Here's a thought

[CEB]

The “shepherd” is the same we’ve had the past 20 years - money. Now the money has morphed from bowl payouts and regional TV contracts to national networks and stadium owners. Now we are moving into the streaming era. But make no mistake their are many shepherds out there working behind the scenes to maximize the money. Ohio States AD basically said this without saying it.

As I stated above, we have been conditioned to watch a crap product for 100 years for 80% of the season when the outcomes are known before kickoff. In no other sport is the team deemed the best the team just because they have the fewest losses. How many years have we watched SEC teams win 11 games with 8-9 patsies. To me that is garbage. I’d much rather watch a two evenly matched teams play even if they both have 4 losses which will happen in both tiers in the future. Then they’ll both have their playoffs to win a Natty on the field. It’s all about content and keeping fanbases involved for 5 months instead of bailing after loss #2.

I get that money is the driving force, but HOW is this going to happen? Who will orchestrate? Some sort of entity will have to be formed so the member schools have something to leave FOR. I suppose a confederation of like minded schools can work behind the scenes to all jump together (this is where grant of rights extension talks could be telling / interesting). Other option is a conference starts rewriting rules to “transcend” the rest of college football and then becomes the gatekeeper for who else gets in. SEC certainly seems the most likely candidate for that but there is still some dead weight to shed (just maybe less than any other conference).
I don’t really disagree with anything you say about the current state of college football or the fact that 90+ programs already have no shot in hades to compete for a championship. I also know it’s been a deceptive and underhanded institution for decades. No objection. I’m just having trouble visualizing how this reorganization is going to unfold.

 

[TooTall]

I would gladly be in tier 2, simply because even if we start buying players we would never be able to afford enough to play with the Tier 1 schools. That is why they will be the schools in tier 1.

Keep in mind it is not about the school funding for athletics. It is about the fan base funding for athletics. All the NIL money is coming from fans not the schools (schools are not allowed to have NIL's).
GT's fanbase is simply too small to compete with the bigger schools. Fans may not like hearing that but it is the simple truth.
Every school in a given conference gets the same amount of TV money as every other school in that conference. The difference is how much money does their AA get from their fans. That is the big differentiator between the schools.

In the playoff period the only schools that have had more than 1 playoff bid are - AL, UGA, OK, Clemson, and ND. That's it. In the NIL era there will be a few others that are likely to join that group because they will spend to get there, but frankly there are only so many schools where the fanbase support is enough to put them in that tier.

We could pay players but we still wouldn't be competitive in tier 1 because we would be unable to pay enough players to keep up.

GT hasn't been a major player in college football since the early 60's (before I was born). I'm not naive enough to think that will change or is even possible to change now.

Let the 20 or so schools that have the massive funding necessary to play in that tier 1 play in tier 1. Then let other schools that can compete financially more evenly with each other compete.
It is likely to be more enjoyable for the majority of college football fans than the current setup.

You think we can out bid Tier 2 schools?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Who are the tier 1 schools?

uga, Bama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida St, Miami, Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, USC, Oregon, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, Arkansas, Michigan St, Washington, VT, Wisconsin, & Iowa for starters

The rest of the SEC and B1G by virtue of already being aligned within their conferences. If what @RamblinRed and others have postulated on comes to fruition, you would likely see the bulk of the SEC and B1G merge into a new super league and teams like Clemson, FSU, Miami, USC, Oregon, etc., would leave their conferences and join the new league. These are the schools that spend the most on football, hence most likely to form the new "top tier" of "amateur" college football.

 

[WreckinGT]

I would gladly be in tier 2, simply because even if we start buying players we would never be able to afford enough to play with the Tier 1 schools. That is why they will be the schools in tier 1.

Keep in mind it is not about the school funding for athletics. It is about the fan base funding for athletics. All the NIL money is coming from fans not the schools (schools are not allowed to have NIL's).
GT's fanbase is simply too small to compete with the bigger schools. Fans may not like hearing that but it is the simple truth.
Every school in a given conference gets the same amount of TV money as every other school in that conference. The difference is how much money does their AA get from their fans. That is the big differentiator between the schools.

In the playoff period the only schools that have had more than 1 playoff bid are - AL, UGA, OK, Clemson, and ND. That's it. In the NIL era there will be a few others that are likely to join that group because they will spend to get there, but frankly there are only so many schools where the fanbase support is enough to put them in that tier.

We could pay players but we still wouldn't be competitive in tier 1 because we would be unable to pay enough players to keep up.

GT hasn't been a major player in college football since the early 60's (before I was born). I'm not naive enough to think that will change or is even possible to change now.

Let the 20 or so schools that have the massive funding necessary to play in that tier 1 play in tier 1. Then let other schools that can compete financially more evenly with each other compete.
It is likely to be more enjoyable for the majority of college football fans than the current setup.

How do you create tiers based on NIL money then? Who would even create it and how would they have access to the data about NIL spending?

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I get that money is the driving force, but HOW is this going to happen? Who will orchestrate? Some sort of entity will have to be formed so the member schools have something to leave FOR. I suppose a confederation of like minded schools can work behind the scenes to all jump together (this is where grant of rights extension talks could be telling / interesting). Other option is a conference starts rewriting rules to “transcend” the rest of college football and then becomes the gatekeeper for who else gets in. SEC certainly seems the most likely candidate for that but there is still some dead weight to shed (just maybe less than any other conference).
I don’t really disagree with anything you say about the current state of college football or the fact that 90+ programs already have no shot in hades to compete for a championship. I also know it’s been a deceptive and underhanded institution for decades. No objection. I’m just having trouble visualizing how this reorganization is going to unfold.

I have no clue but it will be a 10-15 year morphing like one of the posters above described. But did you see how the powers got Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC and no one saw it coming. That’s how real business is handled. The problem is as a society we have been fed so much garbage that people actually believe what’s real is what they see on Tik tok or what is reported by a bimbo on Sportscenter. Thats like thinking real food is at the buffett. The real difference makers act in darkness and are heard in silence.

 

[Ibeeballin]

uga, Bama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida St, Miami, Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, USC, Oregon, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, Arkansas, Michigan St, Washington, VT, Wisconsin, & Iowa for starters

The rest of the SEC and B1G by virtue of already being aligned within their conferences. If what @RamblinRed and others have postulated on comes to fruition, you would likely see the bulk of the SEC and B1G merge into a new super league and teams like Clemson, FSU, Miami, USC, Oregon, etc., would leave their conferences and join the new league. These are the schools that spend the most on football, hence most likely to form the new "top tier" of "amateur" college football.

Is this purely on name recognition? No way we are talking performance and financials and including the likes UT, Texas, Arkansas, USC, Miami (performance), FSU, & VT (financial).

Imo, Tier 1 consist 6-8teams who can do both perform and have the financial backing. UGA, Bama, OSU, Clemson( Dabo needs to adapt like Coach K), LSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, & Oklahoma.

 

[yeti92]

uga, Bama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida St, Miami, Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, USC, Oregon, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, Arkansas, Michigan St, Washington, VT, Wisconsin, & Iowa for starters

The rest of the SEC and B1G by virtue of already being aligned within their conferences. If what @RamblinRed and others have postulated on comes to fruition, you would likely see the bulk of the SEC and B1G merge into a new super league and teams like Clemson, FSU, Miami, USC, Oregon, etc., would leave their conferences and join the new league. These are the schools that spend the most on football, hence most likely to form the new "top tier" of "amateur" college football.

What makes VT and Arkansas tier 1 schools?

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

You think we can out bid Tier 2 schools?

Probably not all of them, but we probably can "stay in the game".

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Is this purely on name recognition? No way we are talking performance and financials and including the likes UT, Texas, Arkansas, USC, Miami (performance), FSU, & VT (financial).

Imo, Tier 1 consist 6-8teams who can do both perform and have the financial backing. UGA, Bama, OSU, Clemson( Dabo needs to adapt like Coach K), LSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, & Oklahoma.

Anyone who can spend the money will be able to stay in tier 1 - A&M, Texas, USC, etc. Performance is secondary since these teams have huge fanbases, huge alum $$, and they are willing to spend it on football.

NOTE: I believe Auburn can compete is the big boy $$ game as well, and they probably will.

 

[Ibeeballin]

Anyone who can spend the money will be able to stay in tier 1 - A&M, Texas, USC, etc. Performance is secondary since these teams have huge fanbases, huge alum $$, and they are willing to spend it on football.

NOTE: I believe Auburn can compete is the big boy $$ game as well, and they probably will.

That’s not how that works. That assumes they were not spending the prior to it being public. Texas and USC has never been frugile, yet it doesn’t reflect in performance. If performance was secondary neither UGA or Clemson would be who they are currently. Both were double digit win teams that couldn’t get over the hurdle until spent more money in coaches and recruiting

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

That’s not how that works. That assumes they were not spending the prior to it being public. Texas and USC has never been frugile, yet it doesn’t reflect in performance. If performance was secondary neither UGA or Clemson would be who they are currently. Both were double digit win teams that couldn’t get over the hurdle until spent more money in coaches and recruiting

I just meant if a tier 1 division is created, the teams that can afford to compete financially will be included. I don't mean that "performance" is not important; I just don't believe it will factor into the tier 1 and tier 2 divisions if that comes to fruition.

 

[WreckinGT]

I just meant if a tier 1 division is created, the teams that can afford to compete financially will be included.

What is the definition of can afford to compete financially? Do you set an arbitrary number on expenses? What if several teams after that decide to dedicate more resources to ensure their place in tier 1?

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

What is the definition of can afford to compete financially? Do you set an arbitrary number on expenses? What if several teams after that decide to dedicate more resources to ensure their place in tier 1?

I have no idea - but, I would think it would have something to do with what their alumni base/companies want to commit each year to NIL. I have no idea how this will work or if it will ever happen.

For example, maybe any locale willing to commit that every year, there will be 15 million plus available for NIL would be in the top tier. Now, with that said, I have no idea how this value gets confirmed to begin with and verified after the fact.

It might be easier to base on the size of the fanbase and how much total $$ is generated each year in tickets sales and marketing/merchandise sales. It is most likely that these teams will also be the teams that can best compete in the NIL world.

No matter how it is done, if it is done, it will make some teams not happy, I am sure. Maybe some teams would rather be in tier 1, but they don't make the "cut", and maybe some teams would rather be in tier 2, but they are stuck in tier 1. That is where once this starts, maybe there is a "performance" component where some teams drop down due to their performance and some teams move up depending on their performance. That is similar to the Premier League in English soccer.

 

[slugboy]

Is this purely on name recognition? No way we are talking performance and financials and including the likes UT, Texas, Arkansas, USC, Miami (performance), FSU, & VT (financial).

Imo, Tier 1 consist 6-8teams who can do both perform and have the financial backing. UGA, Bama, OSU, Clemson( Dabo needs to adapt like Coach K), LSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, & Oklahoma.

I'm just a guy on the street, but I think there are three factors
1. revenue
2. eyeballs (how many viewers)
3. wins

If there really is a "super league", then the arms race well under way, and the teams that would go in today aren't the teams who might make the cut in five years.

If you're purely a football fan, you might have missed that Europe's biggest and richest soccer teams tried to do the same thing with just 12 teams. It blew up badly from fan backlash. That doesn't mean our NCAA teams aren't thinking they can succeed where those teams failed; I think they're copying plans and making edits.

This is my first cut at guessing who the Tier 1 schools would be. I think anyone can look and say "Alabama is in". Most people can look and also say "Ohio State, Georgia, LSU". Then you get to Clemson and Notre Dame--Clemson because of wins and fans and Notre Dame because of money and fans. It gets kind of tricky to fill in the top 10 and say who is in and who is out, but Penn State and Oklahoma look pretty good as of today.

The top 25 in revenues are

1. Texas
2. UGA
3. Michigan
4. Ohio State
5. Alabama
6. Oklahoma
7. Penn State
8. Notre Dame
9. Auburn
10. Nebraska
11. LSU
12. Florida
13. Washington
14. Tennessee
15. Wisconsin
16. Iowa
17. Texas A&M
18. Oregon
19. Florida State
20. Arkansas
21. South Carolina
22. Michigan State
23. Illinois
24. Clemson
25. Utah

For wins:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Oregon
7. Notre Dame
8. Wisconsin
9. LSU
10. Oklahoma State
11. Texas A&M
12. FSU (Surprise! They were great at the start of the decade)
13. Michigan State
14. Penn State
15. Michigan
16. Iowa
17. Stanford (Surprise #2, they were good at the start of the decade)
18. Florida
19. Washington
20. Utah
21. Baylor
22. Southern Cal
23. Louisville
24. Kansas State
25. Auburn

Texas--as anemic as they've been for winning, is gonna be in because of revenues and fanbase. If you're in both top 20 in wins AND top 20 in revenue, you're gonna be in, unless you're one of those teams who've been in serious decline the past few years (FSU, Stanford).

Notre Dame is going to be in with no problem. I think Clemson is in, but revenues are a worry.

For teams like Florida and Auburn and Iowa, it depends on how you draw the lines, but Iowa looks really safe.

Nebraska needs to figure out how to win.

We are way, way, way on the outside right now. For revenue, we're #63. For wins, I don't know where we are now.

See https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ot...ams-new-revenue-figures-for-all-65/ar-AALuIbn.

For viewership, here's one set of numbers: https://www.statista.com/statistics/748033/college-football-tv-ratings/#:~:text=The NCAA college football semifinal on January 1,,season, with 9.6 and approximately 19 million viewers.

10 winningest teams over the last decade: https://247sports.com/LongFormArtic...grams-in-past-10-years-188246525/#188246525_1

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Is this purely on name recognition? No way we are talking performance and financials and including the likes UT, Texas, Arkansas, USC, Miami (performance), FSU, & VT (financial).

Imo, Tier 1 consist 6-8teams who can do both perform and have the financial backing. UGA, Bama, OSU, Clemson( Dabo needs to adapt like Coach K), LSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, & Oklahoma.

No. It's based on the spending of these universities on football. These particular schools already spend more money on football than all the rest combined. I get your point on the elite of tier 1, but it will take more than those 6-8 teams to make a league work.

By the way, Arkansas, VT, & all those I listed just happen to be in the top 25 football spending schools in the country. Performance has not always followed, but they might eventually throw enough money at it to overcome past failures. They sure are willing to.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

What makes VT and Arkansas tier 1 schools?

Football spending. This is about money, right? Both of those schools are in the top 25 of football spending.

 

[CEB]

So let me see if I have this straight...

This is definitely going to happen because teams are going to chase the money.
The only teams that are going to be allowed to chase the money are the teams who prove they don’t need the money by spending massive amounts of money.
We don’t know who makes that call on who does and who doesn’t get to be a part, but someone obviously makes that call.
That someone is obviously working behind the scenes now to make this happen because that’s how things like this happen. It’s just good business.
There is no doubt that huge sums of money are waiting to be paid for all of these marquee matchups of top-tier teams, because fans are clamoring for weeks and weeks of marquee matchups between top tier teams.
Or fans are tired of seeing the same teams over and over.... or they aren’t tired of seeing the same teams if it happens more often culminating in a true playoff.
So... People DEFINITELY want to see top tier teams play each other and media will pay to broadcast that weekly.
However, the top-tier teams aren’t necessarily determined by their performance on the field even though broadcasting top performing teams is the goal. It’s more likely that the programs’ ability to generate NIL funds will be the determining factor.
And they’ll have to prove that they have access to millions of NIL dollars and alumni donations in order to gain access to the riches waiting for them in the massive media contracts of the super conference of top performing, errrr top tier, teams.
The super-conference is definitely coming, and if you don’t believe it, look no further than the major programs shuffling conference affiliations now. It’s obviously really important to be part of the right conference before that conference dissolves.
Or, obviously said conference is going to BECOME the super-conference.
Don’t worry about any existing members / affiliations of that conference who can’t foot the NIL bill, though; refer to above unknown good business person serving as gate keeper, who will force out the programs of insufficient NIL means.
Or maybe these second tier teams will proactively opt out of higher revenue situations because they don’t care about the money.
But everybody cares about the money... that’s why this is going to happen!

 

[Vespidae]

You and many other posters on this board have settled for "below average" and every one of your posts pushes that narrative that we should give up on drawing big talent (idc who you are, you never stop trying, that's weak AF),

Really? I think I'm much more pragmatic than hoping we will land a 5* recruit based on a 1% likelihood.

Have a look at our past 30+ years ...

If we assume that we can repeat the best coaching of the era since Bobby Ross, that would be GOL and a win rate of 63.9% ... which ain't great, but it was great for Tech. That's equal to about 7-8 wins a year. That is not winning Natty's. That's getting by.

So the question isn't "How do we compete at the highest level of the game", the question is, "How do we compete and win at least 60% of our games, or more, in the current environment?"

I think it is absolute lunacy to think that Tech, with $200MM+ in debt, an aging fanbase, a limited curriculum, and scant local support ... is going to suddenly be in the Top 10. Any talent we get (and develop) is going to get pilfered away. So, we need a new plan.

My ME professor, S. Peter Kezios, said it best. "We aren't the Physics Department. We are the Real World. We deal with constraints. Not perfect solutions. Find a way to work with the constraints WE DO HAVE, not ignore them."

That's not being negative, that's being realistic. Show me a plan to get us to consistently winning 7 games a year, and then ... 8 .... and then ... 9. We LURCH from one strategy to another, based on the coach we hire that year, rather than select a way to compete that works for us - long-term. Not a great way to run a $100M+ operation.

 

[JacketFan137]

Really? I think I'm much more pragmatic than hoping we will land a 5* recruit based on a 1% likelihood.

Have a look at our past 30+ years ...
View attachment 12566

If we assume that we can repeat the best coaching of the era since Bobby Ross, that would be GOL and a win rate of 63.9% ... which ain't great, but it was great for Tech. That's equal to about 7-8 wins a year. That is not winning Natty's. That's getting by.

So the question isn't "How do we compete at the highest level of the game", the question is, "How do we compete and win at least 60% of our games, or more, in the current environment?"

I think it is absolute lunacy to think that Tech, with $200MM+ in debt, an aging fanbase, a limited curriculum, and scant local support ... is going to suddenly be in the Top 10. Any talent we get (and develop) is going to get pilfered away. So, we need a new plan.

My ME professor, S. Peter Kezios, said it best. "We aren't the Physics Department. We are the Real World. We deal with constraints. Not perfect solutions. Find a way to work with the constraints WE DO HAVE, not ignore them."

That's not being negative, that's being realistic. Show me a plan to get us to consistently winning 7 games a year, and then ... 8 .... and then ... 9. We LURCH from one strategy to another, based on the coach we hire that year, rather than select a way to compete that works for us - long-term. Not a great way to run a $100M+ operation.

you’ve created this scenario no one is arguing for because you can’t address what he’s saying. i don’t think we can consistently be top 10. no one is arguing that anywhere on here. what we should be shooting for is top25 which we can do. we can’t just settle for recruits and do nothing. clemson and uga aren’t going anywhere and it’s basically become established we aren’t even gonna compete with them unless we recruit better than where we have been the last decade.

and collins being a bad coach has nothing to do with those statements either. it’s completely irrelevant to that discussion. it’s just an objective truth we aren’t beating uga or clemson without good athletes and top 30 recruiting classes

 

[Vespidae]

you’ve created this scenario no one is arguing for because you can’t address what he’s saying. i don’t think we can consistently be top 10. no one is arguing that anywhere on here. what we should be shooting for is top25 which we can do. we can’t just settle for recruits and do nothing. clemson and uga aren’t going anywhere and it’s basically become established we aren’t even gonna compete with them unless we recruit better than where we have been the last decade.

and collins being a bad coach has nothing to do with those statements either. it’s completely irrelevant to that discussion. it’s just an objective truth we aren’t beating uga or clemson without good athletes and top 30 recruiting classes

I think you will find that you need talent, scheme, facilities and a supportive community to win. That's not just true for football, it's pretty much true for running organizations in general.

So you wannabe Top 25? Translate that into wins son ... and plan on that. I think you will find that means winning 8-9 games a year. And here's a newsflash. Tech legend Kim King came to that conclusion 20 years ago. Try to keep up.