(05-14-2022 09:27 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 05:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 04:55 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

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

NIL will keep great players in place. Pay for play hasn’t been decided, but it means the players will be employed by the university. This will be a bit different than just being a student. There is a TON to figure out there.

The fact is, coaches in the SEC are going to find it very hard to make their fans happy. It’s loaded with the best talent and coaches, but fans will be frustrated with the losses, missed playoff appearances, and lack of SEC titles.

Those one time “great” coaches like Gus Malzahn will be right back at schools like UCF swinging above their weight class.

I’m just not worried about it and we’re not going to change each other’s minds. Good luck with your campaign.

TV revenue backed NIL will lure players.

The reason why your ADs are talking about separation and there being haves and have not's is because the revenue disparities will dictate where players and coaches go. They're very worried for a reason.

Coaches in the SEC are already that way. But when offered double the salary, most coaches will leave the weak conferences like the ACC for the P2. Guaranteed money tends to comfort those that get cycled through the SEC, and they can always drop back down to the ACC level.

We don't need to change each other's mind, but just so we're clear, you don't think there is a very strong correlation with a lot more money leading to significant competitive advantages? That $50 million per year more spent on coaches and players likely means the P2 has better players and coaches? Just so I can get a feel, do you also believe recruiting rankings are irrelevant?

Is that what the 50 million will be spent on?

Just because they’re making more with TV doesn’t mean the other schools are making peanuts and won’t have the money to pay competitive salaries.

I already mentioned how the ACC has some great recruiting classes with Carolina and Miami in addition to Clemson and FSU.