(02-08-2016 12:25 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I do think that some people somewhat overstate the direct effects of cash differences. There always have been and always will be certain differences between programs, REGARDLESS of what conference a school is in. FSU in any scenario is not going to have Texas money, and if FSU joined the SEC it wouldn't be on the same footing with Florida. Just running at some deficit is just the way it will be, and occasionally some people might use hyperbole to overstate the doom and gloom.

HOWEVER. It is also obtuse to ignore some facts.

First, the college football "arms race" is a fairly new phenomenon. Money always mattered, but the facilities/coaching/support infrastructure was nowhere near what it is at the top of the game today. 25 years ago, there just wasn't a great deal of difference between the facilities and infrastructure supporting high and lower revenue schools, and more importantly, recruiting hadn't really gone national. In 1980, FSU was only competing really with UF, Miami, maybe UGA for kids, and there were plenty to go around...FSU wasn't defending off Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Clemson, etc in Florida. It's just silly and disingenuous to pretend the sport hasn't changed.

Second, to not be concerned is to act like there is no difference in being 25% behind someone and being 50% behind them. And more importantly, it's not just how much you trail Alabama, Texas, USC, etc by, not trying to fall too far behind them. It's also about all of a sudden schools like Ole Miss, Auburn, Mississippi State and South Carolina to catch up. Or, if you're in a different part of the country, it should bother you that a crap program like Maryland is going to be able to apply greater resources against the traditionally better programs like VT, Pitt, etc.

It's like this...let's say you are in decent shape but putting on ten pounds every year. So you're 10 pounds overweight next year, 20 pounds overweight next year. It's an overreaction to say "Oh my God, I'm 20 poinds overweight this year, and will be 30 pounds overweight next year, my life is over" and throw yourself off a bridge.

But it's incredibly stupid to say, "eh, my life isn't actually that much different now that I'm 20 pounds overweight. Sure, it's a little more exhausting to get up the stairs, and it might be a little more so next year, but no big deal. There's still some dudes that are fatter. No reason to think it will become a problem if I keep putting on ten pounds a year".

Some of the teeth-gnashing can be overstated on a short term basis. But the long term health of falling further and further behind is just not going to be without serious consequence.

I completely understand and respect everything you just pointed out. And, I am sure no one is making light of the possible long term effect, if the revenue gap grows. With cord cutting and TV models changing, I am not sure if there really will be a significant impact long term.

I am not so sure that FSU and Miami were just competing with UGa and UF for FL kids when every coach on the planet understood that FL was one of, if not, the most talent rich areas in the country for football. Bama, Penn State, tOSU, Auburn, etc all recruited the area but their success was limited. It took the retirement of Bowden and the failed hires at Miami to open the gates to FL and even then, it was cracked and not blown open. Look at the recruits that went to Bama from Dade county. Teddy Bridgewater went to U of L only because the Miami coaching situation was a joke. Miami didn't even offer those critical Bama players. That had nothing to do with funding.

As far as Maryland getting money over VaTech, they certainly have to translate that money into field success before anything. The chickens, USCe, success had more to due with Spurrier than money and yet, Clemson played for a national title. And if you think Ole Miss, Auburn, Miss State, etc have caught up to you guys, then I really don't know what to think. Regardless of funding, the name on that jersey plays a larger role than most give it credit. Bama turned around due to coaching and the name on that jersey. You will see the same thing at Michigan. You saw a quick turnaround by USC due to coaching and players wanting to play for a traditional power. Watch what happens at the U. We just saw what happened at Clemson. My friend, it isn't all about the money.

If money isn't that important....lets have imbalanced revenue sharing to the schools that produce and then if someone has an issue.....its on them. If they don't care about money....perfect, they aren't upset.

And before folks howl about always being an equal conference....when we added ND (kinda) that whole thing ended.

For the VERY few schools competing for national titles in football in the ACC....money matters A LOT. When the GOR is pushed for renewal, the GROWING REVENUE GAP will be a huge issue.

(02-08-2016 02:01 PM)nole Wrote:  If money isn't that important....lets have imbalanced revenue sharing to the schools that produce and then if someone has an issue.....its on them. If they don't care about money....perfect, they aren't upset.

And before folks howl about always being an equal conference....when we added ND (kinda) that whole thing ended.

For the VERY few schools competing for national titles in football in the ACC....money matters A LOT. When the GOR is pushed for renewal, the GROWING REVENUE GAP will be a huge issue.

Exactly.

If money isn't that big of a deal then UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc. shouldn't have any problem "donating" $2 million each to the pool for the two schools carrying all of their weight in football. The narrative on here has always been that it was FSU and Clemson's fault that ACC football is so lowly regarded, so following that narrative as the true blue ACC fans ya'll claim to be then you should be happy to contribute funding towards the betterment of the two programs responsible for an entire conference's reputation.

But I imagine none of the people posting above would be anywhere close to happy with that situation.

(02-08-2016 10:26 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 08:48 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 06:28 AM)nole Wrote:  Exactly.

FSU is going to get tested trying to hold onto Jimbo Fisher and it's because of $$$$. I love the takes on this board....when FSU wins it's because all is just fine in the ACC.....when it loses...it's all FSU's fault.

This is very simple....money matters. There is NO amount of talking yourself out of this that negates this reality. The ACC doesn't need the same amount of money as B1G/SEC....but if the gap grows too large (say larger than 85% or in a REALLY bad situation less than 70% of SEC/BIG) all bets are off.

(02-07-2016 11:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 10:46 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  So Clemson and FSU are in the Top 10...but how is this possible? The obvious basketball loving league has put Clemson and FSU so far behind their SEC rivals they can never be competitive.

Right now we are succeeding in spite of, not because of our conference.

As the money gap grows each year it's going to get harder to maintain. Witness Florida taking Hokie alum Torrian Gray away from their staff with a pay raise. Witness one of their famous "football moves" being 7-17 in conference since joining.

Have to call BS. If that was the case, FSU and Miami should have never been competitive with the SEC teams that surround them. UF and all other SEC teams with large alumni bases and large stadium have always benefited from the money gap in ticket sales and donations that FSU and/or Miami don't have. Yet, both programs dwarf the success of a lot of big money programs. Texas certainly is one of the richest schools and yet their success is extremely limited in comparison. Same with Michigan and even tOSU. Hell, T Boone Pickens gives Okie State a blank checkbook and yet, where is the success? No doubt money plays a part but the sky wasn't falling when you guys won NCs, top 5 finishes, etc and there was that money gap; and, the sky still isn't falling even though you guys keep crying the blues.

Nole is just a pansy Seminole fan

FSU will always be competitive....they've created a legendary college football program. It wouldn't surprise me to see them win another National Title or two again real soon

For all the money that the SEC teams get, there's a secret in the league, and that is SOMEONE has to lose....I'd rather be FSU than Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, Arkansas, A&M, Miss St

The SEC is HIGHLY overvalued....

They let Kentucky make up for it on the Basketball side as That's really all They care about anyway 24/7. You know the old SEC saying......If Ya ain't Winnin', Ya ain't cheatin' !

Nole...things change all the time...not sure how old you are but basketball TV revenue used to be much more than 15-25% or so you see today in the ACC. The pendulum might start to swing back this decade. I hope the NBA comes to their senses and stop killing the college game.

We all get it that you have to be close enough to the SEC...but the revenue question for the ACC still has to play out over the next 12-18 months.

The fans of other teams in this league get sick of hearing FSU/Clemson whine about it...considering that the ACC has increased their chances to make the playoffs.

(02-08-2016 02:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:01 PM)nole Wrote:  If money isn't that important....lets have imbalanced revenue sharing to the schools that produce and then if someone has an issue.....its on them. If they don't care about money....perfect, they aren't upset.

And before folks howl about always being an equal conference....when we added ND (kinda) that whole thing ended.

For the VERY few schools competing for national titles in football in the ACC....money matters A LOT. When the GOR is pushed for renewal, the GROWING REVENUE GAP will be a huge issue.

Exactly.

If money isn't that big of a deal then UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc. shouldn't have any problem "donating" $2 million each to the pool for the two schools carrying all of their weight in football. The narrative on here has always been that it was FSU and Clemson's fault that ACC football is so lowly regarded, so following that narrative as the true blue ACC fans ya'll claim to be then you should be happy to contribute funding towards the betterment of the two programs responsible for an entire conference's reputation.

But I imagine none of the people posting above would be anywhere close to happy with that situation.

Sure, as soon as Clemson and FSU agree to donating $2 million each to UNC, Louisville and Syracuse, and Duke for pulling their weight in basketball.

(02-08-2016 02:25 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:01 PM)nole Wrote:  If money isn't that important....lets have imbalanced revenue sharing to the schools that produce and then if someone has an issue.....its on them. If they don't care about money....perfect, they aren't upset.

And before folks howl about always being an equal conference....when we added ND (kinda) that whole thing ended.

For the VERY few schools competing for national titles in football in the ACC....money matters A LOT. When the GOR is pushed for renewal, the GROWING REVENUE GAP will be a huge issue.

Exactly.

If money isn't that big of a deal then UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc. shouldn't have any problem "donating" $2 million each to the pool for the two schools carrying all of their weight in football. The narrative on here has always been that it was FSU and Clemson's fault that ACC football is so lowly regarded, so following that narrative as the true blue ACC fans ya'll claim to be then you should be happy to contribute funding towards the betterment of the two programs responsible for an entire conference's reputation.

But I imagine none of the people posting above would be anywhere close to happy with that situation.

Sure, as soon as Clemson and FSU agree to donating $2 million each to UNC, Louisville and Syracuse, and Duke for pulling their weight in basketball.

What's Syracuse's basketball record against Clemson since joining the ACC? How exactly since joining the ACC has Syracuse carried anybody's weight?

Oh and I thought the narrative was Syracuse is a football school now. Make up your rabbit-assed mind!

Deadspin did a regression before the 2014 season. Pretty good overall correlation between recruiting and on field success:



Here's the full article: http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-whi...1640831522

(02-08-2016 02:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:25 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:01 PM)nole Wrote:  If money isn't that important....lets have imbalanced revenue sharing to the schools that produce and then if someone has an issue.....its on them. If they don't care about money....perfect, they aren't upset.

And before folks howl about always being an equal conference....when we added ND (kinda) that whole thing ended.

For the VERY few schools competing for national titles in football in the ACC....money matters A LOT. When the GOR is pushed for renewal, the GROWING REVENUE GAP will be a huge issue.

Exactly.

If money isn't that big of a deal then UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc. shouldn't have any problem "donating" $2 million each to the pool for the two schools carrying all of their weight in football. The narrative on here has always been that it was FSU and Clemson's fault that ACC football is so lowly regarded, so following that narrative as the true blue ACC fans ya'll claim to be then you should be happy to contribute funding towards the betterment of the two programs responsible for an entire conference's reputation.

But I imagine none of the people posting above would be anywhere close to happy with that situation.

Sure, as soon as Clemson and FSU agree to donating $2 million each to UNC, Louisville and Syracuse, and Duke for pulling their weight in basketball.

What's Syracuse's basketball record against Clemson since joining the ACC? How exactly since joining the ACC has Syracuse carried anybody's weight?

Oh and I thought the narrative was Syracuse is a football school now. Make up your rabbit-assed mind!

It doesn't matter what Syracuse record is against Clemson. Syracuse bb makes the Acc money even if it doesn't go to the NCAA due to tv, a whole lot more than Clemson. Syracuse has such a great history in both fb and basketball that it is both a fb school and a bb school. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend that concept.

(02-08-2016 02:42 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Deadspin did a regression before the 2014 season. Pretty good overall correlation between recruiting and on field success:



Here's the full article: http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-whi...1640831522

This is neat. Someone in another thread commented on UVA's weak recruiting this year. However, if you look at BYU on this thread (their new coach's old school), recruiting isn't really an issue for him. He's had great success with mediocre recruits. None of his BYU classes looked particularly good.

As per your graph, he's on par (as of 2014) with TCU and KSU. That's rare air.

EDIT: It would be really neat to see this for the last ~10 years of a coach's career (or how ever many years that coach has been a HQ). I wonder who has the biggest upside and downside alpha.

EDIT 2X: I'm really surprised to see Duke and Wake in the red. I know this is one year so there's a crazy amount of small sample size variation, but I'm still surprised.

(02-08-2016 02:01 PM)nole Wrote:  If money isn't that important....lets have imbalanced revenue sharing to the schools that produce and then if someone has an issue.....its on them. If they don't care about money....perfect, they aren't upset.

And before folks howl about always being an equal conference....when we added ND (kinda) that whole thing ended.

For the VERY few schools competing for national titles in football in the ACC....money matters A LOT. When the GOR is pushed for renewal, the GROWING REVENUE GAP will be a huge issue.

When the current TV contract finally does come up for renewal, after the 2026-27 season, the ACC will be in a position to negotiate a rate for its TV rights comparable with its value in the marketplace at that time. Unfortunately for both the ACC and SEC, they negotiated their current deals just before the sports rights bubble that created the gap. Both pursued expansion and other strategies for increasing their rights fees despite being limited by existing undermarket contracts. The real albatross for the ACC has been the long term sublicensing agreement with Raycom, which has limited ESPN's flexibility to create a conference network. The sublicense for the SEC with Fox Sports Net and the individual school rights (similar to the B12) were both much shorter and capable of being bought out or allowed to lapse at reasonable expense.

But CuseRoc, how can any school be good at BOTH basketball AND football?
- signed Michigan, Florida, and Oklahoma

(02-08-2016 02:58 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:25 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:01 PM)nole Wrote:  If money isn't that important....lets have imbalanced revenue sharing to the schools that produce and then if someone has an issue.....its on them. If they don't care about money....perfect, they aren't upset.

And before folks howl about always being an equal conference....when we added ND (kinda) that whole thing ended.

For the VERY few schools competing for national titles in football in the ACC....money matters A LOT. When the GOR is pushed for renewal, the GROWING REVENUE GAP will be a huge issue.

Exactly.

If money isn't that big of a deal then UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc. shouldn't have any problem "donating" $2 million each to the pool for the two schools carrying all of their weight in football. The narrative on here has always been that it was FSU and Clemson's fault that ACC football is so lowly regarded, so following that narrative as the true blue ACC fans ya'll claim to be then you should be happy to contribute funding towards the betterment of the two programs responsible for an entire conference's reputation.

But I imagine none of the people posting above would be anywhere close to happy with that situation.

Sure, as soon as Clemson and FSU agree to donating $2 million each to UNC, Louisville and Syracuse, and Duke for pulling their weight in basketball.

What's Syracuse's basketball record against Clemson since joining the ACC? How exactly since joining the ACC has Syracuse carried anybody's weight?

Oh and I thought the narrative was Syracuse is a football school now. Make up your rabbit-assed mind!

It doesn't matter what Syracuse record is against Clemson. Syracuse bb makes the Acc money even if it doesn't go to the NCAA due to tv, a whole lot more than Clemson. Syracuse has such a great history in both fb and basketball that it is both a fb school and a bb school. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend that concept.

Since joining the ACC Syracuse has sucked in both basketball and football. The only national news you have made in either sport has been getting put on probation for cheating.

But since you want to go this route I'll play. Since ACC presidents have publicly stated that the TV contract is 80% football you'll get 20% of the football payout. So $400k.

(02-08-2016 03:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:58 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:25 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 02:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Exactly.

If money isn't that big of a deal then UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc. shouldn't have any problem "donating" $2 million each to the pool for the two schools carrying all of their weight in football. The narrative on here has always been that it was FSU and Clemson's fault that ACC football is so lowly regarded, so following that narrative as the true blue ACC fans ya'll claim to be then you should be happy to contribute funding towards the betterment of the two programs responsible for an entire conference's reputation.

But I imagine none of the people posting above would be anywhere close to happy with that situation.

Sure, as soon as Clemson and FSU agree to donating $2 million each to UNC, Louisville and Syracuse, and Duke for pulling their weight in basketball.

What's Syracuse's basketball record against Clemson since joining the ACC? How exactly since joining the ACC has Syracuse carried anybody's weight?

Oh and I thought the narrative was Syracuse is a football school now. Make up your rabbit-assed mind!

It doesn't matter what Syracuse record is against Clemson. Syracuse bb makes the Acc money even if it doesn't go to the NCAA due to tv, a whole lot more than Clemson. Syracuse has such a great history in both fb and basketball that it is both a fb school and a bb school. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend that concept.

Since joining the ACC Syracuse has sucked in both basketball and football. The only national news you have made in either sport has been getting put on probation for cheating.

But since you want to go this route I'll play. Since ACC presidents have publicly stated that the TV contract is 80% football you'll get 20% of the football payout. So $400k.

SU/Duke set a ratings record for ESPN in bb. In fact, Since being in the ACC, SU has played in 3 of ESPN's top 10 regular season basketball games in ESPN's history, Two games against Duke, and one against Pitt. When has Clemson set a ratings record in anything? The national championship game last year was down 23% from the year before.

Easy there tough guy....I said I was fine with giving you a basketball share even if you didn't earn it. So $400k it is. Maybe that will help you have a winning record against Clemson in the only sport y'all can sell out for.

When are y'all going to cut a check for the difference?

(02-08-2016 03:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Easy there tough guy....I said I was fine with giving you a basketball share even if you didn't earn it. So $400k it is. Maybe that will help you have a winning record against Clemson in the only sport y'all can sell out for.

When are y'all going to cut a check for the difference?

Their addition (as well as Pitts) already gave you $2 mill more than you had before. Make that $400,000 check to Bring Your Own Whine.

(02-08-2016 03:49 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 03:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Easy there tough guy....I said I was fine with giving you a basketball share even if you didn't earn it. So $400k it is. Maybe that will help you have a winning record against Clemson in the only sport y'all can sell out for.

When are y'all going to cut a check for the difference?

Their addition (as well as Pitts) already gave you $2 mill more than you had before. Make that $400,000 check to Bring Your Own Whine.

Touché!

Of course FSU and Clemson fans would be happy for both the 20% revenue that comes from basketball and the 80% that comes from football to be distributed at least somewhat in regards to performance. I've never heard one argue otherwise. You can do the same for the 0.0001% that comes from lacrosse or volleyball too.

This thread quickly turned from recruiting to money.

(02-08-2016 05:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  This thread quickly turned from recruiting to money.

It always does...it is like the someone is taking money away from their own bank account.