(05-14-2022 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 01:25 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 12:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

Carolina and Miami had great recruiting classes. What are your thoughts there?

To answer your question, small ball mean anything to you? In the end, it’s a game.

Revenue disparity in the pay to play era isn't even to the prelude.

Small ball is what teams do when they don't have other options, and it doesn't have the correlation to wins that higher salary does.

Just like with recruiting, you need need to be competent in your roster construction and coaching regardless of salary costs. The skill requirement needed goes down when you can pay more. And WAY down when you can just go hire the coaches and players that the minor league ACC has developed for you.

You’re assuming a lot here. The fallacy is a coach would rather be an assistant at Alabama than a head coach at a school making less. There is a competitive, borderline OCD gene in successful coaches. They’re not going to play second fiddle to make more money.

The law of diminishing returns will come into play. There are only so many starting positions, we see that now with players leaving a second string position to start somewhere less prestigious. Their goal is the NFL, not a ring during college.

I predict we won’t see the tv revenue making that much of an impact when NIL is already proving to be the great equalizer.

I will say nobody wants to make less than a competitor. Jealousy will ultimately drive the change, but I’m not sure what that will look like.

No, that is not the assumption. The fact is, a successful coach at an ACC school would be hired away for the same position, but for far more at a P2 school. . And for the record, we currently see head coaches from lower levels willing to be assistants at the highest level. That would likely occur in the P2 world. The ACC would slide to something like the how we currently view the American.

Successful players would transfer for more pay.

There are so many starting spots, but guess what, the P2 will have the best starters because they'll get the best recruits and take transfer from the non-P2, like the ACC. Surely you understand that has huge implications to how well the ACC can compete? Having inferior starting lineups is kind of a big deal

We're millions away from diminishing returns, and NIL and pay for play are fundamentally one and the same. These schools making $50 to $70 million more will have huge incentive to spend that on the players and coaches.

Can UNC compete with UK spending $25 million more per year than now on basketball players and coaches? Perhaps, but most in the ACC cannot.