Conference Realignment

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,075
Can’t disagree with much in either of these two posts and at the same time I recognize that the NCAA has little control over football (which was the gist of the post you’re replying to). BUT, that didn’t happen overnight, and some of the smaller schools should have used influence they had by virtue of the NCAA (ironically) to actually try to police these issues a LONG LONG time ago. Instead, most were content to ride coattails, cash checks and continue the lip service / illusion of fair play. Suffice to say, that decision is likely going to bite many middle to lower D1 schools in the butt.
I couldn’t agree more. Everyone bought in and took the money while the fans were given a rigged sport. My opinion is that every team should take down every national title banner because not one of them can say with all honesty they were the best team. They all may think they were, just like I think 1990 GT was the best team, but without a real playoff it’s all just conjecture. You don’t have that in any other college sport which proves how corrupt and how many payoffs have been made regarding D1 football.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,668
Can’t disagree with much in either of these two posts and at the same time I recognize that the NCAA has little control over football (which was the gist of the post you’re replying to). BUT, that didn’t happen overnight, and some of the smaller schools should have used influence they had by virtue of the NCAA (ironically) to actually try to police these issues a LONG LONG time ago. Instead, most were content to ride coattails, cash checks and continue the lip service / illusion of fair play. Suffice to say, that decision is likely going to bite many middle to lower D1 schools in the butt.
The college prez run the ncaa.
They can require progress and attendence for athletes.
Then can require players to be on scholarship.
KEY
a. They can and do control number of scholarships (85).
.b They can lower scholarship limit for a school for a set period for un wanted acts by school.
c. They could declare EXCESSIVE WINNING CHAMPIONSHIP OR being in TOP 10 IS BAD FOR COMPETITION BY OTHER TEAMS ( The pros know this is true - EVEN BIG MARKETS KNOW THE OTHER GUYS NEED A CHANCE)
The university prez could agree that its important that college football should not be top heavy by the same schools.

They took the tv easy money and didn't make hard long term decisions.
 
Last edited:

LT 1967

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
500
Stanford and Cal may be starting conversations with BIG 12. See attached. Will the ACC be too slow to act as usual?
 

Attachments

  • BIG 12--Stanford and Cal.pdf
    198.1 KB · Views: 52

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,475
I'm not sure what is underlying the Stanford, Cal to ACC but it sure smells it was all for ND, then they get a contract with NBC for big money, now have control of ACC and get to play their teams out west - ACC teams are now stuck with low revenues for 13 years and end up not being able to compete. I could easily be wrong about this but it sure looks that way to me. It is always about ND and screw everybody else, never from the get-go did I think ACC should have given them a partial membership and now we find out they have a full vote on memberships for FB. What in the hell are we doing. Hope I'm all wrong about what I'm saying. The ACC is turning out to be a bigger disaster than I originally thought. My problem is I don't have all the info, I'm saying what I'm saying not seeing the full picture possibly.
Seeing the retiring ND AD on a National sports talk show lobbying for ACC to take Cal, Stanford was the real awakening for me, knowing they always get what they want and screw everybody else. And these fools in college sports fall all over themselves to accommodate them. Swafford and the tobacco road mafia are turning out to be a bigger disaster as each day passes. I'm about to get on the FSU side of things.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,863
I'm not sure what is underlying the Stanford, Cal to ACC but it sure smells it was all for ND, then they get a contract with NBC for big money, now have control of ACC and get to play their teams out west - ACC teams are now stuck with low revenues for 13 years and end up not being able to compete. I could easily be wrong about this but it sure looks that way to me. It is always about ND and screw everybody else, never from the get-go did I think ACC should have given them a partial membership and now we find out they have a full vote on memberships for FB. What in the hell are we doing. Hope I'm all wrong about what I'm saying. The ACC is turning out to be a bigger disaster than I originally thought. My problem is I don't have all the info, I'm saying what I'm saying not seeing the full picture possibly.
Seeing the retiring ND AD on a National sports talk show lobbying for ACC to take Cal, Stanford was the real awakening for me, knowing they always get what they want and screw everybody else. And these fools in college sports fall all over themselves to accommodate them. Swafford and the tobacco road mafia are turning out to be a bigger disaster as each day passes. I'm about to get on the FSU side of things.
Let me ask a question or two.
First, if the ACC contract wasn't until 2036 do you think the ACC would garner a better deal than it currently has?
Second, if there was no GoR, do you think the schools in the ACC would get full share offers from the SEC and B1G?

Here are my thoughts on that.
On question 1. I don't believe the ACC would get a better contract if it was up sooner. ACC has the clear #3 media contract and that is likely to be the case out to 2036. It is unlikely if its contract was up right now that it would get a better offer than it currently has. B12 was fortunate to get a contract that pays its P5 members an avg of 31M per year (which doesn't mean that is what they get today, that is what the average is over the life of the contract) while their G5 members get significantly less. WA and OR got $30M to join the B1G. They will eventually get a full share, but what that full share is will be up to where the market is at the end of the decade. The vast majority of ACC schools if they left the ACC would not get any more money than they are getting today.

On question 2. There are likely only 3 programs right now that would get a full share from the B1G or SEC. ND, UNC and UVA. That is it. ND is beyond obvious, but it is also obvious as long as they have a legit path to the playoffs as a FB independent they will not join any conference. UVA and UNC are the only schools that fit into the strategic models that both the SEC and B1G are following and would therefore likely attract full share offers from either as their would likely be a bidding contest for them. I also believe if they were to leave the ACC both would choose the B1G over the SEC. There are other schools that might be able to snag on offer - a list would include FSU, Clemson, VT, NCSU, GT, Miami, and Stanford but none are likely to garner a full share from one of the Big 2 for 2 reasons. First, for most of them only one of the two conferences would have an interest in them so there is no bidding contest. Second, the market has spoken and the shares the current SEC and B1G members are receiving are higher than market level and there simply is not money left to bring on more at that level.


I believe college football has changed forever, but not for better. The idea of 20 team conferences really makes no sense. They destroy rivalries and make it more difficult for college football fans to stay bought into the game. Demographics are trending away from college football in a way that will make it more difficult to get better deals in the future (higher percentages of younger Millenials and Gen Z say they do not consider themselves college football fans - Neilson study put them at 44%, which is much higher than previous generations). College football has had consistent declines for over a decade with in-person attendance - and the real problem is worse than the figures suggest as most released numbers greatly overstate actual attendance as pretty much all colleges report tickets sold rather than people passing through gates. One recent study put the avg people attending vs tickets sold at about 70% across FBS. It also has a viewership that is aging and becoming less attractive to advertisers.

AD and fans think there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but in reality that pot of gold may be much smaller than they believe it to be.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Over the last several years, I have noticed that GT has dropped in some of the different rankings, partially due to University of California schools like CAL at San Diego, CAL at Davis, CAL at Irvin have moved ahead of us. Also, Florida moved up to #6 (Forbes). We once occupied #5 several years ago (US News). I am referring to Public Universities only.

To me, I guess it shows that you can have more than 36 majors (GT) and still be highly regarded academically.

We've always been in the #30-#40 range in national universities. We are currently #6 in engineering schools where we usually are in the #4-6 range.
 

LT 1967

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
500
We've always been in the #30-#40 range in national universities. We are currently #6 in engineering schools where we usually are in the #4-6 range.

Yes, when the ranking includes public and private. The ranking I mentioned were for public only. I believe your Forbes ranking had GT at 12th in national Public Universities.
 
Last edited:

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Yes, when the ranking includes public and private. The ranking I mentioned were for public only. I believe your Forbes ranking had GT at 12th in national Public Universities.

I've never paid attention to where we rank in public only. The two numbers I've always paid attention to are national rankings (public and private together) and ranking of engineering schools. GT is always in the 30-40 range in the former and has been anywhere from 3-7 in the latter since I've been paying attention.
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,851
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Let me ask a question or two.
First, if the ACC contract wasn't until 2036 do you think the ACC would garner a better deal than it currently has?
Second, if there was no GoR, do you think the schools in the ACC would get full share offers from the SEC and B1G?

Here are my thoughts on that.
On question 1. I don't believe the ACC would get a better contract if it was up sooner. ACC has the clear #3 media contract and that is likely to be the case out to 2036. It is unlikely if its contract was up right now that it would get a better offer than it currently has. B12 was fortunate to get a contract that pays its P5 members an avg of 31M per year (which doesn't mean that is what they get today, that is what the average is over the life of the contract) while their G5 members get significantly less. WA and OR got $30M to join the B1G. They will eventually get a full share, but what that full share is will be up to where the market is at the end of the decade. The vast majority of ACC schools if they left the ACC would not get any more money than they are getting today.

On question 2. There are likely only 3 programs right now that would get a full share from the B1G or SEC. ND, UNC and UVA. That is it. ND is beyond obvious, but it is also obvious as long as they have a legit path to the playoffs as a FB independent they will not join any conference. UVA and UNC are the only schools that fit into the strategic models that both the SEC and B1G are following and would therefore likely attract full share offers from either as their would likely be a bidding contest for them. I also believe if they were to leave the ACC both would choose the B1G over the SEC. There are other schools that might be able to snag on offer - a list would include FSU, Clemson, VT, NCSU, GT, Miami, and Stanford but none are likely to garner a full share from one of the Big 2 for 2 reasons. First, for most of them only one of the two conferences would have an interest in them so there is no bidding contest. Second, the market has spoken and the shares the current SEC and B1G members are receiving are higher than market level and there simply is not money left to bring on more at that level.


I believe college football has changed forever, but not for better. The idea of 20 team conferences really makes no sense. They destroy rivalries and make it more difficult for college football fans to stay bought into the game. Demographics are trending away from college football in a way that will make it more difficult to get better deals in the future (higher percentages of younger Millenials and Gen Z say they do not consider themselves college football fans - Neilson study put them at 44%, which is much higher than previous generations). College football has had consistent declines for over a decade with in-person attendance - and the real problem is worse than the figures suggest as most released numbers greatly overstate actual attendance as pretty much all colleges report tickets sold rather than people passing through gates. One recent study put the avg people attending vs tickets sold at about 70% across FBS. It also has a viewership that is aging and becoming less attractive to advertisers.

AD and fans think there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but in reality that pot of gold may be much smaller than they believe it to be.
From 2030/31 to 2036, the ACC may have the highest-paying TV contract in CF.
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,851
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Yes, when the ranking includes public and private. The ranking I mentioned were for public only. I believe your Forbes ranking had GT at 12th in national Public Universities.
Those rankings don't matter to university presidents. Fobes, USN&WR, etc. are garbage. Great for student attraction, but not great for research dollar attraction or distinguished professor attraction.
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,831
Let me ask a question or two.
First, if the ACC contract wasn't until 2036 do you think the ACC would garner a better deal than it currently has?
Second, if there was no GoR, do you think the schools in the ACC would get full share offers from the SEC and B1G?

Here are my thoughts on that.
On question 1. I don't believe the ACC would get a better contract if it was up sooner. ACC has the clear #3 media contract and that is likely to be the case out to 2036. It is unlikely if its contract was up right now that it would get a better offer than it currently has. B12 was fortunate to get a contract that pays its P5 members an avg of 31M per year (which doesn't mean that is what they get today, that is what the average is over the life of the contract) while their G5 members get significantly less. WA and OR got $30M to join the B1G. They will eventually get a full share, but what that full share is will be up to where the market is at the end of the decade. The vast majority of ACC schools if they left the ACC would not get any more money than they are getting today.

On question 2. There are likely only 3 programs right now that would get a full share from the B1G or SEC. ND, UNC and UVA. That is it. ND is beyond obvious, but it is also obvious as long as they have a legit path to the playoffs as a FB independent they will not join any conference. UVA and UNC are the only schools that fit into the strategic models that both the SEC and B1G are following and would therefore likely attract full share offers from either as their would likely be a bidding contest for them. I also believe if they were to leave the ACC both would choose the B1G over the SEC. There are other schools that might be able to snag on offer - a list would include FSU, Clemson, VT, NCSU, GT, Miami, and Stanford but none are likely to garner a full share from one of the Big 2 for 2 reasons. First, for most of them only one of the two conferences would have an interest in them so there is no bidding contest. Second, the market has spoken and the shares the current SEC and B1G members are receiving are higher than market level and there simply is not money left to bring on more at that level.


I believe college football has changed forever, but not for better. The idea of 20 team conferences really makes no sense. They destroy rivalries and make it more difficult for college football fans to stay bought into the game. Demographics are trending away from college football in a way that will make it more difficult to get better deals in the future (higher percentages of younger Millenials and Gen Z say they do not consider themselves college football fans - Neilson study put them at 44%, which is much higher than previous generations). College football has had consistent declines for over a decade with in-person attendance - and the real problem is worse than the figures suggest as most released numbers greatly overstate actual attendance as pretty much all colleges report tickets sold rather than people passing through gates. One recent study put the avg people attending vs tickets sold at about 70% across FBS. It also has a viewership that is aging and becoming less attractive to advertisers.

AD and fans think there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but in reality that pot of gold may be much smaller than they believe it to be.
What specifically about UVA makes them so desirable and would rate a full share in the BIG?
 

78pike

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
864
What specifically about UVA makes them so desirable and would rate a full share in the BIG?
To start I would say recent national championships in both basketball and baseball. I also think they are pretty strong in several of the olympic sports. Plus I think they have a broader base of sports they participate in that Tech.
 

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,475
Let me ask a question or two.
First, if the ACC contract wasn't until 2036 do you think the ACC would garner a better deal than it currently has?
Second, if there was no GoR, do you think the schools in the ACC would get full share offers from the SEC and B1G?

Here are my thoughts on that.
On question 1. I don't believe the ACC would get a better contract if it was up sooner. ACC has the clear #3 media contract and that is likely to be the case out to 2036. It is unlikely if its contract was up right now that it would get a better offer than it currently has. B12 was fortunate to get a contract that pays its P5 members an avg of 31M per year (which doesn't mean that is what they get today, that is what the average is over the life of the contract) while their G5 members get significantly less. WA and OR got $30M to join the B1G. They will eventually get a full share, but what that full share is will be up to where the market is at the end of the decade. The vast majority of ACC schools if they left the ACC would not get any more money than they are getting today.

On question 2. There are likely only 3 programs right now that would get a full share from the B1G or SEC. ND, UNC and UVA. That is it. ND is beyond obvious, but it is also obvious as long as they have a legit path to the playoffs as a FB independent they will not join any conference. UVA and UNC are the only schools that fit into the strategic models that both the SEC and B1G are following and would therefore likely attract full share offers from either as their would likely be a bidding contest for them. I also believe if they were to leave the ACC both would choose the B1G over the SEC. There are other schools that might be able to snag on offer - a list would include FSU, Clemson, VT, NCSU, GT, Miami, and Stanford but none are likely to garner a full share from one of the Big 2 for 2 reasons. First, for most of them only one of the two conferences would have an interest in them so there is no bidding contest. Second, the market has spoken and the shares the current SEC and B1G members are receiving are higher than market level and there simply is not money left to bring on more at that level.


I believe college football has changed forever, but not for better. The idea of 20 team conferences really makes no sense. They destroy rivalries and make it more difficult for college football fans to stay bought into the game. Demographics are trending away from college football in a way that will make it more difficult to get better deals in the future (higher percentages of younger Millenials and Gen Z say they do not consider themselves college football fans - Neilson study put them at 44%, which is much higher than previous generations). College football has had consistent declines for over a decade with in-person attendance - and the real problem is worse than the figures suggest as most released numbers greatly overstate actual attendance as pretty much all colleges report tickets sold rather than people passing through gates. One recent study put the avg people attending vs tickets sold at about 70% across FBS. It also has a viewership that is aging and becoming less attractive to advertisers.

AD and fans think there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but in reality that pot of gold may be much smaller than they believe it to be.
The schools should be able to take care of themselves but they don't have that chance now, so we all go down with this sinking ship, because you better believe ND and others are going to take care of themselves, exactly what I see ND doing at everyone else expense. Let each school seek it's rightful place/level in the mkt place. Let GT end up where they belong in the mkt place, let Wake end up where they belong in the mkt place and the same for all the schools because it will eventually work out badly for most if we don't let that happen IMO. I don't see any chance of the ACC having a successful future going forward long term. We will be a complete disaster by 2036 in comparison and those that have a chance to take care of themselves will never have that chance so we all go down with the ship. That's not how I want go.
 

Oldgoldandwhite

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,768
Top