Conference Realignment

[cpf2001]

I keep seeing that this is the end of college sports. Maybe for the smaller schools and conferences that didn't have foresight. College sports will continue on, the "haves" will get richer and get more exposure, and the "have nots" will get poorer and their brand will fade into obscurity outside of their own fanbase. Some teams will struggle to survive, and the teams in bigger conferences will survive. Fans will continue to watch college sports and they will find a team to support in "national" conferences. The young kids today will grow up not knowing any differently, and the older fans will phase out.

There are reasons all the pro leagues independently converged on revenue sharing and parity measures + coast-to-coast national footprints. So the only thing I'd disagree with you on here is that I think on the current course, the "haves" will (post-2030ish) continue to get relatively richer compared to the have-nots but absolutely-poorer then their peak in 2029 or whenever it turns out to be, and a lot of the reason for the absolute decline of the game will be because of the sort of prisoner-dilemma nature of uncoordinated realignment moves. (And the handwringing about NIL in terms of how it empowers *players* vs blue-bloods, weak-enforcement of rules against blue-bloods, is a similarly myopic focus on protection of status quo for today's winners compared to a focus on parity-first for the long-term health of the game. All those parity rules get there since they Yankees and the Rays have the same number of seats at the table, and the have-nots often outnumber the haves, and CFB currently is moving increasingly in the opposite direction to give more power to just the haves.)

 

[slugboy]

There are reasons all the pro leagues independently converged on revenue sharing and parity measures + coast-to-coast national footprints. So the only thing I'd disagree with you on here is that I think on the current course, the "haves" will (post-2030ish) continue to get relatively richer compared to the have-nots but absolutely-poorer then their peak in 2029 or whenever it turns out to be, and a lot of the reason for the absolute decline of the game will be because of the sort of prisoner-dilemma nature of uncoordinated realignment moves. (And the handwringing about NIL in terms of how it empowers *players* vs blue-bloods, weak-enforcement of rules against blue-bloods, is a similarly myopic focus on protection of status quo for today's winners compared to a focus on parity-first for the long-term health of the game. All those parity rules get there since they Yankees and the Rays have the same number of seats at the table, and the have-nots often outnumber the haves, and CFB currently is moving increasingly in the opposite direction to give more power to just the haves.)

The NFL shares a lot of revenue. MLB shares very little—the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers are on a different level than Atlanta, and several levels away from Milwaukee and Pittsburgh.

Ironically, I think that college sports have less mutual support than any of the pro leagues. The closest thing to revenue sharing is our conference revenue sharing, but that’s a pale reflection of the NFL. The other sharing is bigger schools paying smaller ones to play in their stadiums and hopefully lose.

The drafts, and other attempts at parity don’t exist in college football

 

[cpf2001]

Yeah, even the MLB is getting slowly closer, though - you see the Dodgers/Sox/Yankees making a lot more "luxury cap penalty reset" moves than they ever would've in the past. Which opened the door for stuff like Seager/DeGrom to TEX. CFB doesn't care about anyone but your conference buddies, so there's much less direct ability of a have-not to check a have (especially with the recent realignment) in the name of long-term health.

We should set up a consultancy and put together some powerpoints and have these arguments in front of conference leadership teams and make $$$$$ for all this work we're doing for free

 

[Techster]

ACC slow to react...SHOCKING (<-- sarcasm). Even I, some random guy on a GT messageboard, suggested this idea years ago when it was more feasible (remember my suggestion of keeping the ACC moniker, but calling it the All Coast Conference?). It would have put some of the most prestigious public and private schools in the US in one conference.



GOR most definitely played a role. I doubt some of the bigger "brands" in the ACC would have voted for this without a serious reduction in the GOR schedule. The conference administrators have actively chosen to drown everyone together at the expense of risking a couple of members escaping to another ship.

 

[Techwood Relict]

I’m not thinking that driving off roughly 1/2 of college football fans just to try to win them back is a good idea.

That sounds a lot like politics. You voters of the other party are full of sucktitude and so is your candidate. Instead, vote for our guy.

 

[CHE90]

The Institute does not. Th

Then I would think that the Institute would do anything necessary to avoid a bankruptcy. Losing that chunk of real estate in the middle of campus would be an embarrassment...I

Then I would think that the Institute would do anything necessary to avoid a bankruptcy. Losing that chunk of real estate in the middle of campus would be an embarrassment...

I doubt if the debt is secured by real estate. Probably senior unsecured debt. I don't know for sure but the devil is in the details.

 

[CHE90]

OKay, let's say the SEC and B1G form two super conferences and everyone else is the equivalent of the Mountain West or Sun Belt right now making a tiny fraction of the money with basically zero chance to recruit the best players and compete.

I don't want to argue which teams get in and which ones don't but let's just pick the biggest schools and brands.

ESPN Division:
Alabama
Georgia
Tennessee
LSU
Texas
Florida
Texas A&M
Auburn
Arkansas
Ole Miss
Oklahoma
Kentucky
South Carolina
Mississippi St.
Vanderbilt
Missouri

Fox Division:
Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
Michigan State
USC
Oregon
UCLA
Washington
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Northwestern
Minnesota
Maryland
Purdue
Rutgers
Notre Dame
Miami

Will be included and could go either way:
Clemson
FSU
UVA
UNC


Let's just assume the TV/money providers do not pay for Georgia Tech, Louisville, Va. Tech, NC State, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, or anyone else from the B12 or ACC to be included. The above 40 teams are the top division and making a gazillion dollars a year and control all playoffs. Everyone else makes $10M-$20M a year and can't compete with them. I know my interest in the above will be basically non-existent. I have zero ties to any of those schools. I'd rather carve my football watching out for the NFL in that scenario and find something better to do with my Saturday's. And if a conference formed with GT, Louisville, VT, NCSU, WF, Duke and even included passionate sports schools like App. State, JMU, WVU, UCF or whatever other combination of nonsense you want to cobble together, I'd still rather watch & attend that because of my ties to Georgia Tech. I would have zero interest in watching a $10M/Yr Georgia Tech play a $75M/Yr Georgia. I already basically have no interest in watching the current GT/UGA football games because there's nothing fair about them at all. It is what it is. TV will destroy college football over the next 10 years as they destroy all these rivalries and men aged 40-60 care less and less and people aged 20-40 already care less about college sports.

Ironic that your vision of the future includes an MBob led Purdue as one of the winners and J Batt led GT as a have not. I am not knocking your post at all - just an observation - and you might very well be right!

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

Ironic that your vision of the future includes an MBob led Purdue as one of the winners and J Batt led GT as a have not. I am not knocking your post at all - just an observation - and you might very well be right!

Ha. Some of these schools will only be included if their partners don't kick them out because they're already in. If the networks blow up every conference and started over, things would look a lot different. And probably end between 30 and 40 schools.

GT's biggest sales pitch to the B1G is access to recruiting in the ATL and our academics. I think the B1G move from 18 to 24 when the ACC GOR either blows up or is close enough to ending to negotiate will be to go after some combination of ND, UVA, UNC, GT, Miami, FSU, and Clemson. ND saying no yet again would make the other 6 the natural fits.

I have no earthly idea if the SEC would ever be interested in an ACC school. I could see Clemson and FSU as natural fits. I could see no interest because they are already in those states. I could see UVA and UNC as new markets.

 

[Root4GT]

ACC slow to react...SHOCKING (<-- sarcasm). Even I, some random guy on a GT messageboard, suggested this idea years ago when it was more feasible (remember my suggestion of keeping the ACC moniker, but calling it the All Coast Conference?). It would have put some of the most prestigious public and private schools in the US in one conference.



GOR most definitely played a role. I doubt some of the bigger "brands" in the ACC would have voted for this without a serious reduction in the GOR schedule. The conference administrators have actively chosen to drown everyone together at the expense of risking a couple of members escaping to another ship.

Likely a good move. Expanding risks blowing up current agreements which could blow up the conference. 14 is a large enough conference.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Not sure where to put this but I can’t help but believe that teams that get squeezed out of any chance of winning anything significant produce fans who care less and less in general about the sport.

The last few years, as the system seems to get more and more rigged, and teams like Tech have less and less of a chance of winning against significant competition, I have watched the least amount of football in my life.

For a good portion of my life I checked out teams in different conferences, watched entire games with teams I didn’t follow but chose a team to root for, and found lots of games to watch.

I care less and less about the game now, don’t keep up with players, and hardly ever watch a game all the way through. And most Saturdays I don’t watch any games at all. I’m hopeful that Key can turn things around, and, if he does, I might start caring more about the sport in general.

But, not to lose the point, I really believe killing off chances for 80% of teams to be competitive will greatly decrease overall interest in the sport.

 

[RamblinRed]

I may be dense but why is ESPN having to pay more to the Big 12 because they added teams? Was that part of their contract with the Big 12?

It was part of their contract with the B12.
The new B12 contract with ESPN (but interestingly not FOX), had a pro rata piece where if the B12 added a P5 school than ESPN would increase its payment to the B12 conference equivalent to the current share. Reportedly, the agreement allowed for this to happen for up to 4 P5 schools.
B12 contract is reportedly worth $31.7M per school with ESPN owning 2/3 of the media rights and FX owning 1/3. So ESPN is effectively paying B12 just over 20M per school.
By adding the 4 PAC schools the B12 has effectively increased its payout from ESPN by $80M per year (though its per share remains unchanged). Basically they got ESPN to pay for their explansion.

 

[dtm1997]

 

[CEB]

That sounds a lot like politics. You voters of the other party are full of sucktitude and so is your candidate. Instead, vote for our guy.

Yes, except for the fact that we all have to engage in the system and go ahead and make that choice. With college football, there are a lot of other entertainment alternatives and I will damn sure find one before I start supporting the “local” CFB team

 

[cpf2001]

Countdown to this taking a few more hops and being re-posted somewhere as "BREAKING: ACC threatening to fine FSU for public comments"

 

[jgtengineer]

Countdown to this taking a few more hops and being re-posted somewhere as "BREAKING: ACC threatening to fine FSU for public comments"

If that happens tech should print out the post and sell signed copies.

 

[stinger 1957]

Ha. Some of these schools will only be included if their partners don't kick them out because they're already in. If the networks blow up every conference and started over, things would look a lot different. And probably end between 30 and 40 schools.

GT's biggest sales pitch to the B1G is access to recruiting in the ATL and our academics. I think the B1G move from 18 to 24 when the ACC GOR either blows up or is close enough to ending to negotiate will be to go after some combination of ND, UVA, UNC, GT, Miami, FSU, and Clemson. ND saying no yet again would make the other 6 the natural fits.

I have no earthly idea if the SEC would ever be interested in an ACC school. I could see Clemson and FSU as natural fits. I could see no interest because they are already in those states. I could see UVA and UNC as new markets.

I think it's possible the SEC could want NC State, and VT, notice I said possible. I have a friend who is a VT grad and keeps a real close ear to what goes on there for many years and he said the SEC approached VT about joining the SEC not too long after VT had become ACC members and if you remember that was not an easy joining, a lot of ACC people did not want them and the VA legislature had to get involved and the VT administration told the SEC it would not be a good political or public move for them to try and make at that time, just saying there has been serious interest by the SEC in the past.
Personally I don't think given a choice of either BIG 10 or SEC that UNC goes to SEC, I think they definitely go to the BIG 10, so if SEC wants to head up the east coast for more geography then it would probably need to be NCST and VT. The question I have do they go even a little further and take Pitt, most in that area I have ask what they thought think probably not.
Just my thoughts and the small bit of background that I can pitch in.

 

[okiemon]

GT's biggest sales pitch to the B1G is access to recruiting in the ATL and our academics.

Serious question from a non-recruiting-expert: How does GT in the B1G give the other teams in that conference access to recruiting in the ATL? Can’t they recruit there anyway? Or is it because they’d be playing games at Tech, and would therefore be in the local press (to the extent that the local press cares about GT games)?

 

[stinger 1957]

Not sure where to put this but I can’t help but believe that teams that get squeezed out of any chance of winning anything significant produce fans who care less and less in general about the sport.

The last few years, as the system seems to get more and more rigged, and teams like Tech have less and less of a chance of winning against significant competition, I have watched the least amount of football in my life.

For a good portion of my life I checked out teams in different conferences, watched entire games with teams I didn’t follow but chose a team to root for, and found lots of games to watch.

I care less and less about the game now, don’t keep up with players, and hardly ever watch a game all the way through. And most Saturdays I don’t watch any games at all. I’m hopeful that Key can turn things around, and, if he does, I might start caring more about the sport in general.

But, not to lose the point, I really believe killing off chances for 80% of teams to be competitive will greatly decrease overall interest in the sport.

Winning has always brought butts and eyeballs, and losing just the opposite and I happen to think there has been another significant thing going on and that is CFB to fan TV over saturation. I'm more and more about just let me know the scores of teams I'm not following where I used to watch other schools games. They have way over done it IMO.

 

[stinger 1957]

Serious question from a non-recruiting-expert: How does GT in the B1G give the other teams in that conference access to recruiting in the ATL? Can’t they recruit there anyway? Or is it because they’d be playing games at Tech, and would therefore be in the local press (to the extent that the local press cares about GT games)?

Yes, and also if GT is in the National CFB Conference with those other schools then all the schools are more likely to recruit kids from all over the country, the key being it is "THE" CFB conference. I could see us picking up kids in CAL, ILL, etc but still having a heavy concentration in GA and the SE. I'm guessing the same for the other schools. I'm guessing there will be tremendous parity because there will be lots of great players for every school. If a team needs a certain type player and they can't get them in their home recruiting area they will find them somewhere in the conference National footprint. Lots of speculation in the above but it is how I see it possibly coming down. In GT's case this could be important because it gives us a broader shot at good academic players from good educational systems around the country.

 

[CEB]

Serious question from a non-recruiting-expert: How does GT in the B1G give the other teams in that conference access to recruiting in the ATL? Can’t they recruit there anyway? Or is it because they’d be playing games at Tech, and would therefore be in the local press (to the extent that the local press cares about GT games)?

Good question. I’m also not a recruiting follower but I think it used to be a whole lot more important than it is today. There is so much national exposure now that I don’t think it’s nearly as big of a deal.
It’s nice to tell a recruit you’ll play in their backyard a couple of times during their college career but I don’t even think that matters now that you can pay the kid and help him fly his family around...