Which conference should define Tech next 20 yrs?

Which conference should define Tech next 20 yrs?


  • Total voters
    169

MusicalBuzz

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
59
Are you talking about football recognition, or money. None of the football conferences are going to care at all about football reputation. If a school doesn't bring a large TV market into the conference with it, it doesn't matter what their football reputation is. Texas will add more area to the SEC Network, even if they are close to TA&M. Actually, if Texas joins the SEC, the SEC won't need TA&M for anything anymore. They will have all of the TA&M area plus additional area, and access to Texas.

If a conference adds Houston or Baylor, except for the SEC, they get access to the #5 and #8 TV markets. That is big money for a TV rights negotiation. The conferences are going to care more about how much money they can make than what the perception of the conference will be. 20 years ago, FSO, VT, and Miami were all national powerhouses in football. Perceived strength changes. As an example, the Big10 did not add Maryland to add perceived strength in football. They added Maryland because Maryland brought in the #7 TV market and added money to the conference.
Ironically I just replied to you on the other thread. While I recognize the talking point in the last realignment was about access to market .. dare I say without numbers in hand that this was the theory at the time and doesn’t necessarily translate to now.

The unknown at the time is What if the market really doesn’t care about the team? If there is limited following to start with (or interest in general in CFB) then the viewership numbers don’t play out. For instance, I would love to see what impact Rutgers has had for B1G. As opposed to a team with brand and tradition such as Auburn mentioned on the other thread (the relevance of Birmingham meaningless in this case).

Similarly what impact has Louisville or Syracuse had for ACC? If I recall, a key motivation in 2010-11 was getting enough teams in order to have separate divisions for the sole — the ONLY — purpose of having a Championship game (which may not be intriguing whatsoever .. or attended if it’s ACC… oh but the corporate $$ and ads fronting money). And I believe the minimum number of teams was the primary motivation of B1G and us for adding schools .. though we getting the former Big East schools + Louisville supported the premise the ACC is basketball first (which, noted elsewhere, doesn’t bring in nearly the $$ as football).
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,470
I feel the same way. Then I remind myself that if Pittsburgh was fighting for a national championship (like back in the day) and UNC was sitting at the top of the conference, and Duke was going to top bowls, the conference would feel different and excitement at BDS would jump up a notch. And national tv eyes would be on us.

But yeah, unless and until those teams have a miraculous turn around they leave me flat.
I hate to say it but all the other teams in the conf. Probably view us the same way
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
5,664
The timing is a little coincidental, but this is happening at the same time that the NCAA is backing off their traditional role as enforcement officers and looking to find more ways to make money off of student athletes. We’ve got an NCAA shift, a NIL shift, and now a realignment shift among other things happening at the same time as an economic shift that’s hitting ESPN and Comcast and the traditional broadcasters.
I don’t have Comcast any more, but I was annoyed they didn’t pick up ACCN. However, the ACC Network launched around the same time that subscriber numbers started declining. Most businesses have plans around increasing markets, not just steady state markets. Comcast made a bunch of moves that haven’t panned out; NBC hasn’t been growing, their sports networks are doing OK, and they haven’t been able to grow into the “Successful Content Provider” that was on their business plans. So, you could think that Comcast not picking up the ACC Network (owned by Disney, a competitor) might be more a matter of money and trying to play business chess using checkers and left over bottle caps.
The SEC sees a trend for LESS money from tickets but MORE money from media rights. However, the sources of those media rights are slashing costs and skewing to an older audience. These trends are butting heads.
On the other hand, there’s a 30-year trend (at least), where the NCAA rich get richer, and football is king. They’re out to corner the market on big money NCAA teams and watch the rest struggle to survive.

Hemingway: “How did you go bankrupt?” “Gradually, then suddenly”.
It’s easy to see the same trend in NCAA sports.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,172
The timing is a little coincidental, but this is happening at the same time that the NCAA is backing off their traditional role as enforcement officers and looking to find more ways to make money off of student athletes. We’ve got an NCAA shift, a NIL shift, and now a realignment shift among other things happening at the same time as an economic shift that’s hitting ESPN and Comcast and the traditional broadcasters.
I don’t have Comcast any more, but I was annoyed they didn’t pick up ACCN. However, the ACC Network launched around the same time that subscriber numbers started declining. Most businesses have plans around increasing markets, not just steady state markets. Comcast made a bunch of moves that haven’t panned out; NBC hasn’t been growing, their sports networks are doing OK, and they haven’t been able to grow into the “Successful Content Provider” that was on their business plans. So, you could think that Comcast not picking up the ACC Network (owned by Disney, a competitor) might be more a matter of money and trying to play business chess using checkers and left over bottle caps.
The SEC sees a trend for LESS money from tickets but MORE money from media rights. However, the sources of those media rights are slashing costs and skewing to an older audience. These trends are butting heads.
On the other hand, there’s a 30-year trend (at least), where the NCAA rich get richer, and football is king. They’re out to corner the market on big money NCAA teams and watch the rest struggle to survive.

Hemingway: “How did you go bankrupt?” “Gradually, then suddenly”.
It’s easy to see the same trend in NCAA sports.
Perhaps this was “bundled” into your excellent observation but there is also the cultural trend of individuals wanting to choose their own news, their own entertainment, their own sport’s programming etc. The business models seem to still be predicated on customers paying for stuff they don’t want or don’t watch. Big packages seem to be the only way different entities can make money. When this falls apart there will be conferences that lose a major income source.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,131
Not sure where to put this,but I had to share ..


The consensus has been "Be careful what you wish for, Texas". Right now Texas and OU are big fish in a little pond. OU at least is taking advantage of it, but Texas with probably the most resources of any college program, can not. They have probably the best recruiting base, the most money, and a giant loyal fan base...and struggle to be nationally relevant since the short run with Mack Brown. Now they want to join the SEC?! IMO, it's a natural marriage for Texas and the SEC, but in terms of what Texas *thinks* they are and what the SEC actually is, well, Texas could find themselves treading water just to win 8-9 games a year...and that gets coaches and ADs fired at programs of Texas's stature.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,953
Neither Maryland, nor Rutgers has finished in the top 25 since joining the Big 10. Nebraska finished 24th and 25th the first two years and hasn't finished ranked in the 8 years since then. Joining the Big 10 and getting that extra money obviously isn't a ticket for success.
it isn't a guaranteed ticket for success, that I agree with 100%. But the Big Ten pays its members almost $20MM per year MORE than the ACC does. The only way to make up that deficit is with a large stadium that sells out every game and a rabid and LARGE alumni base. Clemson, for example. We don't have that.

Look at the Top Ten every year and tell me how many are in the bottom third of athletic finances, as we are currently. Answer: NONE.

Money is not a guaranteed ticket to success on the field. But, LACK of money IS a guaranteed ticket to failure.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,131
it isn't a guaranteed ticket for success, that I agree with 100%. But the Big Ten pays its members almost $20MM per year MORE than the ACC does. The only way to make up that deficit is with a large stadium that sells out every game and a rabid and LARGE alumni base. Clemson, for example. We don't have that.

Look at the Top Ten every year and tell me how many are in the bottom third of athletic finances, as we are currently. Answer: NONE.

Money is not a guaranteed ticket to success on the field. But, LACK of money IS a guaranteed ticket to failure.

Given where GT falls in the revenue scale, you have to think our ROI with that money is pretty good over the last 10-20 years (4 ACCCG Games, 2 Orange Bowls, multiple division championships, a long bowl streak, etc.). How many teams above GT on the revenue list would kill for those results? Now if we can get MORE money AND keep our ROI the same, how much better can GT do with more money? I don't know, but I'd like to find out.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,301
The consensus has been "Be careful what you wish for, Texas". Right now Texas and OU are big fish in a little pond. OU at least is taking advantage of it, but Texas with probably the most resources of any college program, can not. They have probably the best recruiting base, the most money, and a giant loyal fan base...and struggle to be nationally relevant since the short run with Mack Brown. Now they want to join the SEC?! IMO, it's a natural marriage for Texas and the SEC, but in terms of what Texas *thinks* they are and what the SEC actually is, well, Texas could find themselves treading water just to win 8-9 games a year...and that gets coaches and ADs fired at programs of Texas's stature.
When there was discussion before about Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC, SEC fans were saying that neither school would be able to win more than 7 games a year if they were in the "mighty SEC". TA&M won: 11, 9, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8, 9. Missouri went to the first two SEC Championship games they were eligible for. Those were two middle of the Big12 teams. A&M improved their record. Missouri made it to two conference championship games.

None of the SEC hype people want to talk about that. Now, none of them pay any attention to actual data when discussion the top two teams from that conference joining.
 

GTRanj2

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,209
When there was discussion before about Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC, SEC fans were saying that neither school would be able to win more than 7 games a year if they were in the "mighty SEC". TA&M won: 11, 9, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8, 9. Missouri went to the first two SEC Championship games they were eligible for. Those were two middle of the Big12 teams. A&M improved their record. Missouri made it to two conference championship games.

None of the SEC hype people want to talk about that. Now, none of them pay any attention to actual data when discussion the top two teams from that conference joining.
Let me ask you this, what would the sec be without Nick Saban and Urban Meyer. Without those two individuals, their highlights are suddenly not as flashy. What goes up must come down, what was at the bottom won't stay there forever (Clemson).

The sec will struggle once Nick Saban leaves (look to how many of his coaching tree have beat him).
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,131
When there was discussion before about Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC, SEC fans were saying that neither school would be able to win more than 7 games a year if they were in the "mighty SEC". TA&M won: 11, 9, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8, 9. Missouri went to the first two SEC Championship games they were eligible for. Those were two middle of the Big12 teams. A&M improved their record. Missouri made it to two conference championship games.

None of the SEC hype people want to talk about that. Now, none of them pay any attention to actual data when discussion the top two teams from that conference joining.

I think you've proven my point. We're talking about Texas and OU...two teams that expect to be in conference championships and the college playoffs every year. Can teams do well periodically in the SEC? Of course. You think Texas and OU will be happy with 8-9 wins in the SEC with an occasional year they win 11 games but miss out on the playoffs like what TX A&M did (and TX A&M hasn't replicated that success since their first year in 2012 with Johnny Football)? Kevin Sumlin was winning 8-9 games and his player won the Heisman while playing in the SEC...and he got fired. That's what gets coaches fired at those schools...See Tom Herman who had a 64% win percentage at Texas and they just let him go. Texas A&M was middling? You may want to go check out what they did with RC Slocum before they ran into a series of coaches who couldn't meet their expectations...which goes to my point.

We're not talking about just any school...we're talking about 2 programs that are considered college football blue bloods and fan bases expect them to be the big fish no matter what pond they're in. I think OU has a good chance of being the better of the 2 in the SEC, because of what their HC does, and I expect that offense to continue having success...but if OU is putting up big numbers and not winning SEC championships, he's gonna go the way of Mike Leach.

No one is saying other teams can't do well. Doing well of for a school like Missouri is different than doing well for a school like Texas and OU. Expectations are completely diffferent.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,301
I think you've proven my point. We're talking about Texas and OU...two teams that expect to be in conference championships and the college playoffs every year. Can teams do well periodically in the SEC? Of course. You think Texas and OU will be happy with 8-9 wins in the SEC with an occasional year they win 11 games but miss out on the playoffs like what TX A&M did (and TX A&M hasn't replicated that success since their first year in 2012 with Johnny Football)? Kevin Sumlin was winning 8-9 games and his player won the Heisman while playing in the SEC...and he got fired. That's what gets coaches fired at those schools...See Tom Herman who had a 64% win percentage at Texas and they just let him go. Texas A&M was middling? You may want to go check out what they did with RC Slocum before they ran into a series of coaches who couldn't meet their expectations...which goes to my point.

We're not talking about just any school...we're talking about 2 programs that are considered college football blue bloods and fan bases expect them to be the big fish no matter what pond they're in. I think OU has a good chance of being the better of the 2 in the SEC, because of what their HC does, and I expect that offense to continue having success...but if OU is putting up big numbers and not winning SEC championships, he's gonna go the way of Mike Leach.

No one is saying other teams can't do well. Doing well of for a school like Missouri is different than doing well for a school like Texas and OU. Expectations are completely diffferent.
A&M has been doing better in the SEC than they did in the Big12. In the 9 years before joining the SEC, A&M won 58 games as a member of the Big12. In the 9 years since joining the SEC, they have won 77 games. Sure they would like to go to the playoffs, but how many times did they make the CFP championship game as a member of the Big12? The conversation we are having isn't about whether A&M would like to make the playoffs, it is about whether playing in the SEC is sooo tough that schools from another conference can't possibly succeed. When A&M changed from Big12 competition to SEC competition, their record improved, and has stayed improved. They didn't go down to 3 wins a season. They increased from 6.5 per season to 8.5 per season.

Missouri was at a high point when they joined the SEC. They remained at that high point for a few years (2005-2014), and went back down to their historical norms. They are currently doing about the same or a little better than what they did in the 20 years prior to 2005 in the Big8 and Big12.
 

Billhuss64

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
3
As an addendum to the CFB expansion thread..

Which conference in a perfect world, blending all considerations of athletics, students and alumni, best suits Tech’s interests, suitability and capability?
I’m still in favor of the ACC all things combined. What’s disappointing is did the conference miss a golden opportunity. Maybe they made every effort to get UT and UO but just could not close the deal. If the ACC could have added UT, UO and ND (football), we would have add enough market power to compete on a level playing field with the SEC & B10 in terms of financial contract. These two teams going to the SEC puts us further behind the upper conferences and has us scrambling to secure conference viability.
 
Last edited:

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,131
A&M has been doing better in the SEC than they did in the Big12. In the 9 years before joining the SEC, A&M won 58 games as a member of the Big12. In the 9 years since joining the SEC, they have won 77 games. Sure they would like to go to the playoffs, but how many times did they make the CFP championship game as a member of the Big12? The conversation we are having isn't about whether A&M would like to make the playoffs, it is about whether playing in the SEC is sooo tough that schools from another conference can't possibly succeed. When A&M changed from Big12 competition to SEC competition, their record improved, and has stayed improved. They didn't go down to 3 wins a season. They increased from 6.5 per season to 8.5 per season.

Missouri was at a high point when they joined the SEC. They remained at that high point for a few years (2005-2014), and went back down to their historical norms. They are currently doing about the same or a little better than what they did in the 20 years prior to 2005 in the Big8 and Big12.

You're still missing the point. What was TX A&M's record with RC Slocum? It's convenient you picked a period in time that fits your narrative. But once TX A&M started to not meet their standards, they started firing coaches. Kevin Sumlin started off beating 'Bama with Manziel, then he fell down to 8 wins a season...which isn't bad, but not to TX A&M's standards. He got fired.

AGAIN...success is relative. Kentucky winning 7-9 games is great. Vandy winning 7-9 games is great...and they did it under James Franklin. Miss State winning 7-9 games is great...and they were ecstatic when Dan Mullen was doing that. Win 7-9 games a season at Texas and OU and you get fired (See Tom Herman and Charlie Strong). No one is saying TX and OU can't win in the SEC...they very much should win in the SEC given their resources and ability to recruit just off their name. Texas and OU fan bases just don't want to win, they want to dominate. That's very likely not going to happen in a League when teams like Miss State/Ole Miss are tough outs, then you get to also rotate into playing UGA/UF/Auburn and that's not even mentioning you have to meet 'Bama in the SEC championship as long as Saban is there. If for some reason Saban starts winning 7-9 games, he'll be fired as well.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,301
You're still missing the point. What was TX A&M's record with RC Slocum? It's convenient you picked a period in time that fits your narrative. But once TX A&M started to not meet their standards, they started firing coaches. Kevin Sumlin started off beating 'Bama with Manziel, then he fell down to 8 wins a season...which isn't bad, but not to TX A&M's standards. He got fired.

AGAIN...success is relative. Kentucky winning 7-9 games is great. Vandy winning 7-9 games is great...and they did it under James Franklin. Miss State winning 7-9 games is great...and they were ecstatic when Dan Mullen was doing that. Win 7-9 games a season at Texas and OU and you get fired (See Tom Herman and Charlie Strong). No one is saying TX and OU can't win in the SEC...they very much should win in the SEC given their resources and ability to recruit just off their name. Texas and OU fan bases just don't want to win, they want to dominate. That's very likely not going to happen in a League when teams like Miss State/Ole Miss are tough outs, then you get to also rotate into playing UGA/UF/Auburn and that's not even mentioning you have to meet 'Bama in the SEC championship as long as Saban is there. If for some reason Saban starts winning 7-9 games, he'll be fired as well.
I didn't pick a period to fit a narrative. I used the 9 years in the SEC vs the previous 9 years. Want to continue that back to the 60s?

77 (SEC)
58
74
85
59
46
25

So they did have ONE period of 9 years that was better than their time in the SEC. That was in the 90s. Historically, they have not been a regular top team. They were very good in the 90s. Other than that, they have been a good team with occasional very good years.

All of the SEC hype crap just irritates me. I have a family member who is a mutt fan. She told me before A&M and Missouri joined the SEC that Texas and Oklahoma would be lucky to win 5 games a year if they moved to the SEC. Well, A&M was a second tier Big12 team and they haven't won fewer than 7 wins in a season and average 8.5. Missouri was a second-or-third tier Big12 team except for the last few years in the conference. They have won 5 or fewer 4 times, but average 7 wins. That same family member made remarks before Boise State vs mutts in 2011 that Boise was far over-ranked and that they were going to be shocked when the "find out what it is like to play an SEC team". When Missouri makes it to the SEC Championship game in their second season, she doesn't recollect every talking trash about the Big12. After Boise State whipped the mutts, she doesn't remember trashing Boise State, and only will discuss the great plays that the mutts had in that game. It is all trash talk. Those people actually believe it and argue those points very strongly. When their statements have some truth to it, they trash talk about how right they were and how much they know. When their statements turn out to be totally false, they say it was only hyperbole if they even remember saying them.

So, with respect to whether joining the SEC will hurt the chances of Texas or Oklahoma getting to a national championship, it depends on what happens to the playoffs. If it remains a four team playoff, it probably will hurt their chances. However, it will also hurt the chances of Alabama, LSU, Florida, and the mutts. There will be more top-tier NCAA teams for Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, LSU, Florida, and the mutts to play every year. If you take Arkansas and Miss State off of Alabama's regular season schedule and substitute Texas and Oklahoma, their path is more difficult too. If the playoffs expand to 12 teams, I don't think joining the SEC will hurt their chances.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,953
I didn't pick a period to fit a narrative. I used the 9 years in the SEC vs the previous 9 years. Want to continue that back to the 60s?

77 (SEC)
58
74
85
59
46
25

So they did have ONE period of 9 years that was better than their time in the SEC. That was in the 90s. Historically, they have not been a regular top team. They were very good in the 90s. Other than that, they have been a good team with occasional very good years.

All of the SEC hype crap just irritates me. I have a family member who is a mutt fan. She told me before A&M and Missouri joined the SEC that Texas and Oklahoma would be lucky to win 5 games a year if they moved to the SEC. Well, A&M was a second tier Big12 team and they haven't won fewer than 7 wins in a season and average 8.5. Missouri was a second-or-third tier Big12 team except for the last few years in the conference. They have won 5 or fewer 4 times, but average 7 wins. That same family member made remarks before Boise State vs mutts in 2011 that Boise was far over-ranked and that they were going to be shocked when the "find out what it is like to play an SEC team". When Missouri makes it to the SEC Championship game in their second season, she doesn't recollect every talking trash about the Big12. After Boise State whipped the mutts, she doesn't remember trashing Boise State, and only will discuss the great plays that the mutts had in that game. It is all trash talk. Those people actually believe it and argue those points very strongly. When their statements have some truth to it, they trash talk about how right they were and how much they know. When their statements turn out to be totally false, they say it was only hyperbole if they even remember saying them.

So, with respect to whether joining the SEC will hurt the chances of Texas or Oklahoma getting to a national championship, it depends on what happens to the playoffs. If it remains a four team playoff, it probably will hurt their chances. However, it will also hurt the chances of Alabama, LSU, Florida, and the mutts. There will be more top-tier NCAA teams for Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, LSU, Florida, and the mutts to play every year. If you take Arkansas and Miss State off of Alabama's regular season schedule and substitute Texas and Oklahoma, their path is more difficult too. If the playoffs expand to 12 teams, I don't think joining the SEC will hurt their chances.
Shouldn’t you be looking at win %. I suspect they played more games in the last 9 year period as well.
 

wrmathis

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
409
Location
Yelm Washington
i believe OU will do just fine in the SEC, Tx tho, might be hurting for alittle bit or awhile. their biggest issues is finding that Coach that can lead them to bigger things. Like if they got their Saban, no reason they shouldnt just dominate
 
Top