(04-09-2022 03:30 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  IMHO it's only a matter of time until the power 5 break with the NCAA. They just are not on the same page right now. But when they get on the same page they will go.

They have wanted separation from "G5" as it's known today, and even more from the mass of D-I FCS and Basketball schools they see as mooching off their earnings. And they want the NCAA out of the way for many things. Also the NCAA is becoming a honey pot for all kinds of litigation and soon legislative intervention. Add to that it's under performing in revenue for CFP and Basketball and you have more reasons to get out of it than stay in. Just fear of the unknown and lack of common focus among the P5 has kept this at bay.

But Sweeney may well get his wish. But I agree it'll be about 70 football schools. I seriously doubt that when the big split happens any will want to voluntarily surrender their status.

I have no idea what will become of all the rest.

If the P5 splits in FB and BB do they risk a situation where there is enough alternative interest in a body of 300 D1 basketball schools that it would hurt a 32 team P5 basketball playoff?

I don't know but a split of 40 would be a disaster if names like Kentucky, Duke and Arizona were left behind from the super conference because they are not good at football.

For all of you touting this breakaway:

How does this new entity defend itself from other government institutions seeking admission? How does it avoid anti-trust lawsuits? Just look at all these little schools moving to D1 these days.

A stagnant exclusive breakaway is unrealistic when you’re dealing with rich alumni who influence politics. The majority of schools are latched to the government tit.

(04-09-2022 08:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  For all of you touting this breakaway:

How does this new entity defend itself from other government institutions seeking admission? How does it avoid anti-trust lawsuits? Just look at all these little schools moving to D1 these days.

A stagnant exclusive breakaway is unrealistic when you’re dealing with rich alumni who influence politics. The majority of schools are latched to the government tit.

Uncle Dazzy, his coffee in hand, smiled whilst reading. Perhaps a limerick with that phrase is in order.

(04-09-2022 02:00 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What is not well understood is how important a big tent is to the overall interest in college athletics.

Fans of G5 conferences are tuning into the college football season as they perceive they are a part of it.

Go to this limited 30-40 team model and there wouldn't be as much overall interest in it.

BINGO. Moving to separate leagues will create much less interest overall due to exactly this.

(04-09-2022 08:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  For all of you touting this breakaway:

How does this new entity defend itself from other government institutions seeking admission? How does it avoid anti-trust lawsuits? Just look at all these little schools moving to D1 these days.

A stagnant exclusive breakaway is unrealistic when you’re dealing with rich alumni who influence politics. The majority of schools are latched to the government tit.

You can’t arbitrarily exclude schools, especially if the dregs of the SEC and BIG 10 get included. You just make the cost of inclusion more than most are able or willing to pay. Pay the players $200k for example, or whatever it takes to separate the wheat from the chaff. They’ll figure it out. You eliminate a lot of the basketball leeches if they pay players more than they get from the postseason.

(04-09-2022 01:38 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  This guy is a complete idiot.

Strong take

(04-09-2022 03:30 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  IMHO it's only a matter of time until the power 5 break with the NCAA. They just are not on the same page right now. But when they get on the same page they will go.

They have wanted separation from "G5" as it's known today, and even more from the mass of D-I FCS and Basketball schools they see as mooching off their earnings. And they want the NCAA out of the way for many things. Also the NCAA is becoming a honey pot for all kinds of litigation and soon legislative intervention. Add to that it's under performing in revenue for CFP and Basketball and you have more reasons to get out of it than stay in. Just fear of the unknown and lack of common focus among the P5 has kept this at bay.

But Sweeney may well get his wish. But I agree it'll be about 70 football schools. I seriously doubt that when the big split happens any will want to voluntarily surrender their status.

I have no idea what will become of all the rest.

Good perspective.
It is not going to be approached by blanket inclusion of favored conferences or by picking "you, you, and you" from established conferences by popularity.

A criteria for eligibility will need to be established that may include: revenue earnings, attendance figures, facilities, endowments, academic factors, athletic records, spectrum of sports offerings, prior TV ratings, enrollment, etc. NIL will be huge matter. So will the play-for-play movement.

If the criteria is stringent, some schools in lofty conferences may voluntarily remove themselves.

It is possible, an entity could pre-establish the criteria, knowing that 65-70 schools would immediately, or be close to, satisfying the standards.

Much care in making such happen will be required. Litigation may be inevitable.

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

What about the Pac 12, should they dissolve? The Big XII surely won't make more than they would with Oklahoma and Texas. Should that conference dissolve as well?

I keep hearing about how important this gap is, but I have yet to see the returns on the field/court for Maryland, Rutgers, and Missouri. Texas A&M has been about par for their overrated/underachieving self as well.

Please point to the evidence where this revenue gap has doomed ACC basketball and football.

The fact is, the situation is much more nuanced especially with NIL. You of all people should see how NIL has diminished the conference media payouts gap. Once schools make a certain amount of money, the rest is just icing for them to blow on crap that doesn't matter.

(04-09-2022 09:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

What about the Pac 12, should they dissolve? The Big XII surely won't make more than they would with Oklahoma and Texas. Should that conference dissolve as well?

I keep hearing about how important this gap is, but I have yet to see the returns on the field/court for Maryland, Rutgers, and Missouri. Texas A&M has been about par for their overrated/underachieving self as well.

Please point to the evidence where this revenue gap has doomed ACC basketball and football.

The fact is, the situation is much more nuanced especially with NIL. You of all people should see how NIL has diminished the conference media payouts gap. Once schools make a certain amount of money, the rest is just icing for them to blow on crap that doesn't matter.

On another board a familiar SEC poster said that he was only certain about 10 SEC schools participating in pay-for-play/NIL, 5 probable and one iffy.

Funding NIL is going to be a problem. If monies go for NIL payments, how will that impact donations to the Universities or booster clubs. Unless the NIL money is in addition to rather that a substitute for booster club donations the whole system is worthless.
The people that have the ability to donate large sums are dying out. Inflation is going to eliminate smaller contributors on the fringes because they won't have the same amount of excess money moving forward.

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

The ACC could operate very well as a 10-12 team conference.
The only P5 conference that is truly a "Dead Man Walking" is the Big 12.

(04-09-2022 09:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 09:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

What about the Pac 12, should they dissolve? The Big XII surely won't make more than they would with Oklahoma and Texas. Should that conference dissolve as well?

I keep hearing about how important this gap is, but I have yet to see the returns on the field/court for Maryland, Rutgers, and Missouri. Texas A&M has been about par for their overrated/underachieving self as well.

Please point to the evidence where this revenue gap has doomed ACC basketball and football.

The fact is, the situation is much more nuanced especially with NIL. You of all people should see how NIL has diminished the conference media payouts gap. Once schools make a certain amount of money, the rest is just icing for them to blow on crap that doesn't matter.

On another board a familiar SEC poster said that he was only certain about 10 SEC schools participating in pay-for-play/NIL, 5 probable and one iffy.

Funding NIL is going to be a problem. If monies go for NIL payments, how will that impact donations to the Universities or booster clubs. Unless the NIL money is in addition to rather that a substitute for booster club donations the whole system is worthless.
The people that have the ability to donate large sums are dying out. Inflation is going to eliminate smaller contributors on the fringes because they won't have the same amount of excess money moving forward.

I believe both can coexist. For instance, there are a lot of advertising opportunities that have nothing to do with alumni donations.

People that donate might make extra donations directly to sponsor their favorite players. In some ways, it invites exciting new contributions that are more customizable.

(04-09-2022 09:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  What about the Pac 12, should they dissolve?

The key ACC schools are not geographic misfits for the SEC/B1G the way the top Pac-12 brands most certainly would be.

Bringing in schools from adjacent states like North Carolina and Virginia would be no different for the SEC from a footprint perspective than adding Oklahoma. Likewise, Jim Delany's often-ridiculed addition of Rutgers and Maryland was no doubt done in part to build a geographic connection to UVA, Duke and UNC.

There's no bridge — at least not an completely unwieldy one — that goes from the Eastern and Central time zones all the way to the West Coast.

If there were, Gonzaga would be playing for a conference championship in MSG every March.

(04-09-2022 08:20 AM)sstaedtler88 Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:00 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What is not well understood is how important a big tent is to the overall interest in college athletics.

Fans of G5 conferences are tuning into the college football season as they perceive they are a part of it.

Go to this limited 30-40 team model and there wouldn't be as much overall interest in it.

BINGO. Moving to separate leagues will create much less interest overall due to exactly this.

Right, losing the G5-only fans will really limit ratings. Lol

Losing 20 P5 may reduce total viewership some, but not as much as cost savings from not having to subsidize the schools.

Moreover, the separation won’t be formal at first. They’ll just suffocate out the bottom 20 P5, slowly converting fans all across the nation to accept the super league

(04-09-2022 09:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

What about the Pac 12, should they dissolve? The Big XII surely won't make more than they would with Oklahoma and Texas. Should that conference dissolve as well?

I keep hearing about how important this gap is, but I have yet to see the returns on the field/court for Maryland, Rutgers, and Missouri. Texas A&M has been about par for their overrated/underachieving self as well.

Please point to the evidence where this revenue gap has doomed ACC basketball and football.

The fact is, the situation is much more nuanced especially with NIL. You of all people should see how NIL has diminished the conference media payouts gap. Once schools make a certain amount of money, the rest is just icing for them to blow on crap that doesn't matter.

The major difference though is Pac 12 and Big 12 have a chance to go to market and get more money now. The ACC is locked up with ESPN for another 14 years. For Maryland, Rutgers, Missouri, and Texas A&M all 4 are getting set to see their revenues explode with new tv deals.

(04-09-2022 09:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

The ACC could operate very well as a 10-12 team conference.
The only P5 conference that is truly a "Dead Man Walking" is the Big 12.

The ACC at best will be a division of the SEC. it’s done.

Swinney's comments were inclusive of a subtle dig at the ACC payouts. Clemson sees themselves among the upper elite in college football. They are, as recent history shows.
I have the impression Clemson would jump to the SEC, if invited, and they have an opportunity to escape, almost solely on the revenue factor. FSU is another one.

(04-09-2022 09:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  What about the Pac 12, should they dissolve? The Big XII surely won't make more than they would with Oklahoma and Texas. Should that conference dissolve as well?

Should the Pac-12 dissolve? No

Should the Pac-12 evolve? Absolutely.

Evolving in this case means setting aside academic snobbery and West Coast politics to add the best athletic programs (i.e. most committed to winning while also having the resources to do so) while expanding the conference's footprint in a reasonable manner.

Translation: A lesser version of what Larry Scott unsuccessfully tried to pull off back around 2011.

If (well, not really an "if") the SEC and B1G are going to be Nos. 1 and 1A in this next version of College Revenue Sports, Inc., MUCH better for the Pac to be a clear-cut No. 3 with a large (but manageable) footprint as opposed to a rigid, isolated league forever lumped in a JV tier with reconstituted versions of the ACC and Big XII.

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

Which collapses first? ACC or Pac 12?

The Pac 12 may fold the moment students are deem employees.

Being at a huge revenue disadvantage is destabilizing, but philosophically being as far apart as USC is with some of its conference mates is existential crisis.

Perhaps they get a short term tv deal in which USC gets a bigger share. A bridge towards 6-8 leaving.

(04-09-2022 09:40 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 09:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 09:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

What about the Pac 12, should they dissolve? The Big XII surely won't make more than they would with Oklahoma and Texas. Should that conference dissolve as well?

I keep hearing about how important this gap is, but I have yet to see the returns on the field/court for Maryland, Rutgers, and Missouri. Texas A&M has been about par for their overrated/underachieving self as well.

Please point to the evidence where this revenue gap has doomed ACC basketball and football.

The fact is, the situation is much more nuanced especially with NIL. You of all people should see how NIL has diminished the conference media payouts gap. Once schools make a certain amount of money, the rest is just icing for them to blow on crap that doesn't matter.

On another board a familiar SEC poster said that he was only certain about 10 SEC schools participating in pay-for-play/NIL, 5 probable and one iffy.

Funding NIL is going to be a problem. If monies go for NIL payments, how will that impact donations to the Universities or booster clubs. Unless the NIL money is in addition to rather that a substitute for booster club donations the whole system is worthless.
The people that have the ability to donate large sums are dying out. Inflation is going to eliminate smaller contributors on the fringes because they won't have the same amount of excess money moving forward.

I believe both can coexist. For instance, there are a lot of advertising opportunities that have nothing to do with alumni donations.

People that donate might make extra donations directly to sponsor their favorite players. In some ways, it invites exciting new contributions that are more customizable.

The pool of people that can make meaningful contributions is shrinking while expenses are rising.
Any organization can only go to the well so often before it runs dry.
You realize that $100 contributors are somewhat irrelevant. It would be necessary to raise a lot of money quickly, think more in the $10,000 to $100,000 range to be competitive for NIL funds.
Rumor has it that Bacot has about $650,000 in NIL funds pledged if he were to come back, Love around $375,000. Then there are recruits (football and basketball) to buy.
Any school that wants to be competitive would have to have tens of millions of dollars available every year to gamble on 18 year old kids (hoping they would stay eligible and out of trouble).
It's a slippery slope.