Expansion Talk 2021

[SOWEGA Jacket]

The alliance isn't about not scheduling $ec teams. It's about eventually replacing the NCAA by laying the foundation for a new organization that will correct the mistakes of the NCAA. The alliance will bring in the $ec, it'd be stupid not to. Another reason for the alliance is to ask "if we should" rather than the $ec mantra of "if we could". The $ec only cares about money which is why they add any team they can. The last 4 additions (USCe, ARK, MIZZ, TAM) to the $ec have produced 0 football conference champs. Just because we COULD add wvu, doesn't mean we should.

This is just funny. Why some of you believe this alliance is comprised of above board entities who are here to do the lords work I find just funny. Correct the mistakes of the NCAA? These alliance schools ARE the NCAA! Why didn’t they reign the NCAA in during the previous 4 decades when we went from student athletes to guys posting photos with stacks on Instagram who attend schools of higher education that read on a 3rd grade level? “If we should” vs. “if we could”? My god the ignorance of the past is just unbelievable. Yeah, I remember when USC called the NCAA and turned in Reggie Bush. That PAC 12 is such a group of honorable AD’s. Heck, they’ll probably all take a pay cut to show allegiance to the alliance and help feed the homeless.

 

[slugboy]

Who knows what college football looks like in a few years…

 

[yjack]

If I'm not mistaken, the only way the ACC can re-negotiate their poor TV contract is if they add another school. The best one currently available is WVU. Add them, and you can re-negotiate the entire contract.

I believe there are periodic "look-ins" when terms can be renegotiated. Besides those, increasings the number of schools should also need a renegotiation reason. But do you really think WVU would bring in sizeably more revenue to ESPN then is currently distributed to each school? That's the only way there would be any increased contact benefit to ACC schools.

 

[yjack]

Phillips said (paraphrasing) the Big 12 is needed as a viable conference. Is that just a smokescreen for the poaching Dave Wannstedt says is about to happen?

 

[bobongo]

But do you really think WVU would bring in sizeably more revenue to ESPN then is currently distributed to each school?

No, I've made clear what I meant about 8 times and I'm done with it. I may be wrong, but geez.

 

[gville_jacket]

This is just funny. Why some of you believe this alliance is comprised of above board entities who are here to do the lords work I find just funny. Correct the mistakes of the NCAA? These alliance schools ARE the NCAA! Why didn’t they reign the NCAA in during the previous 4 decades when we went from student athletes to guys posting photos with stacks on Instagram who attend schools of higher education that read on a 3rd grade level? “If we should” vs. “if we could”? My god the ignorance of the past is just unbelievable. Yeah, I remember when USC called the NCAA and turned in Reggie Bush. That PAC 12 is such a group of honorable AD’s. Heck, they’ll probably all take a pay cut to show allegiance to the alliance and help feed the homeless.

I don’t think it’s about them taking over the NCAA to “do the right thing.” It’s about taking over college athletics to make what they want. The idea of having voting power majority to reshape college athletics is a huge draw. Having influence in those conversations and decisions is what I think will drive ND into a conference and with BIG likely taking ISU and KU, the logical place is ACC. Then to balance we could take WV. Taking WV I think is and always has been the secondary play to getting ND.

 

[yeti92]

i'm not advocating for WVU. I'm just saying i see Yeti and Bobongo's point and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

To be clear, I don't think that's how the contract works and am not advocating for adding WVU, just trying to clarify bobongo's point.

 

[MidtownJacket]

We're in Alabama's fight song and they keep ducking us. What does that say about them?

Obviously that they are candy (and I don’t mean peaches).

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I don’t think it’s about them taking over the NCAA to “do the right thing.” It’s about taking over college athletics to make what they want. The idea of having voting power majority to reshape college athletics is a huge draw. Having influence in those conversations and decisions is what I think will drive ND into a conference and with BIG likely taking ISU and KU, the logical place is ACC. Then to balance we could take WV. Taking WV I think is and always has been the secondary play to getting ND.

I agree with you. This alliance is about power no different than what the SEC is doing when it comes to power. I agree. I just can’t stand when others try and give them some great altruistic motives. It’s not about doing the right thing. It’s about who has the power. As much as we all hate the SEC imagine if the BIG had the last 20 year run of the SEC. It would be waaaaaay worse because while the SEC likes to push their winning narrative in our faces they basically stop at sports. If the BIG had the power the SEC has amassed thru winning, they would be insufferable because they truly believe they are better than everyone else in all regards. I’ll take the SEC running things over the PAC 12 or BIG any day of the week. I’d prefer it be the ACC to run things but I can’t even type that with a straight face. We haven’t had a commish with a pair in decades. Maybe Phillips was raised by wolves.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Who knows what college football looks like in a few years…

This happens and most universities will drop athletics. Everything will become intermural or club-level sports. This will change the entire landscape of college athletics and not for the better. Who will suffer will be those athletes playing sports that generate no revenue. Good-bye, scholarship athletes.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

This happens and most universities will drop athletics. Everything will become intermural or club-level sports. This will change the entire landscape of college athletics and not for the better. Who will suffer will be those athletes playing sports that generate no revenue. Good-bye, scholarship athletes.

This is a completely different subject but interesting. And what’s so wrong about having non scholarship athletes? My kids are in college and play club/rec sports and they don’t have any scholarships. I see nothing wrong with that. This idea that athletic scholarships are sacred I just have never understood. If the sport doesn’t make money why should they essentially pay players with a scholarship to play it. Why some sports and not others? I’d be all for dropping all athletic scholarships and then paying the players based on the money their sport brings in. Sure, that may stink for some but why should a kid who is good at softball get a scholarship and a kid who is good at another sport not?

 

[slugboy]

This is a completely different subject but interesting. <snip>

I considered putting the original post in a different thread, but it's an example of college sports possibly changing drastically over the next handful of years, while administrators and commissioners are making 20-50-year decisions.
One one hand, a new generation of commissioners are tweaking college athletics through scheduling and membership decisions.
On the other hand, the fundamentals of college athletics might upend the fundamentals of how the structure works entirely.
Maybe college athletics stops for a while on NIL. If it doesn't, how many schools and conferences can adapt? Are conferences even planning for the right future?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

This is a completely different subject but interesting. And what’s so wrong about having non scholarship athletes? My kids are in college and play club/rec sports and they don’t have any scholarships. I see nothing wrong with that. This idea that athletic scholarships are sacred I just have never understood. If the sport doesn’t make money why should they essentially pay players with a scholarship to play it. Why some sports and not others? I’d be all for dropping all athletic scholarships and then paying the players based on the money their sport brings in. Sure, that may stink for some but why should a kid who is good at softball get a scholarship and a kid who is good at another sport not?

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972

Non revenue sports scholarships are generally awarded to women's sports to meet court mandated interpretations of the law mentioned above. Men's non-revenue sports usually only award partial scholarships and some sports do not even do that.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I’m not really talking about men’s vs. women. I get that. I’m talking sports vis a vis other sports. The day is definitely coming when the fringe sports won‘t be scholarships sports anymore. I’ve never understood why they were getting them to begin with.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I’m not really talking about men’s vs. women. I get that. I’m talking sports vis a vis other sports. The day is definitely coming when the fringe sports won‘t be scholarships sports anymore. I’ve never understood why they were getting them to begin with.

Because you don't get to choose how people spend their money. Scholarships are endowed by individuals. Donors give in order to sponsor an athlete in a specific sport. Golf, at GT, is fully endowed. If someone wants to endow a men's tennis scholarship, you don't get to say "No. We'll just use that money for football instead."

Scholarship Endowments | GT | Georgia Institute of Technology | Alexander Tharpe Fund

atfund.gatech.edu

 

[RonJohn]

Because you don't get to choose how people spend their money. Scholarships are endowed by individuals. Donors give in order to sponsor an athlete in a specific sport. Golf, at GT, is fully endowed. If someone wants to endow a men's tennis scholarship, you don't get to say "No. We'll just use that money for football instead."

Scholarship Endowments | GT | Georgia Institute of Technology | Alexander Tharpe Fund

atfund.gatech.edu

To expand on this. There are some professional golfers who were on the golf team at GT, who have done very well on the PGA. Some of those have provided money to ensure that the golf program is very strong. There are several baseball players from GT who have had very good MLB careers. Some of them have donated money to help upgrade the facilities and to ensure that the program is strong and able to continue. (There is one in particular who is rumored to have donated a significant amount to GT baseball.)

Just because I would have a preference on where to allocate money doesn't mean that I get to tell people who donate millions of dollars what to do with their money.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

PAC 12 stated that they are NOT looking to expand. Big 12 teams being left hung out to dry.

 

[RonJohn]

PAC 12 stated that they are NOT looking to expand. Big 12 teams being left hung out to dry.

Does this mean that Dave Wannstedt isn't providing 100% fact?

 

[FredJacket]

PAC 12 stated that they are NOT looking to expand. Big 12 teams being left hung out to dry.

This is what you say (& stand by) right up until you change your mind.

This alliance is all talk & posturing (for now). There is nothing signed ... nor will there be. No legal (contractual) obligation from any conference. For the time being, the 3 conferences have agreed they don't like the direction things are taking with SEC "leading" the football stuff.

I like the things the alliance said they stood for & planned to prioritize. But this is about power (I mean that in a non-negative sense). Therefore, we're seeing political posturing at the leadership level with these conferences. Perhaps the alliance proves to be great for Ga Tech & the ACC. My hunch is at some point somebody (a team, a conference or combo) is going to blink & the house of cards will fall forcing another re-alliance .... & on it will go.

One thing is certain... my grandddady's NCAA is gone gone gone... it ain't never coming back.

 

[forensicbuzz]

This is a completely different subject but interesting. And what’s so wrong about having non scholarship athletes? My kids are in college and play club/rec sports and they don’t have any scholarships. I see nothing wrong with that. This idea that athletic scholarships are sacred I just have never understood. If the sport doesn’t make money why should they essentially pay players with a scholarship to play it. Why some sports and not others? I’d be all for dropping all athletic scholarships and then paying the players based on the money their sport brings in. Sure, that may stink for some but why should a kid who is good at softball get a scholarship and a kid who is good at another sport not?

Never said it would be bad. okay. maybe I did indirectly. But, I think it would take the opportunity away from many. Most student-athletes go pro in something other than the sport they played. Often times the opportunity to go to a school they would never be admitted to, let along be able to afford, would just not be there for these student-athletes. I think it would do far more harm than good.