+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance (/thread-952335.html)
Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - BeatWestern! - 08-05-2022 09:18 AM
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/05/college-football-realignment-chaos-new-season-daily-cover
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - Skyhawk - 08-05-2022 10:29 AM
(08-05-2022 09:18 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/05/college-football-realignment-chaos-new-season-daily-cover
Very interesting read.
I didn't see much to argue with, except that I think they don't seem to think there will be any more moves this year. I dunno. Prospective deals may not happen, but I would be shocked to hear that there really are no discussions going on between the P2 and prospective invitees...
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - CoastalJuan - 08-05-2022 10:51 AM
(08-05-2022 10:29 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:(08-05-2022 09:18 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/05/college-football-realignment-chaos-new-season-daily-cover
Very interesting read.
I didn't see much to argue with, except that I think they don't seem to think there will be any more moves this year. I dunno. Prospective deals may not happen, but I would be shocked to hear that there really are no discussions going on between the P2 and prospective invitees...
They can discuss all they want, but the only 2-ish (Clemson and FSU) properties that meet the criteria of the teams the P2 would invite (far and away the most valuable properties in conferences) are locked in the ACC. All the other conferences have been picked over.
We're either going to see those teams roll the legal dice (or shell out tons of loot) to try to leave, or nothing.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - CoastalJuan - 08-05-2022 11:04 AM
Also found this bit a little conflicting:
The gaps between the haves (Power 5) and have-nots (Group of 5) continue to grow. Heck, the gap within the Power 5 is now a chasm. As one administrator recently surmised, “It’s become the Big 2 (SEC, Big Ten), Other 1 (ACC) and Group of 7.”
The first thought and the second don't really match up. With the top of the P5 bulking up, and the bottom on the P5 watering down, it seems like the gap between the P5/G5 has tightened.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - GoldenWarrior11 - 08-05-2022 11:25 AM
(08-05-2022 11:04 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote: Also found this bit a little conflicting:
The gaps between the haves (Power 5) and have-nots (Group of 5) continue to grow. Heck, the gap within the Power 5 is now a chasm. As one administrator recently surmised, “It’s become the Big 2 (SEC, Big Ten), Other 1 (ACC) and Group of 7.”
The first thought and the second don't really match up. With the top of the P5 bulking up, and the bottom on the P5 watering down, it seems like the gap between the P5/G5 has tightened.
Agreed. The reality (that majority on here have recognized and emphasized) is that the "separation" began long before this recent cycle. Every single round of realignment has consolidated at the top, with more programs/leagues fighting to stay above water. As recently as 2013, when the Big East as a Football Conference was eradicated (and the AAC took its place), one entire league was removed from the guaranteed access slot to a BCS game. With the recent cycle of TV deals, the P5 were make tens of millions more annually than the G5; with these new deals, the top grouping (B1G and SEC) will be making a hundred million more annually than the bottom teams within FBS. Even for the ACC, Big 12 and PAC, those schools will be out-earned, annually, by 3x the amount of television revenues alone. Now, stretch that over a five-year period; a ten-year period; a twenty-year period.
Many on here argue that a full-fledged separation within FBS is too legally complicated to maneuver and implement; well, there won't need to be one. The top dogs (B1G and SEC) will just continue to earn more, blowing the rest of the entire division out of the water, until these schools are literally unable to continue spending at the levels necessary to play the same game. All it will take is just time - the greatest asset (even more than $$$) perhaps the Big Ten and SEC have (which the ACC, Big 12, PAC and G5 do not).
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - random asian guy - 08-05-2022 11:34 AM
People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - bullet - 08-05-2022 11:36 AM
(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote: People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
How will it act with the albatross of a contract?
What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - random asian guy - 08-05-2022 11:49 AM
(08-05-2022 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote: People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
How will it act with the albatross of a contract?
What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.
Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - Attackcoog - 08-05-2022 12:22 PM
(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote: People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
How will it act with the albatross of a contract?
What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.
Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.
I just cant figure out how it would ever make sense for ESPN. They have all the SEC and its a great league. They have all the ACC---and its a great league---and--better yet---ESPN has the ACC locked up for what is looking like an incredibly cheap long term price. When the realignment goal from BOTH the ACC and SEC is getting more money from ESPN and ESPN already owns the rights to every single school in both conferences---hard to see where there is going to be much enthusiasm for that project from ESPN. Now, once that ACC contract and GOR expire---then yeah---ESPN would be very interested---but I cant imagine they would be interested until that time.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - Big 12 fan too - 08-05-2022 12:54 PM
(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote: People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
It’s third because it has P2 candidates.
When that’s reconciled is when we’ll know whether it’s really third.
Generally speaking, it’s unwise to think adding leftovers will appease those P2 candidates. Adding schools to Big 12 wasn’t going to satisfy OUT unless P2 quality. Adding schools to PAC not keeping USC unless P2 quality.
And likely the same for ACC and FSU/Miami/Clemson etc
The bait and switch risk so high, and being the red-headed stepchild on ESPN not ideal, that it will cost ESPN a lot to get moves to ACC.
It may be cheaper to liquidate.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - bill dazzle - 08-05-2022 01:11 PM
This comment is telling:
As one administrator recently surmised, “It’s become the Big 2 (SEC, Big Ten), Other 1 (ACC) and Group of 7.”
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - TerryD - 08-05-2022 01:21 PM
(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote: People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
How will it act with the albatross of a contract?
What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.
Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.
What schools are going to sign the required ACC GOR and bind themselves there for 14 years?
Are any schools that have a glimmer of hope of getting a Big Ten or SEC invitation going to do so?
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - CoastalJuan - 08-05-2022 01:36 PM
(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote: People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
Act how?
ACC is #3 because they still have a couple of top tier teams in Clemson and FSU. The problem is that all other top tier targets are now in the BIG or SEC.
If we presume that the ACC can't steal from the BIG/SEC, which most of us agree with...
Then there is no hypothetical upside for the ACC, only downside. There is no one to steal that gets it out of 3rd. It can either stay the same and stay the 3rd, or lose teams and drop. Most of us see that as an eventuality, even if it's not for another decade.
And if/when the ACC loses its top brands, it's hard to see it being above #5. They will still have their basketball brands, but Kansas is still in the Big 12 for a reason.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - Big 12 fan too - 08-05-2022 02:14 PM
(08-05-2022 01:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote: People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
How will it act with the albatross of a contract?
What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.
Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.
What schools are going to sign the required ACC GOR and bind themselves there for 14 years?
Are any schools that have a glimmer of hope of getting a Big Ten or SEC invitation going to do so?
It would be best of the rest types- hence the "other guy" comment in quote in the article. And even that may be difficult given the obvious bait and switch risk. Any school going to the ACC should be doing so expecting it to be poached by P2.
But there could be some schools (cough, WVU) that would not care- a season with UNC in ACC is better than no seasons to some WVU fans.
And if the ACC leftovers realize that cashing in on the GOR via settlement is their only path at any type of security, we could see them agree to luring other schools via false hope they are joining a P2.5 conference, knowing later that 4-6 ACC schools leave for P2.
Leftovers must consolidate imo, and so the name of the conference is largely irrelevant. Just about which 3-6 schools get left out. Due to the benefits of west-to-east flow, it won't be the PAC. Particularly a PAC without USC and UCLA. So WSU, Oregon St, and Cal (if not in BIG) are prime candidates. If ACC is liquidated, BC, Cuse, Wake, maybe Pitt are at risk. In Big 12, KSU, Iowa St, TT, maybe Houston or BYU.
If the P2's end up at a combined 48, then it likely could just be Oregon St and WSU, but even they have a chance at the 3rd in that configuration. 7-8 PAC schools, KU, and 7-8 ACC schools would need to make it to P2, which leaves room for a Memphis, USF, or SDSU types to get into 3rd conference, although staying at 20 an option
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - ken d - 08-05-2022 02:32 PM
What a letdown. Though I can't say I'm surprised. Just disappointed.
Instead of a grand idea about great change in college athletics, we get nothing but a rehash of every idea floated on forums like this one. Where's the imagination? The vision for a radically different future?
This article, at the end of the day, isn't about college athletics at all. Just about only one of the many sports our universities participate in, and even then about fewer than 5% of the schools that play them.
We are, in fact, on the cusp of the best opportunity to reshape college athletics in any of our lifetimes. But, like always, we are almost sure to let that opportunity pass us by, maybe forever.
Why not consider real transformation instead of minor incremental change? Why not something like this?
Who needs the NCAA? What need does it fill that can't be filled better (or not filled at all)? A small number of schools and conferences are experiencing unprecedented wealth, while 95% of them are facing deficits as far as the eye can see. The latter is true despite practices imposed by the NCAA designed to subsidize those programs at the expense of wealthy ones.
What if we took a more market based approach minus the social engineering? The P5 have separated themselves from everyone else, and nothing we can do now will change that reality. Embrace it. Let them go their own way (or even make them go their own way). In a world minus the NCAA, give them their own league without trying to figure out how we can include a few more marginal players. Make it a club that's hard to join.
To be a member: Award (not just be allowed to award) a lot of scholarships (maybe as high as 400) and make them all full ride scholarships. Require that, in addition to tuition, books and fees, every scholarship comes with room and board and a minimum of $20K a year stipend. Each conference in this club sets its own limits as long as they at least meet that minimum standard.
But here's the radical part. For every other school, at any level, place no limits at all on what they may offer their athletes. If some want to offer full scholarships, they can. And if some want to offer no scholarships at all, that's OK too. There is no need to have criteria dividing the schools into divisions. Let them divide themselves by what conferences they want to form and which conferences want their members to have the opportunity to play each other.
If they want to get together to hold postseason tournaments, let them. If they feel like a chance for a conference championship is enough, that's good too. If they want to be in one conference for football, another for basketball, and yet others for other sports, let them. But most of all, let them do as much or as little as they feel they can afford to spend in support of their educational mission. And let them police one another not by investigative staffs but by ostracizing those who don't behave the way you would like them to behave.
Again, who needs the NCAA?
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - Fighting Muskie - 08-05-2022 03:20 PM
At this point, I think the SEC and Big 10 need to get together, find out how much additional money they can make as 24 or even 28 team leagues as a product of being able to offer a large volume of quality content to streaming partners and go ahead and swallow up the rest of the value brands and emerge as a new self governing entity outside of the NCAA’s purview.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - bullet - 08-05-2022 03:21 PM
(08-05-2022 01:11 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: This comment is telling:
As one administrator recently surmised, “It’s become the Big 2 (SEC, Big Ten), Other 1 (ACC) and Group of 7.”
Telling in how delusional the ACC administrator is in thinking the ACC is much different than the nBig12 and Pac 10. Guessing it was a North Carolina, Duke or Georgia Tech administrator.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - IWokeUpLikeThis - 08-05-2022 03:34 PM
(08-05-2022 03:21 PM)bullet Wrote:(08-05-2022 01:11 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: This comment is telling:
As one administrator recently surmised, “It’s become the Big 2 (SEC, Big Ten), Other 1 (ACC) and Group of 7.”
Telling in how delusional the ACC administrator is in thinking the ACC is much different than the nBig12 and Pac 10. Guessing it was a North Carolina, Duke or Georgia Tech administrator.
Right. The comment told me we know which conference the source is from.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - XLance - 08-05-2022 04:01 PM
(08-05-2022 01:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote: People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
How will it act with the albatross of a contract?
What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.
Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.
What schools are going to sign the required ACC GOR and bind themselves there for 14 years?
Are any schools that have a glimmer of hope of getting a Big Ten or SEC invitation going to do so?
Terry, only Notre Dame is a shoe-in for a B1G or SEC invitation. If the Irish choose to keep the status quo, there is no incentive for either of the Big 2 to do anything. There is also no incentive for either ESPN or FOX to encourage expansion of either as it could only cost either network.
If ESPN thinks it could make a few extra bucks by adding a couple of teams to the ACC it will happen. Which ever pair ESPN chooses, they would jump at the chance to have security, because their chance would still be there in the next round ( they would be a part of the "other" instead of the G7).
It's going to take a long time for ESPN to digest Texas and Oklahoma and probably an equal amount of time for the B1G to absorb Los Angeles.
ESPN could take two tacks to enhance ACC revenue in the short term. 1-rivalry aspect (a combination of two of the three: West Virginia/Cincinnati/UCF) or 2-market aspect a combination of any two of: TCU, Baylor, TT, UCF. Outside possibilities could include: Oregon, Washington, SMU, Tulane, Houston.
They may choose to do nothing, keeping ACC schools "ready" to be called up to the SEC if necessary if the B1G were to expand again.
RE: Daily Cover (SI.com): The Direction of College Athletics Hangs in the Balance - Wahoowa84 - 08-05-2022 04:34 PM
(08-05-2022 01:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote: People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.
How will it act with the albatross of a contract?
What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.
Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.
What schools are going to sign the required ACC GOR and bind themselves there for 14 years?
Are any schools that have a glimmer of hope of getting a Big Ten or SEC invitation going to do so?
Completely agree that the media contract is an albatross. The ACC’s options are limited and any changes in the conference structure will have to also benefit ESPN.
Not sure why it’s assumed that expansion requires new members sign the original GOR. Why not create a new GOR with a shorter duration (say 5 years ?) that corresponds to revised media payouts? Legacy ACC members can still be bound to the original GOR terms, but high-value add members may have exceptions. Notre Dame was somehow able to negotiate one-off provisions from the ACC.
With regards to whether “any schools that have a glimmer of hope” taking a risk with the ACC…it’s a bird in the hand situation. The ACC and ESPN need to make a financially attractive offer. Then allow lawyers of the new entrants to potentially carry less risk than UNC, FSU, Clemson, etc…maybe even less risk than ND (who most likely has a open invitation to the B1G, but remains in the ACC).