Conference Realignment

[yeti92]

20-29 overall isn't horrible, but it's still 41%.

Nothing to be down about, though - we're still a P-5 conference. We're competitive. And the ACC did win 3 championships in the last ten years to the B!G's one. So, there's that.

IIWII.

Sure, but what is the expectation? 50%? A lot of those games were 1 score games as well. The ACC ended may have ended up on the losing side a little more, but as you said, we are generally competitive. Agreed on the championships as well.

 

[stech81]

I did a study and only removed the games the ACC did not score the most points in a game and we looked good.

 

[JacketOff]

I agree with all of that, except just to note that if GT were in the B!G, we'd have the money they have. Probably not happening, though, anyway.

I think we should focus a lot more on how wisely we spend the money than on how much we have of it. We have much more control over the former than the latter.

No, we wouldn’t. That’s my whole point. Somebody earlier (can’t remember who) brought up a good point. If the ACC’s revenue tripled overnight, would GT compete for a national title or a conference title? And the answer is still probably not. If GT were in the B1G our revenue and budgets would still be waayyyy behind conference average. We’d be in the same tier as Rutgers and Northwestern.

The ONLY difference would be our administrators and coaches would have higher salaries. That’s IT

 

[g0lftime]

Mmm. It's a bowl game for both teams.

Agree but kids not opting to play in bowl games recently. Usually some of the best players that think they will get drafted.

 

[bobongo]

Agree but kids not opting to play in bowl games recently. Usually some of the best players that think they will get drafted.

Good point. But might that work in the ACC's favor overall? The B!G probably has more draftees that the ACC.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

No, we wouldn’t. That’s my whole point. Somebody earlier (can’t remember who) brought up a good point. If the ACC’s revenue tripled overnight, would GT compete for a national title or a conference title? And the answer is still probably not. If GT were in the B1G our revenue and budgets would still be waayyyy behind conference average. We’d be in the same tier as Rutgers and Northwestern.

The ONLY difference would be our administrators and coaches would have higher salaries. That’s IT

I’m not convinced that the key metric is amount of money relative to other teams. I think Tech having more money in an absolute sense is the key. Currently we are crippled by lack of money, unless the GTAA is holding out on us. I would like for Tech to no longer be crippled. Give Tech more money for recruiting, staff and more, and I would be willing to take my chances against teams that have more money relative to us.

 

[JacketOff]

I’m not convinced that the key metric is amount of money relative to other teams. I think Tech having more money in an absolute sense is the key. Currently we are crippled by lack of money, unless the GTAA is holding out on us. I would like for Tech to no longer be crippled. Give Tech more money for recruiting, staff and more, and I would be willing to take my chances against teams that have more money relative to us.

Having more money relative to other teams is the only metric that does matter. If Georgia Tech had a $1 BILLION dollar athletics budget, and our competition had a $2 BILLION dollar budget, we’d still probably falter. Absolute money means nothing when others have more absolute money.

We are crippled by lack of money, so why would it ever make sense to willingly go play in a league where the difference in money between the top of the league and us is even greater? Unless that is the only option, it will never make sense. It would only put us further behind the competition. Clemson, FSU, and UNC can only get so far ahead of us on the backs of their donations and ticket sales because of the limiting factor of money and the ACC’s revenue pool. Most of the ACC’s stadiums and fanbases are relatively similar sized. In the B1G we’d be totally dwarfed the same way UGA dwarfs us. An awful crowd at a B1G game would sellout BDS. There are 5 B1G stadiums bigger than the only large ACC stadium that routinely sells out at Clemson. Add in USC and UCLA and there are now 7 B1G stadiums larger than Clemson.

No ticket sales aren’t everything, but they’re a good indication of overall fanbase size and interest. More ticket sales likely equals more donations. We’d still very much be in the bottom half to bottom third in almost every category involving money and/or fans in the B1G. The only difference would be the gap to the top would be even larger. How often have you seen Northwestern, Rutgers, Minnesota, Indiana, Maryland, Purdue, and Illinois compete for a title in football? Conference or national? The answer is almost none. Since the start of the B1G Championship game in 2011, there’s only been 2 instances of those teams participating. Both were Northwestern in 2020 and 2018. So the bottom half of the conference is playing for the title 9% of the time, and one of those was in the Covid year with a 6 game schedule. But yeah, Georgia Tech would defy those odds. Whereas in the ACC Coastal, literally every single team won the division across a 7 year stretch.

One of those scenarios sounds way more beneficial and competitive to me. And it’s not the Big 10

 

[forensicbuzz]

Here is the complete record since 2014, ACC vs. B1G:

(N) 2021/12/31 Wake Forest 38 - Rutgers 10 W !! Gator Bowl !!
(N) 2021/12/30 Pittsburgh 21 - Michigan State 31 L !! Peach Bowl !!
(N) 2021/12/29 Virginia Tech 10 - Maryland 54 L !! Pinstripe Bowl !!
(N) 2021/01/01 Clemson 28 - Ohio State 49 L !! Sugar Bowl !!
(N) 2020/12/30 Wake Forest 28 - Wisconsin 42 L !! Duke's Mayo Bowl !!
(N) 2019/12/28 Clemson 29 - Ohio State 23 W !! Fiesta Bowl !!
(N) 2019/12/27 Wake Forest 21 - Michigan State 27 L !! Pinstripe Bowl !!
(N) 2018/12/27 Miami (FL) 3 - Wisconsin 35 L !! Pinstripe Bowl !!
(N) 2018/12/26 Georgia Tech 10 - Minnesota 34 L !! Quick Lane Bowl !!
(H) 2017/12/30 Miami (FL) 24 - Wisconsin 34 L !! Orange Bowl !!
(N) 2017/12/27 Boston College 20 - Iowa 27 L !! Pinstripe Bowl !!
(N) 2016/12/31 Clemson 31 - Ohio State 0 W !! Fiesta Bowl !!
(N) 2016/12/30 Florida State 33 - Michigan 32 W !! Orange Bowl !!
(N) 2016/12/28 Pittsburgh 24 - Northwestern 31 L !! Pinstripe Bowl !!
(N) 2016/12/26 Boston College 36 - Maryland 30 W !! Quick Lane Bowl !!
(N) 2014/12/27 Boston College 30 - Penn State 31 L OT !! Pinstripe Bowl !!
(N) 2014/12/26 North Carolina 21 - Rutgers 40 L !! Quick Lane Bowl !!

Look at the matchups. Some are even, some are weighted to one side or the other. Bowl games are weird. Look back at the GT/Minnesota game. One team absolutely wanted to be there, one team didn't.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Same guy that says if you take out some of the ACC vs SEC rivalries that the ACC is equal to the SEC. You can’t just start removing games. The ACC is very clearly behind the SEC and B1G, and there would be zero advantage to Georgia Tech if we were currently in the B1G as opposed to the ACC. The ACC’s top tier teams are still on a financial level where GT can compete with them. The same cannot be said for the SEC and B1G

LOL! My point is that you can't look at Conference records in a vacuum. Individual matchups matter.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Having more money relative to other teams is the only metric that does matter. If Georgia Tech had a $1 BILLION dollar athletics budget, and our competition had a $2 BILLION dollar budget, we’d still probably falter. Absolute money means nothing when others have more absolute money.

We are crippled by lack of money, so why would it ever make sense to willingly go play in a league where the difference in money between the top of the league and us is even greater? Unless that is the only option, it will never make sense. It would only put us further behind the competition. Clemson, FSU, and UNC can only get so far ahead of us on the backs of their donations and ticket sales because of the limiting factor of money and the ACC’s revenue pool. Most of the ACC’s stadiums and fanbases are relatively similar sized. In the B1G we’d be totally dwarfed the same way UGA dwarfs us. An awful crowd at a B1G game would sellout BDS. There are 5 B1G stadiums bigger than the only large ACC stadium that routinely sells out at Clemson. Add in USC and UCLA and there are now 7 B1G stadiums larger than Clemson.

No ticket sales aren’t everything, but they’re a good indication of overall fanbase size and interest. More ticket sales likely equals more donations. We’d still very much be in the bottom half to bottom third in almost every category involving money and/or fans in the B1G. The only difference would be the gap to the top would be even larger. How often have you seen Northwestern, Rutgers, Minnesota, Indiana, Maryland, Purdue, and Illinois compete for a title in football? Conference or national? The answer is almost none. Since the start of the B1G Championship game in 2011, there’s only been 2 instances of those teams participating. Both were Northwestern in 2020 and 2018. So the bottom half of the conference is playing for the title 9% of the time, and one of those was in the Covid year with a 6 game schedule. But yeah, Georgia Tech would defy those odds. Whereas in the ACC Coastal, literally every single team won the division across a 7 year stretch.

One of those scenarios sounds way more beneficial and competitive to me. And it’s not the Big 10

What you are saying makes no sense to me.

All you need is enough money to effectively run your program not enough money to run other programs bigger than you.

Likewise, at a certain point, when you are at the top, more money makes no difference anyway. Michigan is probably, without looking, at the top money wise but it’s not going to help them without using that money wisely. It goes without saying that a school like Alabama uses their money more wisely than anyone.

We need just enough money to run our program, provided we spend wisely. We spent too many years trying to get by without money. I’d like to see that change.

I think we would thrive in the B1G. We have never been a good culture fit for the ACC and we certainly no longer fit the SEC culture.

 

[bobongo]

Look at the matchups. Some are even, some are weighted to one side or the other. Bowl games are weird. Look back at the GT/Minnesota game. One team absolutely wanted to be there, one team didn't.

That's one game. I'm sure that's true for the other side, too - it all comes out in the wash (lest we be a cherry-pickin').

 

[orientalnc]

Rumor: UCLA may back out of the deal with the B1G. Would USC follow suit if that happens? Would the B1G want the Trojans without their rival?

It seems the folks who own UCLA, the Cal regents, might force them to stay in the PAC.

 

[BilldGopher]

No doubt forensic and bobongo for the 2018 match-up we came ready to play. I believe Tech did too but the trajectories for both programs were at a different point for that moment.

As to whether Tech would be competitive in an even more expanded B1G this can only be answered if the experiment is run. Having more $$$ can't hurt necessarily...but how it's ultimately spent is very important. My Gophers I believe are using a lot of the TV/streaming $$$ to support non-revenue sports. Not saying FB, BB, and hockey aren't getting the bulk but definitely not all of it. It's a choice. But there's no doubt having this revenue stream available makes a difference.

Ideally for Tech you would in the early years not end up as a Rutgers or Maryland but would be more of a Northwestern in an expanded B1G. Northwestern is the enigma program that every few years finds the way to break through. Minnesota cannot make this claim. For NW if this continues to happen once Fitz if gone who knows, but they do find the formula once, twice, or even three times a decade that makes it worth being a Wildcat in a division that includes both OH-IO State and Meesheegaannn. They are fighters though...every year they come back and give what they've got. Have to admire it and any Big 10 fan who does not admit this is lying.

If you can't tell I'm biased to Tech making this cut...whether it's the SEC, B1G, or ACC+ or whatever. Just like life, football is unfair on a number of fronts. However, if we forget where programs have come from and their histories...even if back to the 1990s for a Natty for you guys...that would be a loss.

Bobby Ross was important to football. John Heisman was very important to football. For us it was a guy from northern Minnesota named Bronko Nagurski. Heck, we were where cheerleading was born... There is such a thing as legacy program no matter where they are now. That should be preserved where it can. Not sure that applies to Clemson...

PS...almost deleted this before posting but am in a philosophical mood this evening. Please put up with my Ramblings although I have no Wreck to go with them...

 

[JacketOff]

What you are saying makes no sense to me.

All you need is enough money to effectively run your program not enough money to run other programs bigger than you.

Likewise, at a certain point, when you are at the top, more money makes no difference anyway. Michigan is probably, without looking, at the top money wise but it’s not going to help them without using that money wisely. It goes without saying that a school like Alabama uses their money more wisely than anyone.

We need just enough money to run our program, provided we spend wisely. We spent too many years trying to get by without money. I’d like to see that change.

I think we would thrive in the B1G. We have never been a good culture fit for the ACC and we certainly no longer fit the SEC culture.

How does it make no sense? It’s cut and dry. Having less money and resources than your opponents puts you at a disadvantage. It’s a really simple concept. The less money and resources you have, the greater disadvantage you’re put in. Haven’t been a good culture fit? What?? It’s literally the exact same fit. Good academics at smaller universities who have intentions to compete athletically

 

[Northeast Stinger]

How does it make no sense? It’s cut and dry. Having less money and resources than your opponents puts you at a disadvantage. It’s a really simple concept. The less money and resources you have, the greater disadvantage you’re put in. Haven’t been a good culture fit? What?? It’s literally the exact same fit. Good academics at smaller universities who have intentions to compete athletically

It’s not cut and dried. Tech has always had less money than it’s conference rivals. The only real question is does Tech have enough money to do Tech things? Current answer is no.

No comparison in academic fit and culture between ACC and B1G. That’s not a put down of ACC, just a straight comparison of profiles of members.

 

[Techster]

Rumor: UCLA may back out of the deal with the B1G. Would USC follow suit if that happens? Would the B1G want the Trojans without their rival?

It seems the folks who own UCLA, the Cal regents, might force them to stay in the PAC.

Probably politics to force B1G to take Cal Berkley.

UC leaders say 'all options are on the table' as they weigh fighting UCLA's Big Ten move

University of California system leaders proposed new rules that may limit campuses from making major athletics contract decisions on their own.

www.latimes.com

Similar situation occurred with UVA and VA Tech when the ACC expanded. No way UCLA athletic department can justify turning down all of that additional revenue to stay in a conference that will see its revenue fall if USC leaves.

 

[Techster]

This is beyond obvious. The B1G is gonna bring in massive state schools in the west that are worth more than the $75mm dollars by themselves. Every addition will increase their value and make them more contiguous.

The only real question for me is if they will make a play for Texas. UT almost certainly would much rather be with the B1G than the SEC. This goes without saying. The entire academic side, and the entire alumni/upper management side of UT would prefer that. And heck, I suspect the vast majority of purely football based supporters would also prefer that (this is where having USC in the B1G really comes into the picture…UT’s 2 decades of memories of football greatness are almost entirely tied with USC).

I think any SEC team if offered a chance to join the B1G with an option to join their academic programs would jump at the opportunity. Heck, even without the academic side the numbers are adding up in favor of the B1G.

I strongly believe the B1G will soon become a 24 team conference that includes Texas & Oklahoma/A&M, and another 2 PAC 12 schools to close out the west, and if the ACC GOR is defeated, UNC/VPI/Miami/(Clemson or GT) depending on what they value.

The B1G is aiming to be college football. Or, they should be.

I suspect the real endgame at that point would be to become a 32 team league after poaching 4-6 SEC teams and hopefully GT falls into the remaining 2-4 non SEC teams they poach to become a 32 team minor NFL league.

They have the edge on the SEC. This is how they should be thinking. The only question is that historically the SEC has pushed the boundaries and every other conference has reacted. Will the B1G continue that trend and react, in which case this won’t happen, or will they take the initiative and do much of the above, in which case bye bye SEC and CFB as we know it?

Was it obvious? Go back to the beginning of this thread, and other threads the past 2 years that talked about expansion. LOTS of posters on here dismissed the idea of national conferences and colleges turning into a de facto minor league with payments to players. I said years ago that the B1G and SEC were operating on a completely new model that us fans couldn't envision at the time, and there would be an entirely new college sports landscape. The tea leaves were being dropped slowly into the water, but not too many people could see it...or didn't want to believe it. Here we are, and I don't think it's close to being over.

Texas will most likely not leave the SEC. They are comfortable operating within their region and among members who have the same ideology. That's why they were slow to leave the Big 12...they wanted to rule their region for as long as possible. They saw the tea leaves dropping, and knew they would fall too far behind their arch rival TAMU to continue to stay in the Big12. The B1G definitely does not have the same ideology as the Texas. I can see TAMU leaving the SEC due to how the situation with the Texas was handled by the SEC. TAMU is NOT happy at all that Texas is in the SEC.

The B1G's ambitions are far higher than the SEC's. The SEC is just fine being a "regional" conference that dominates the South and Southwest. They are currently the kings of college football, so I think the powers that be in the SEC are happy with that. In 10-20 years after the college sports landscape changes? We'll see...

 

[LongforDodd]

Rumor: UCLA may back out of the deal with the B1G. Would USC follow suit if that happens? Would the B1G want the Trojans without their rival?

It seems the folks who own UCLA, the Cal regents, might force them to stay in the PAC.

I read somewhere a couple of weeks ago that UCLA's AA budget situation may be similar to ours, i.e. it stinks.

 

[RamblinRed]

This is an interesting analysis by Nate Silver on which programs might be most attractive to the B10 at whatever point in the future they decide to expand again.

Where Should The Big Ten Expand Next? We Crunched The Numbers.

Which schools should the Big Ten poach next?

fivethirtyeight.com

 

[tsrich]

This is an interesting analysis by Nate Silver on which programs might be most attractive to the B10 at whatever point in the future they decide to expand again.

Where Should The Big Ten Expand Next? We Crunched The Numbers.

Which schools should the Big Ten poach next?

fivethirtyeight.com

FSU scores the same for academic ranking as Tech? USNews is insane