Conference Realignment

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,916
Many states have research designated colleges that have a alternate courses of study in addition to STEM.
(ON knights data sort u can sodt by Research. )

Your point is correct but i think it is more limiting.

I have heard on this site that
IF THE UGA system has a course of study then Gt may not offer that course of study.
However since Gt engineering is so hard UGA now offers engr degrees.

Some ciriculum accommodation has been made to allow for a general scientific and literature type degree for non Stem.

Further accommodation is necessary ( imo) if Gt want to have recruits be rshirt seniors on team. Being realistic about injuries - football players will miss - play hurt or miss 1 year. At Gt incoming hs players all take AP classes and during summer they take classes. Throw in a redshirt year and you have a graduating football player w 2 years ( 3 w Covid-we tail gate w parents that say this ) eligibility and he has yet to see the field.
NCAA rules say must attend classes to play.

Would be nice if playrr who has graduated from GT could take courses at Emory College/ ga state and be eligible.

Unless Hill fights to remove these systemic catch 22 issues we will be punching up hill.

Gt has way more issues that make being good at football very difficult , yet the Prez dont do more than lip service to help.
The only way the President of GT becomes really interested in the success of the athletic programs and more specifically football and basketball is to make the success of those programs part of his incentives for any bonus in his contract. When hiring the president one of the criteria needs to include a metric for sports performance. The big money is in the academic endowment and that's his emphasis. Clemson made a decision in the early 70's to emphasize football. Any president there will keep it going.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,657
The only way the President of GT becomes really interested in the success of the athletic programs and more specifically football and basketball is to make the success of those programs part of his incentives for any bonus in his contract. When hiring the president one of the criteria needs to include a metric for sports performance. The big money is in the academic endowment and that's his emphasis. Clemson made a decision in the early 70's to emphasize football. Any president there will keep it going.
Totally agree.
At my engineering company everyone had a generous base salary but 20% was at risk and in a bonus pool. Some years no bonus, most yesrs 20 % and more bonus, and some years multiples on base salary. Each group was required to help the other groups. We gave bigger bonus based of team spirit.




Your bonus idea is a good one.

Better way to say it.
The rigor of gt academics and lead some students to a sense of isolation . Exciting and competitive athletic teams provide a place where all students can cheer and decompress. These memories will likely be one of the best memories they have of their time at Gt. It is a fact that GT Alumni with fond memoires are more likely to continue the tradition of generous donations. ( wife is professional writer who worked w a company that advised on college alumni fundraising)

It is incumbent on all administrators, professors and researchers to actively and tangibly support the athletic program.
The goal is not just to be competitve. It is to be the athleic program of hiesman, rice dodd, Broyles. Bonus monies are set aside for outstanding levels of support. At each employment review each
admin, prof , resesrcher will be evaluated on ....... blah blzh.

The prezident that saves or doesn't save gt athletics will be remembered.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,916
We might quibble over the metrics, but, of the 14 NCAA teams at Tech, only one is performing poorly.
Make the NCAA tournaments in BB, make Omaha in baseball, make ACC championship in FB. Revenue sports pay for the others, give them priority. The more those win, the more donations will go up.
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,831


looks like Comcast will be increasing the ACC payouts some (eventually) and that the ACC may be considering unequal revenue sharing to try to keep Clemson, FSU etc happy
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,900
Location
Oriental, NC
... the ACC may be considering unequal revenue sharing to try to keep Clemson, FSU etc happy
The moment the ACC proposes uneven revenue sharing is the moment the league dissolves. Is the Clemson-BC game any more attractive than the Pitt-BC game? Or the UNC-Duke game? If FSU and Clemson can negotiate the GOR contracts they signed, I am in favor of them jumping ship. Right now I am not sure FSU is much more, if any, attractive to non-ACC fans than Duke or Wake.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,994
The moment the ACC proposes uneven revenue sharing is the moment the league dissolves. Is the Clemson-BC game any more attractive than the Pitt-BC game? Or the UNC-Duke game? If FSU and Clemson can negotiate the GOR contracts they signed, I am in favor of them jumping ship. Right now I am not sure FSU is much more, if any, attractive to non-ACC fans than Duke or Wake.
I don't know, but I think it would be based more on appearance than on eyeballs. For the NY6 bowls, the conference got $4 million for each school in a NY6 bowl in 2021-22. $6 million if it was a playoff game. The conference gets more money from the NCAA for every team's appearance in the tournament games. The money amount goes up in higher rounds.

All of the teams contribute to the "normal" TV money. In the last seven years, Clemson has contributed more from bowl games than anyone else. In the last three years GT has not contributed anything for bowl games. For a long time, GT has not contributed much with respect to basketball post-season tournaments. I am not in favor of having any large un-even distributions because I think it sets up a system of ensuring that the top teams continue to be the top teams, and the bottom teams stuck in the bottom. However, I can see the argument that it isn't fair for a program like Clemson to subsidize a program like GT if GT isn't contributing anywhere near as much to the pool.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,916


looks like Comcast will be increasing the ACC payouts some (eventually) and that the ACC may be considering unequal revenue sharing to try to keep Clemson, FSU etc happy

Have to be careful with that. The way Texas was given better treatment drove A&M to leave for the SEC. Now Texas is following and they are the new kid on the block with no special deal for them. No longer top dog in their conference.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235


looks like Comcast will be increasing the ACC payouts some (eventually) and that the ACC may be considering unequal revenue sharing to try to keep Clemson, FSU etc happy


This would be putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. The only thing keeping SEC/B1G targets in the ACC right now is the GOR. How is the ACC going to make up $75/million per team payout the B1G (and eventually the SEC) will pay its members? In five years it projects to $100 million/team in those two conferences. The ACC will never be able to close that gap for the "top" teams.

Even if the ACC did an unequal distribution, when the GOR is over, those same teams the SEC/B1G covets will bolt because this is a decision for the next 20-50 years. So now the ACC appeased teams that were already locked in by the GOR, but pissed off other members for what?

Hopefully GT and Batt are positioning GT for a move to B1G once the GOR is expired. The ACC is starting to make moves of desperation, and that means GT is going to get shafted again.
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,831
This would be putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. The only thing keeping SEC/B1G targets in the ACC right now is the GOR. How is the ACC going to make up $75/million per team payout the B1G (and eventually the SEC) will pay its members? In five years it projects to $100 million/team in those two conferences. The ACC will never be able to close that gap for the "top" teams.

Even if the ACC did an unequal distribution, when the GOR is over, those same teams the SEC/B1G covets will bolt because this is a decision for the next 20-50 years. So now the ACC appeased teams that were already locked in by the GOR, but pissed off other members for what?

Hopefully GT and Batt are positioning GT for a move to B1G once the GOR is expired. The ACC is starting to make moves of desperation, and that means GT is going to get shafted again.
I agree, uneven revenue is not going to keep anyone happy, plus it’s going to anger the teams on the bottom. So basically it will probably make everyone want to leave. And you know damned well that UNC and Duke would get a high share of the pie because You know- NC mafia and basketball.
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,075
I still can’t believe some of you believe this GOR will last until 2036. That’s just funny to me. That’s like 4 GT coaches and 3 AD’s from now. I believe the GOR will be dissolved by 2025 when the playoffs expand.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,657
I still can’t believe some of you believe this GOR will last until 2036. That’s just funny to me. That’s like 4 GT coaches and 3 AD’s from now. I believe the GOR will be dissolved by 2025 when the playoffs expand.
Prez Angel is getting gtaa spiffed up quickly.
The Ncaa has been slowly going bankrupt.
Soon it will change and they will suddenly be gone.

Angel want in.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,862
I think the next major round of realignment will come at the end of the decade. B10 has already said it is going to need the next few years to injest USC and UCLA.
B10's contracts are up at the end of the decade. So a year or two before that is when they will want to make moves.

The expanded playoff will actually do more to keep conferences together than tear them apart, at least in the short term.
With the expanded playoffs having auto bids for the 6 highest ranked conference teams, if you are a top team not in the SEC/B10 you actually have a better path to the playoffs by staying than leaving.
 

Thwg777

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
709
I’ve got a basic question if someone doesn’t mind educating me. I’ve read some but not 67 pages.

I make out that the ACC Grant of Rights is one-sided and generally awful to the schools based on the long timeframe of contract, lack of exit clauses, continuing irrelevance of ACC, and continuing financial inequality compared to other conferences. Basically we’re all tethered to a sinking ship.

So my potentially loaded question is why did the schools agree of these terms?
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,596
I’ve got a basic question if someone doesn’t mind educating me. I’ve read some but not 67 pages.

I make out that the ACC Grant of Rights is one-sided and generally awful to the schools based on the long timeframe of contract, lack of exit clauses, continuing irrelevance of ACC, and continuing financial inequality compared to other conferences. Basically we’re all tethered to a sinking ship.

So my potentially loaded question is why did the schools agree of these terms?
Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “one -sided” because everyone is exactly equal and everything has to be unanimous... it’s quite the opposite of one-sided in that regard. I suppose if you’re on the side of wanting out...
But to answer your question; when it was signed, it was not only appropriate to keep the conference together but it was also instrumental in getting the media deal done. Everyone hates the media deal now that the BIG and SEC have renegotiated, but at the time, guess which conference was receiving the highest payouts...
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,572
I’ve got a basic question if someone doesn’t mind educating me. I’ve read some but not 67 pages.

I make out that the ACC Grant of Rights is one-sided and generally awful to the schools based on the long timeframe of contract, lack of exit clauses, continuing irrelevance of ACC, and continuing financial inequality compared to other conferences. Basically we’re all tethered to a sinking ship.

So my potentially loaded question is why did the schools agree of these terms?
Well in our case one question is, do we really want to be free of the ACC right now? The alternative might not be what we think or hope it will be. As it is, we're locked into a P-5 conference. Without the GOR, that might not be the case. Perhaps the top part of the conference wasn't as eager to sign onto the GOR as the rest of it. So my question would be not why did we sign on, but why did Clemson and FSU sign on? That having been asked, I'm glad they did. I would guess that at the time of signing, they had no offers. Things have changed a lot since then. I'm sure they wouldn't sign if they had it to do all over again, or if they'd been able to foresee the future.
 

Thwg777

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
709
CEB and bobongo, thanks for the input. I did not realize how good it was back when it was signed. It sounds more like the second guessing on my behalf was the length of the contract compared to how dynamic things will be over that 20+ years (seems like an eternity).

By one-sided, I meant in favor of the conference - not any specific team.

This stuff makes my head hurt. I'll go back to my regularly scheduled programming of drinking my whiskey clear and following football game by game. There's so much I don't understand of the bigger picture landscape. I've always thought players should be able to enter the NFL draft whenever they damn well feel ready provided they're old enough to enter the military draft. You don't need college to take arms but must have it to play a sport! And that would likely add more parity to the game. But I digress...
 
Last edited:

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
I’ve got a basic question if someone doesn’t mind educating me. I’ve read some but not 67 pages.

I make out that the ACC Grant of Rights is one-sided and generally awful to the schools based on the long timeframe of contract, lack of exit clauses, continuing irrelevance of ACC, and continuing financial inequality compared to other conferences. Basically we’re all tethered to a sinking ship.

So my potentially loaded question is why did the schools agree of these terms?
Other conferences other than the SEC have a GOR as well. They really aren't that bad, and can help with short term stability. The real problem we have is that we signed one for a ridiculous length. Having the GOR go until 2036 and signing a media deal for the same length was a really dumb decision.
 
Top