JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,372
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8054
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: American Athletic finishes ahead of ACC in Massey Composite
(01-26-2020 02:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: (01-26-2020 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-26-2020 12:09 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: (01-26-2020 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: (01-24-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote: Hoops as well. Louisville got in because of their hoops in addition to football.
People forget that circa 2010 - 2012 the ACC hoops was flagging. The Big East had clearly surpassed the ACC as a hoops conference, something that was intolerable to the ACC. It was a sub-motivation to raid the Big East, in addition to the general motivation of eliminating the Big East as a market competitor in the northeast corridor, the only place the ACC could expand.
History is repeating itself. Only now conferences with more football revenue to invest in hoops are beginning to threaten the basketball first culture of some of the ACC. And again the Big East is shining but the real cracks that are showing are internal the ACC. When Clemson and Florida State hoops are on par with those of Virginia and North Carolina, or exceed them, then their overall business emphasis is becoming outdated.
Comparing the ACC to the SEC in hoops is somewhat like doing the same thing with the leagues in football. In other words ... the comparisons rarely work well. The ACC is down this year in hoops but is still typically the best basketball league in the nation year in and year out.
The ACC has six programs that would rank in most folks' all-time Top 25: Duke, Syracuse, Louisville, North Carolina State, Notre Dame and North Carolina.
The SEC has two: Kentucky and Arkansas.
True, the SEC is doing much better in basketball now (some strong coaching hires have helped hugely) than it was, say, four to six years ago (when it was underachieving). But I don't see the SEC as a "threat" to ACC basketball superiority anytime soon. The SEC is top three nationally in football, baseball and women's basketball — and that is VERY impressive. However, it would be unlikely to have SEC men's hoops as a Top 3 year in and year out, too. The Big East, Big Ten and ACC (and even, to an extent the Big 12) are every bit as good or better in men's hoops year in and out.
The basketball-first culture in the ACC will be fine. And the league will get better in football.
I cheer for programs in both the SEC and ACC and would hope I look at this with an almost militant objectivity.
I'm going to start hammering you on missing the point. The locus of this argument is not about basketball history or brands. It is about systemic trajectory. Specifically in this case how not investing in football is permitting those schools who do, even within their own conference, to commit greater resources to the recruitment and development of better basketball.
There's only so much money you can toss at football. But successful football programs generate a lot more gate revenue, donations, and a higher profile for the public to identify with than do basketball programs. And it's not just a one year deal. The slippage has been accreting for some time now and is about to get exponentially worse.
Then there is the question of sustainability. Programs like UNC have had it. Once Coach K retires will Duke have it? But with programs like UNC struggling to stay above 500 it begs the question about their continued success.
Right now they are being overtaken by not only football first programs, but by schools which don't offer football at all.
There seems to be an allocation issue at the heart of this argument. Do we allocate the majority of our budget to just basketball (Big East) or use the overflow of revenue from football to stay, or become, competitive in basketball (Big 10 / SEC).
You'll note that the other conference struggling for relevance in hoops is the PAC where they still budget more for football but don't earn enough to stay consistently competitive in either. I see the same situation happening in the ACC. Funny that it's not happening in the Big 12 but their football is successful enough to still pump enough into basketball to keep it highly competitive.
So the argument I'm making is not the one you so glibly and shallowly responded to. It's not about comparing how many basketball bluebloods a particular conference has. It's about seeing what is actually happening in real time and calculating future trajectories based on current investment and current results. And I'm saying the business model of Tobacco Road is antiquated and not keeping up, especially in a world about to move to pay for play.
That Bill is one reason the WSJ valuations of the ACC are so abysmal. They are 5th in that data set among the P5 and getting lapped significantly by the Big 12 which is worth twice as much, the Big 10 which is worth 3 and half times as much and the SEC which is worth 4 times as much and when those with current success line up with those who are generating more value and that value is heavily football dependent it tells me that basketball first models aren't working, unless basketball first schools drop football and invest fully in hoops to keep up and that is the Big East and some other key mid majors or independents.
Your argument is a very good one overall, JRsec. And there are many SEC and Big Ten programs at which investing in football has helped in hoops (e.g., Penn State and Rutgers in the Big Ten, and Florida and South Carolina in the SEC). I agree with you overall.
However, as with many things, there are always exceptions to the rule. When you type "programs like UNC have had it" do you mean ALL similar athletic programs (that is, programs at big state schools that put an overwhelming emphasis on hoops compared to football)? Because if that's the case, Kentucky and Kansas have "had it," too.
As to Duke, the Blue Devils had at least five coaches prior to Coach K that won at least two-thirds of their games. The program was strong before K arrived and could easily remain strong after he leaves. And Syracuse could be strong after JB leaves. Time will tell.
I don't feel, as you do, that "the business model of Tobacco Road is antiquated and not keeping up, especially in a world about to move to pay for play." However, I do acknowledge that NCState, UNC and Syracuse need to invest more in football and that the risks are concerning. I agree on that. Louisville is investing in football. Duke ... probably not like it should. Notre Dame is a different animal since it doesn't play in the ACC in football.
You have studied this topic and know it well. I have not and am a clueless simpleton regarding it. You also do a great job posting on multiple topics related to college athletics and that I strongly enjoy reading. You very well might be proved correct on this issue. But if you have a strong bias toward the SEC (I assume you are somewhat biased toward the league but don't know if you are strongly biased), that pro-SEC mindset might be slightly contributing to your thoughts that the ACC is in trouble. Overall, you seem to assess such situations with a clinical and reasoned approach, which I respect.
Keep up the fine posting.
Bill
You are still missing a critical distinction. Kansas and Kentucky are the beneficiaries of belonging to football first conferences where media revenue is either equally distributed in total, or equally distributed for T1 and T2 rights giving both a full share valued at football first rates and football first rates for top 10 programs in not only revenue and attendance but programs within the top 20 in all time wins like Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Tennessee and a few others.
2 years ago hoops provided about 20% of the overall revenue for most P5 schools (there are exceptions but the % of difference is not significantly larger). Last year (2018 stats for the 2017 season the new stats for 2018 will be out in April) the revenue of college basketball was down 8% on average. So I don't think you can fairly use Kentucky, Indiana, or Kansas by comparison to say U.C.L.A., North Carolina, or Duke.
|
|