On the Realignment board, I suggested that the FBS might at some point realign into three separate tiers. I have little doubt that Clemson and Florida State would be invited to be part of the Top Tier, or that they would accept enthusiastically. But what about the rest of the ACC?

In the scenario I proposed, each of the top two tiers would have four conferences, each of which would be strongly regional. I placed four additional ACC schools in the Top Tier - Virginia Tech, Miami, Georgia Tech and Pitt - largely for reasons of self image or rivalries. But I can see reasons why all four of those schools might decline an invitation, and why some other ACC schools might lobby to take their place.

I put Pitt in eastern division of The Great B1G Conference, along with Iowa State and nine former Big Ten members: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin. The western division is basically the PAC minus Colorado. They would play a full division round robin with no crossovers.

I placed the other five ACC schools in the SEC East, along with Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. The SEC West is comprised of the best of the rest of the SEC plus the best of the Big XII.

Financially, opting into the Top Tier looks like a no-brainer. There would be a much greater revenue gap between that tier and what the leftover ACC could hope to get from their media contracts. But instead of being perennial contenders for a conference title, all four of the questionable ACC schools would probably find the level of competition daunting to say the least. They likely wouldn't have an easy game on the schedule most years.

Which of the four do you think would opt to play at the highest level?

What other ACC schools might lobby to take the place of the teams that opt out?

It would be penny wise and pound foolish.

Sure -- you could create a conference with only the best factories from around the country. But math dictates that half of them are going to lose every week. How many losing seasons would it take before even somebody like Nebraska or Ohio State or USC started seeing mostly empty stadiums?

(11-26-2018 11:00 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It would be penny wise and pound foolish.

Sure -- you could create a conference with only the best factories from around the country. But math dictates that half of them are going to lose every week. How many losing seasons would it take before even somebody like Nebraska or Ohio State or USC started seeing mostly empty stadiums?

Perhaps. But in my experience, there are a lot of foolish universities out there, and a lot of self-delusional ones as well. I guess one of my questions would be is Georgia Tech one of them?

My expectation would be that most of the Tier 1 schools would schedule two winnable games in addition to their 5H/5A conference schedule. And, in the scenario I proposed, the Top Tier would only need five wins to qualify for a bowl, in recognition of how challenging their schedules would be.

(11-26-2018 11:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-26-2018 11:00 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It would be penny wise and pound foolish.

Sure -- you could create a conference with only the best factories from around the country. But math dictates that half of them are going to lose every week. How many losing seasons would it take before even somebody like Nebraska or Ohio State or USC started seeing mostly empty stadiums?

Perhaps. But in my experience, there are a lot of foolish universities out there, and a lot of self-delusional ones as well. I guess one of my questions would be is Georgia Tech one of them?

My expectation would be that most of the Tier 1 schools would schedule two winnable games in addition to their 5H/5A conference schedule. And, in the scenario I proposed, the Top Tier would only need five wins to qualify for a bowl, in recognition of how challenging their schedules would be.

Fan bases that are panned as "fickle" are really just pragmatic and paying attention. I haven't been to a GT football game the last two years. I wish to register my discontent in the growing number of empty seats. But I take the money I would have spent on going to the game and I give it to the A-T Fund, earmarked for Permanent Endowment only. It's a way of saying "I support the program, but not the people currently in charge." Sure, at a diploma factory party school like USC-E they'll still have 70,000 people to watch a winless team. But if we're being honest, it's an organized social and drinking event as much as anything else. So, where you find "fickle" fan bases you'll find teams reticent to make such a foolish jump. That is not a guarantee though, as if your AD and President are on the same page they can go where ever they damn well please regardless of fan desires. For example, Maryland leaving the ACC and descending into Len Bias 2.0.

(11-26-2018 11:37 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-26-2018 11:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-26-2018 11:00 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It would be penny wise and pound foolish.

Sure -- you could create a conference with only the best factories from around the country. But math dictates that half of them are going to lose every week. How many losing seasons would it take before even somebody like Nebraska or Ohio State or USC started seeing mostly empty stadiums?

Perhaps. But in my experience, there are a lot of foolish universities out there, and a lot of self-delusional ones as well. I guess one of my questions would be is Georgia Tech one of them?

My expectation would be that most of the Tier 1 schools would schedule two winnable games in addition to their 5H/5A conference schedule. And, in the scenario I proposed, the Top Tier would only need five wins to qualify for a bowl, in recognition of how challenging their schedules would be.

Fan bases that are panned as "fickle" are really just pragmatic and paying attention. I haven't been to a GT football game the last two years. I wish to register my discontent in the growing number of empty seats. But I take the money I would have spent on going to the game and I give it to the A-T Fund, earmarked for Permanent Endowment only. It's a way of saying "I support the program, but not the people currently in charge." Sure, at a diploma factory party school like USC-E they'll still have 70,000 people to watch a winless team. But if we're being honest, it's an organized social and drinking event as much as anything else. So, where you find "fickle" fan bases you'll find teams reticent to make such a foolish jump. That is not a guarantee though, as if your AD and President are on the same page they can go where ever they damn well please regardless of fan desires. For example, Maryland leaving the ACC and descending into Len Bias 2.0.

I agree with your overall assessment. I take it from your response (which didn't really answer the question) that you aren't sure which way Tech would go on this. And by Tech I mean the people at Tech who actually make the decisions.

Many years ago, Tech opted out of the SEC for good and valid reasons relating to their academic mission. I'm sure there were fans then who didn't like that decision. And today's decision is complicated by the fact that money is a much more important part of the equation than it was then. It's the 800 pound gorilla.

My guess is that GT would make the excruciating decision to walk away from the chance to compete at the highest level against many of the schools they would view as their oldest and closest rivals. And that having to make that choice might split its fan base, its Board and maybe even its faculty and students. It's why I asked the question. I think if the President were politically astute, he would quietly lobby behind the scenes to keep Georgia Tech from being invited in the first place, because an invitation leaves them with no good choice.

This would be incredibly foolish and short sighted. First of all you would alienate over half of the college football fans. And as previous poster mentioned, only playing each other relegates teams to lesser status because someone has to lose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-26-2018 01:15 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  This would be incredibly foolish and short sighted. First of all you would alienate over half of the college football fans. And as previous poster mentioned, only playing each other relegates teams to lesser status because someone has to lose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't lay out the entire scenario here, as my purpose was just to ask about what ACC schools would do in response. Missing as background is that the Tier 1 schools would play at least two games OOC, most of them against Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools. And they might opt, as a separate and autonomous subdivision, to allow a 13th game in Week Zero as a tuneup that would count as an exhibition game for their opponents.

Tier 2 would consist of 40 schools. They would have an 8 team post season playoff (four conference champions hosting four at-large in the opening round) culminating in a New Year's Final in the Orange Bowl. Tier 3 would have a four team playoff with the Finals at the Peach Bowl on New Year's Day. So there's something of value in this for everyone.

But since you are here, do you think Pitt would choose to play in Tier 1 or remain with the Tier 2 ACC?

We would collect a lot of cash.

(11-26-2018 02:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  We would collect a lot of cash.

That means Carolina would remain in an ACC with Boston College, Duke, NC State, Syracuse, Virginia, Wake Forest and probably Maryland and Rutgers from the Big Ten.

If Georgia Tech were to opt out of Tier 1, do you think Carolina would try to get invited to replace them?

To add to the foolishness... What you are proposing is a semi-pro league. The NFL is going to look at that as money on the table and say we want it. As good as those teams might be, I don't think they can compete with the NFL.

I think the semi-pro league would only be 10-12, maybe 16 teams max. I think most of the ACC teams would be fine with the "academic league." I'm not sure about FSU and Clemson. They have had opportunities but have continued to sign contracts and GoRs. When schools with $150m budgets leave, that makes FSU and Clemson the big fish.

I would hope the ACC would take the lead and say the NCAA is 100 years old. We need to examine and revise every rule so it applies to modern universities and student athletes. Or just blow it up and start from scratch.

This conundrum, among several other things, is why the Power 5 leaving to form its own governing organization won't happen.

(11-26-2018 02:51 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  To add to the foolishness... What you are proposing is a semi-pro league. The NFL is going to look at that as money on the table and say we want it. As good as those teams might be, I don't think they can compete with the NFL.

I think the semi-pro league would only be 10-12, maybe 16 teams max. I think most of the ACC teams would be fine with the "academic league." I'm not sure about FSU and Clemson. They have had opportunities but have continued to sign contracts and GoRs. When schools with $150m budgets leave, that makes FSU and Clemson the big fish.

I would hope the ACC would take the lead and say the NCAA is 100 years old. We need to examine and revise every rule so it applies to modern universities and student athletes. Or just blow it up and start from scratch.

For the record, I am not proposing a semi-pro league or a breakaway from the NCAA. What I have suggested is not different from separating some D-I schools into subdivisions called FBS and FCS and having different rules for how each is run. I'm just suggesting that there be two more subdivisions that better reflect the modern economic and competitive differences among schools.

My only real question is which subdivision would individual ACC schools choose to be in if those new subdivisions were created. Whether they should be created is an entirely different question. The answers to my real question, and to the same question posed to the members of the other P5 conferences, would likely answer whether they ever would be created.

(11-26-2018 02:51 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  To add to the foolishness... What you are proposing is a semi-pro league. The NFL is going to look at that as money on the table and say we want it. As good as those teams might be, I don't think they can compete with the NFL.

I think the semi-pro league would only be 10-12, maybe 16 teams max. I think most of the ACC teams would be fine with the "academic league." I'm not sure about FSU and Clemson. They have had opportunities but have continued to sign contracts and GoRs. When schools with $150m budgets leave, that makes FSU and Clemson the big fish.

I would hope the ACC would take the lead and say the NCAA is 100 years old. We need to examine and revise every rule so it applies to modern universities and student athletes. Or just blow it up and start from scratch.

For the NFL to try to reclaim college football audiences they'd need to actually field product where college football teams are. It took until just this past generation for the NFL to realize there's more to the South than New Orleans and Atlanta. Will there be a franchise in Birmingham? Austin? Omaha? Hartford? Louisville? The Tidewater? Greenville? Knoxville? Oklahoma City? Charleston? The Triangle? Piedmont Triad? Savannah? Portland? San Antonio? Memphis?

If the NFL wanted to manufacture money I don't think those would be its targets. It would choose instead to go international. London. Birmingham (UK). Toronto. Vancouver. Montreal. Calgary. Mexico City.

The challenge for the XFL or CFL or AFL or (insert league here) is that is is trying to carve out this niche the NFL has shown zero interest in filling. The trouble is this is a highly elastic demand product. Fans have only the lightest of loyalties to these awkward tweeners. So attempting to fight the NFL on it's home turf (in NFL cities playing during the fall) is a recipe for bankruptcy. If you get somebody wise enough to play spring football in non-NFL cities first ... you might be getting somewhere.

If the NFL were to have, just for starters, a team in every state ... they'd probably end college football over the long term. But can the NFL survive that kind of watering down of the talent? And this is while you have the trouble of a shrinking player pool due to CTE. I imagine the NFL of that scenario to look a lot like MLB today: Small market teams have to sell out a decade worth of good drafting and farm league work to make 1 or 2 runs for a title. (Royals. Tampa Bay. Cleveland.) Those with a major market AND a major fanbase can simply write checks for whatever it cost to buy winning big every year. (Red Sox. Yankees. Dodgers.) College football has already been headed this way hard but the money is diffuse and more hidden through coaching staffs and consultants and facilities and payrolls and recruiting staffs and stipends and so on. And the power is weirdly bundled into conferences instead of on a per-team basis.

The top 16 schools pulling in roughly $2billion per year on football. It would be a black eye if the NFL were seen to muscle in. However, if the those schools were to effectively form a semi-pro league, the NFL would be free to move in.

Yes, the NFL could place teams in cities like Birmingham, etc. They also have the advantage with recruits because there are no academic requirements and they can pay them whatever they want. There is also the promise of moving up to the NFL at any time.

What I really haven't heard is anyone saying they are nearly sure one way or the other what their schools would decide. I'm going out on a limb here to say that I don't believe Pitt, Georgia Tech or Miami would want to be part of Tier 1. I think they would prefer to stay in the ACC. There is no question in my mind that Clemson and FSU would move up, and I'm leaning toward Va Tech deciding to join them.

That would close off the possibility of Maryland and Rutgers to the ACC, and leave the league (after ceding Louisville to the Big Nine) looking like this (from north to south):

Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Virginia
North Carolina
NC State
Duke
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech
Miami

This league would be able to play a full 9 game round robin, and could accommodate Notre Dame for sports other than football.

It's certainly a conference I could live with.

Will be interesting to see. As huge TV contracts separate schools more and more every year, the decision is coming. Are we in or are we out?

Not going to be pretty.

(11-27-2018 11:18 AM)nole Wrote:  Will be interesting to see. As huge TV contracts separate schools more and more every year, the decision is coming. Are we in or are we out?

Not going to be pretty.

And for a school like Georgia Tech, it won't just be that you will pass up a chance to get a big raise. Chances are you will take a significant pay cut as well. The media pie won't likely get any bigger. It will just be divided up differently.

At the end of the day, what will matter most isn't necessarily the absolute amount of money you are getting, but whether however much that is is comparable to the schools you are competing against in your conference, which will always be the bulk of your schedule.