student athletes”. I’d rather they just be honest and admit all they care about is money and their freebies. They are all hypocrites who say one thing and do the exact opposite and people still defend them because they believe in the tooth fairy. A simple example is their talk about student athletes t8me away from campus all while they add more games to every sport. All those guys saying for years we can’t have or expand the playoffs because its too much for the athletes will be the same guys in luxury boxes watching playoff games in December and January. Then they’ll be back in March to watch another month of hoops playoffs. I’d actually respect them if they just said what they really want to say.

 

[iceeater1969]

Nope. And I hope I live to see the day the NCAA no longer exists. It’s one of the most corrupt organizations I can think of who pretend they care about ”student athletes”. I’d rather they just be honest and admit all they care about is money and their freebies. They are all hypocrites who say one thing and do the exact opposite and people still defend them because they believe in the tooth fairy. A simple example is their talk about student athletes t8me away from campus all while they add more games to every sport. All those guys saying for years we can’t have or expand the playoffs because its too much for the athletes will be the same guys in luxury boxes watching playoff games in December and January. Then they’ll be back in March to watch another month of hoops playoffs. I’d actually respect them if they just said what they really want to say.

Gt was black balled by ole miss when he tried to get back in sec because Dodd would not leave Atl to play ole miss in the time before before we left SEC. They felt se were acting like we were better than them.
We were.
Ga Tech was in the Alabama fight song.
The football award for the best player, best AD, best coach and best assistant coach are ALL named for members of the GTAA.

On Sept 16, 2023 we play ole miss in Oxford.

Our admin and athletic leaders failed to demand we pony up $. Coasting can go on a long time if u keep lowering expectations
The ramblin Wreck is Ga Tech , and a helluva shape it's in.

 

[JacketMicMan]

Don’t forget we have TONS of research dollars to join in with the consortium the original B1G and Uchicago already have established. We are also an AAU school or whatever the other original criteria was.

Just moved from Chicagoland after 30 years. Those B1G commercials still list University of Illinois Chicago in their consortium (actually show the Flame logo). I would prefer a BIG invite just hope the AAU angle is not over blown. I still believe Harbaugh having camps in Atlanta is a great sign for the BIG appetite.

 

[bobongo]

UCLA to B1G? Not so fast:

UCLA Needs Public Review Of Its Planned Switch To Big 10 Conference, California Regents State

UPDATE: If UCLA wants to leave the Pac-12 behind and join the BIg 10, it has to make its case. Today, the University of California Board of Regents asked for a public review of the school’s controversial plans, including an assessment on how it will affect student-athletes and other UC campuses...

www.yahoo.com

From the article:
Newsom’s beef is that UCLA failed to notify the University of California System Board of Regents in advance of its move. Thus, it's a move made without their “oversight or support.”

 

[RonJohn]

UCLA to B1G? Not so fast:

UCLA Needs Public Review Of Its Planned Switch To Big 10 Conference, California Regents State

UPDATE: If UCLA wants to leave the Pac-12 behind and join the BIg 10, it has to make its case. Today, the University of California Board of Regents asked for a public review of the school’s controversial plans, including an assessment on how it will affect student-athletes and other UC campuses...

www.yahoo.com

From the article:
Newsom’s beef is that UCLA failed to notify the University of California System Board of Regents in advance of its move. Thus, it's a move made without their “oversight or support.”

That article is almost as bad as the articles that follow Twitter or Intagram posts and replies. They quoted Newsom as saying without "oversight or support", but didn't investigate at all to see if there is any requirement to clear a conference move with the Regents. It is basically parroting Newsom's discontent. It however does not indicate what the BOR can or cannot do. It leaves the impression that the BOR can block the conference move, but has zero actual facts about it.

 

[bobongo]

That article is almost as bad as the articles that follow Twitter or Intagram posts and replies. They quoted Newsom as saying without "oversight or support", but didn't investigate at all to see if there is any requirement to clear a conference move with the Regents. It is basically parroting Newsom's discontent. It however does not indicate what the BOR can or cannot do. It leaves the impression that the BOR can block the conference move, but has zero actual facts about it.

Here come the UC Regents: Governing board to discuss UCLA’s move to the Big Ten, “litigation” cited

The Bruins are scheduled to leave the Pac-12, along with USC, in 2024.

www.ocregister.com

From the article:
The University of California’s Board of Regents is scheduled to discuss UCLA’s momentous move to the Big Ten — a move that could have serious financial repercussions for Cal — during a meeting next week.

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President said the regents had no authority to prevent UCLA’s move, which became official June 30:
“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

 

[RonJohn]

Here come the UC Regents: Governing board to discuss UCLA’s move to the Big Ten, “litigation” cited

The Bruins are scheduled to leave the Pac-12, along with USC, in 2024.

www.ocregister.com

From the article:
The University of California’s Board of Regents is scheduled to discuss UCLA’s momentous move to the Big Ten — a move that could have serious financial repercussions for Cal — during a meeting next week.

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President said the regents had no authority to prevent UCLA’s move, which became official June 30:
“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

That is a different article and proves my point about the first article. Your response to the first article was:

UCLA to B1G? Not so fast:

The second article appears to say that neither the BOR nor government has any authority to stop them moving. They might be considering a lawsuit, but if they have no regulatory authority it would likely be more for negotiation than anything else.

Another thing of note in the second article. It states that:

Without USC and UCLA providing a link to the massive Los Angeles media market, the Pac-12’s revenue could be chopped by 40-to-50 percent starting in the 2024-25 academic year.

The media markets are still a driving factor in conference media deals. It doesn't say that nobody in LA is going to watch PAC12 games any more, only that the PAC12 will lose access to the "media market".

 

[bobongo]

That is a different article and proves my point about the first article. Your response to the first article was:

The second article appears to say that neither the BOR nor government has any authority to stop them moving. They might be considering a lawsuit, but if they have no regulatory authority it would likely be more for negotiation than anything else.

Another thing of note in the second article. It states that:

The media markets are still a driving factor in conference media deals. It doesn't say that nobody in LA is going to watch PAC12 games any more, only that the PAC12 will lose access to the "media market".

Yeah, well I was just posting the articles. I don't have a dog in this hunt.

 

[TooTall]

Did Newsom (of gov at that time) consult the schools when CA passed the NIL laws?

 

[slugboy]

Did Newsom (of gov at that time) consult the schools when CA passed the NIL laws?

That bill spent a good deal of time working its way through the legislature. Newsom signed that bill, but he wasn't the author. If the schools were unaware of the bill and the author, shame on them.

I don't have a timeline of the bill handy, but I'd be stunned if the boosters and athletic directors didn't make their opinions known to the legislators and the governor--for the NIL law in California, and the ones in other states like Florida. In 2019, those laws were popular "stick it to the NCAA" legislation. I'm sure the schools in the states with those laws saw them as competitive edges for them (but not now that everyone has NIL).

There's a new revenue-sharing bill in the California legislature now. It could be as seismic as the NIL law was.

Think NIL blew up college sports? California is going for the knockout with new bill

Another potentially game-changing bill for college sports is on the move through the California legislature. Here's how it could upend the collegiate model.

www.latimes.com

 

[Pointer]

That bill spent a good deal of time working its way through the legislature. Newsom signed that bill, but he wasn't the author. If the schools were unaware of the bill and the author, shame on them.

I don't have a timeline of the bill handy, but I'd be stunned if the boosters and athletic directors didn't make their opinions known to the legislators and the governor--for the NIL law in California, and the ones in other states like Florida. In 2019, those laws were popular "stick it to the NCAA" legislation. I'm sure the schools in the states with those laws saw them as competitive edges for them (but not now that everyone has NIL).

There's a new revenue-sharing bill in the California legislature now. It could be as seismic as the NIL law was.

Think NIL blew up college sports? California is going for the knockout with new bill

Another potentially game-changing bill for college sports is on the move through the California legislature. Here's how it could upend the collegiate model.

www.latimes.com

Selfishly for Tech, I would be all for this bill if the original NIL was taken away. It would level the playing field very quickly.

Hey 4 star, you want to go gray shirt at Alabama/any other sec school for a year or two, or make the same amount with paying time here at Tech?

 

[ChicagobasedJacket]

That bill spent a good deal of time working its way through the legislature. Newsom signed that bill, but he wasn't the author. If the schools were unaware of the bill and the author, shame on them.

I don't have a timeline of the bill handy, but I'd be stunned if the boosters and athletic directors didn't make their opinions known to the legislators and the governor--for the NIL law in California, and the ones in other states like Florida. In 2019, those laws were popular "stick it to the NCAA" legislation. I'm sure the schools in the states with those laws saw them as competitive edges for them (but not now that everyone has NIL).

There's a new revenue-sharing bill in the California legislature now. It could be as seismic as the NIL law was.

Think NIL blew up college sports? California is going for the knockout with new bill

Another potentially game-changing bill for college sports is on the move through the California legislature. Here's how it could upend the collegiate model.

www.latimes.com

Revenue sharing might be even more seismic. When tv execs took over and the tv money grew out of control it was only a matter of time. I was reading an article that the ACC distributed more than the sec and B10 before adding BC in 2005. That quickly flipped with the biggest difference being the conference networks. Also, the B10 never locks themselves in for more than 10 years. The ACC made a massive blunder agreeing to a 20 year deal

 

[Techster]

ACC, now is the time to think big...

 

[g0lftime]

ND supposedly talking $85M for next NBC contract. (no inside info just what has been floated on internet shows). That is pretty steep if it's true. Probably starting point but I would suspect negotiated down. The numbers being thrown around for these TV contracts is obscene. NBC was purging their announcers not long ago to save money. Will they be a major bidder for ND tv rights? Guess it depends on advertisers.
Anyone know how much they get from their ACC share currently.