(04-09-2022 10:36 AM)Big 12 fan too 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.

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.

It hasn't seemed to negatively impact Cincinnati. How is that possible?

(04-09-2022 09:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  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.

1. Maryland, Rutgers and Missouri moved to high-dollar neighborhoods where it's harder to crack the top tier — football specifically — than from where they came.

2. More money in itself doesn't guarantee more success — still gotta have the right folks in charge. BUT those additional $$$$ do play a huge part in allowing a school to put the right coaches and infrastructure in place to be successful.

3. That financial gap is only going to widen in the near future. Overcoming the challenges of competing against programs who are making $30M or $40M or $50M annually more in media rights money when all schools are ultimately chasing the same prize will get more and more challenging. UNC and Duke are so iconic in men's basketball that they may be able to roll right along even with the financial shortfall. The question is will they be willing to do so just to keep the ACC afloat?

I could see that ACC GoR breaking early with wheeling and dealing among the SEC, ACC, and ESPN. There would be a few membership shifts and certain cross-scheduling agreements. ACC schools would garner a revenue increase as an offset.

The AAC, via ESPN, could possibly have a placement role. A few B12 schools could end up in the mix.

That largely symbolic "Alliance" with the BIG & PAC12, falters to being non-existent.

(04-09-2022 10:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  It hasn't seemed to negatively impact Cincinnati. How is that possible?

1. Hired a terrific football coach

2. Started to win big and the administration and boosters bought in.

3. Belong to a mid-majorish conference where the Bearcats are not at a distinct disadvantage, resources-wise

(04-09-2022 10:51 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I could see that ACC GoR breaking early with wheeling and dealing among the SEC, ACC, and ESPN. There would be a few membership shifts and certain cross-scheduling agreements. ACC schools would garner a revenue increase as an offset.

The AAC, via ESPN, could possibly placement role. A few B12 schools could end up in the mix.

That largely symbolic "Alliance" with the BIG & PAC12, falters to being non-existent.

Yep!
Two 15 member conferences would do it.

Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, A&M
LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Alabama, Auburn
Miami, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Tennessee

Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville, South Carolina, Pitt
BC, Syracuse, Duke, Carolina, Virginia Tech
Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, South Carolina

Just an example of what ESPN could do to rearrange to maximize revenue.

(04-09-2022 10:57 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 10:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  It hasn't seemed to negatively impact Cincinnati. How is that possible?

1. Hired a terrific football coach

2. Started to win big and the administration and boosters bought in.

3. Belong to a mid-majorish conference where the Bearcats are not at a distinct disadvantage, resources-wise

Thank you, you made my point.

(04-09-2022 11:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 10:51 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I could see that ACC GoR breaking early with wheeling and dealing among the SEC, ACC, and ESPN. There would be a few membership shifts and certain cross-scheduling agreements. ACC schools would garner a revenue increase as an offset.

The AAC, via ESPN, could possibly placement role. A few B12 schools could end up in the mix.

That largely symbolic "Alliance" with the BIG & PAC12, falters to being non-existent.

Yep!
Two 15 member conferences would do it.

Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, A&M
LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Alabama, Auburn
Miami, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Tennessee

Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville, South Carolina, Pitt
BC, Syracuse, Duke, Carolina, Virginia Tech
Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, South Carolina

Just an example of what ESPN could do to rearrange to maximize revenue.

ESPN can do whatever they want with the SEC, ACC, and AAC but you won't have a league without B1G and PAC schools, period.

The Alliance is just the precursor to a professional college football league governance that will include representatives from the SEC very soon. All we are waiting for is the SCOTUS "Pay for Play" ruling and then they will be working on a playoff solution. Does this mean PAC, ACC, and BigXII schools are immune from being picked off by the B1G or SEC? Absolutely not, the two giants in the room will take what they want or more specifically, who they're told to take.

I would guess A true separation will happen sometime around the establishment of the new playoff.

(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.

Dabo wants to have the same revenue streams, and the same booster-fueled $30 million NIL pools, that the wealthiest SEC teams have. He's frustrated that he doesn't have as much of those things, and he's frustrated that he's not in the SEC, and he's venting.

Any change in the system is only going to satisfy the biggest of the big names if they are pretty much assured of winning as many games as they do now, because their revenue streams are dependent on consistently winning 10+ games a year. Roughly speaking, it has to be like England's Premier League, where there are a few teams that almost always occupy the top spots in the league, the bulk of the league that's happy to finish somewhere in the middle most of the time, and a few teams that don't mind finishing at the bottom because they're just happy to be in the elite league, and everyone in the league makes mountains of money from TV.

But that's what teams like Ohio State and Alabama already have! They get pretty much everything they want out of the Big Ten and SEC. They don't need to blow up what they have, and they don't need to invite Clemson or anyone else in college football into their "club".

(04-09-2022 11:24 AM)Wedge 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.

Dabo wants to have the same revenue streams, and the same booster-fueled $30 million NIL pools, that the wealthiest SEC teams have. He's frustrated that he doesn't have as much of those things, and he's frustrated that he's not in the SEC, and he's venting.

Any change in the system is only going to satisfy the biggest of the big names if they are pretty much assured of winning as many games as they do now, because their revenue streams are dependent on consistently winning 10+ games a year. Roughly speaking, it has to be like England's Premier League, where there are a few teams that almost always occupy the top spots in the league, the bulk of the league that's happy to finish somewhere in the middle most of the time, and a few teams that don't mind finishing at the bottom because they're just happy to be in the elite league, and everyone in the league makes mountains of money from TV.

But that's what teams like Ohio State and Alabama already have! They get pretty much everything they want out of the Big Ten and SEC. They don't need to blow up what they have, and they don't need to invite Clemson or anyone else in college football into their "club".

Exactly. It's so obvious why he's saying it. Because he knows otherwise Clemson is absolutely ******. The ACC is just going to fall more and more behind. And he absolutely knows it.

(04-09-2022 11:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Dabo wants to have the same revenue streams, and the same booster-fueled $30 million NIL pools, that the wealthiest SEC teams have. He's frustrated that he doesn't have as much of those things, and he's frustrated that he's not in the SEC, and he's venting.

Meanwhile, the Ivory Tower Three

The trends I see in the P5 landscape.

1) A move toward a "super conference" SEC and a "super conference" B1G approaching possibly 20 teams. This makes a lot of sense when they offer so much more in the way of monetary value than the ACC, PAC and XII.

2) A push toward deregulation. First it was cost of living and no transfer rules. Now its NIL and there is talk about going to unlimited scholarships. Coaching pay of course is already unregulated as are buy games.

I don't see where they would pull 40 out of the P5 as much as the SEC/B1G going to 20 each as far and being far and away the best two conferences.

What remains of the PAC, ACC, XII would largely support a second tier for the top level and to an extent taking the role of the G5.

I think the PAC 12 and ACC should be relegated with the rest of FBS, with select programs fetching rides to the B1G.

Just get USC and ND into the B1G with a handful of other alliance schools that can buy their way in. Go B1G Champ vs SEC champ.

No other way to even out the money.

(04-09-2022 11:24 AM)Wedge 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.

Dabo wants to have the same revenue streams, and the same booster-fueled $30 million NIL pools, that the wealthiest SEC teams have. He's frustrated that he doesn't have as much of those things, and he's frustrated that he's not in the SEC, and he's venting.

Any change in the system is only going to satisfy the biggest of the big names if they are pretty much assured of winning as many games as they do now, because their revenue streams are dependent on consistently winning 10+ games a year. Roughly speaking, it has to be like England's Premier League, where there are a few teams that almost always occupy the top spots in the league, the bulk of the league that's happy to finish somewhere in the middle most of the time, and a few teams that don't mind finishing at the bottom because they're just happy to be in the elite league, and everyone in the league makes mountains of money from TV.

But that's what teams like Ohio State and Alabama already have! They get pretty much everything they want out of the Big Ten and SEC. They don't need to blow up what they have, and they don't need to invite Clemson or anyone else in college football into their "club".

Agreed. I’ve been posting various versions of this argument for years. The P5 and G5 have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. You can’t have the Harlem Globetrotters without the Washington Generals, and none of the P5 schools want to be relegated to the Generals’ role. They like playing on an unlevel field that inflates the likelihood of finishing each season with a winning record, a bowl berth, media praise, happy fans, satisfied administrators, and coaches who can look forward to another year of lucrative employment.

The primary pushback against the current system is and will continue to be from the most ambitious and successful P5 schools. They’re already rolling in so much cash, and so confident of continuing their winning ways regardless of the caliber of the competition, that greed will continue to be their primary motivator. But fear is also a great motivator, and at least half of the P5 schools are driven as much by fear as by greed. I believe their fear of becoming perennial losers in a breakaway league will ensure their continued support of the status quo or something pretty similar. If there is any culling I think it will be at the bottom tier of FBS, perhaps by setting some new standards that will push out 20-30 of the least competitive and most poorly supported programs.

https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019

This is a couple years old but it gives you a feeling about what programs have value and which don't....

Go to the 5th tab and then start looking at the schools that reside outside of the top 40.

(04-09-2022 11:53 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 11:24 AM)Wedge 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.

Dabo wants to have the same revenue streams, and the same booster-fueled $30 million NIL pools, that the wealthiest SEC teams have. He's frustrated that he doesn't have as much of those things, and he's frustrated that he's not in the SEC, and he's venting.

Any change in the system is only going to satisfy the biggest of the big names if they are pretty much assured of winning as many games as they do now, because their revenue streams are dependent on consistently winning 10+ games a year. Roughly speaking, it has to be like England's Premier League, where there are a few teams that almost always occupy the top spots in the league, the bulk of the league that's happy to finish somewhere in the middle most of the time, and a few teams that don't mind finishing at the bottom because they're just happy to be in the elite league, and everyone in the league makes mountains of money from TV.

But that's what teams like Ohio State and Alabama already have! They get pretty much everything they want out of the Big Ten and SEC. They don't need to blow up what they have, and they don't need to invite Clemson or anyone else in college football into their "club".

Agreed. I’ve been posting various versions of this argument for years. The P5 and G5 have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. You can’t have the Harlem Globetrotters without the Washington Generals, and none of the P5 schools want to be relegated to the Generals’ role. They like playing on an unlevel field that inflates the likelihood of finishing each season with a winning record, a bowl berth, media praise, happy fans, satisfied administrators, and coaches who can look forward to another year of lucrative employment.

The primary pushback against the current system is and will continue to be from the most ambitious and successful P5 schools. They’re already rolling in so much cash, and so confident of continuing their winning ways regardless of the caliber of the competition, that greed will continue to be their primary motivator. But fear is also a great motivator, and at least half of the P5 schools are driven as much by fear as by greed. I believe their fear of becoming perennial losers in a breakaway league will ensure their continued support of the status quo or something pretty similar. If there is any culling I think it will be at the bottom tier of FBS, perhaps by setting some new standards that will push out 20-30 of the least competitive and most poorly supported programs.

A lot of MAC administrators would be ecstatic seeing the other guys program being forced out, transforming the conference into a MWC 1.0 type conference.

Ohio and Buffalo have bigger endowments than every single school in the MWC and could be spending far more on athletics than what they do but choose not to waste money like that. If required to pump up their athletic budgets to $50 million they would do it. Most other MAC schools to be honest feel the same way.

The real gap is not between the MWC and MAC but the P5 and MWC which is growing larger after every realignment.

I don’t think you can go by pure revenue. I don’t think there will be a minimum buy-in, but rather, your fate will be decided based on your relationships with TV and University partners, which will go a lot further in deciding if you stay or go.

(04-09-2022 12:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  A lot of MAC administrators would be ecstatic seeing the other guys program being forced out, transforming the conference into a MWC 1.0 type conference.

Mid-Majorish MAC
Buffalo
Miami (OH)
Ohio U
Toledo
Western Michigan

Low-Majorish MAC
Akron
Ball State
Bowling Green
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan
Kent State
Northern Illinois

Thoughts and/or changes from any MACtion experts here?

(04-09-2022 12:32 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don’t think you can go by pure revenue. I don’t think there will be a minimum buy-in, but rather, your fate will be decided based on your relationships with TV and University partners, which will go a lot further in deciding if you stay or go.

You’re hoping your friends’ good looks gets you past the bouncer.

I’d rather they let the 50 hottest chicks in the club. Not the 35 best looking and their 15 cling-ons

(04-09-2022 12:49 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  You’re hoping your friends’ good looks gets you past the bouncer.

I’d rather they let the 50 hottest chicks in the club. Not the 35 best looking and their 15 cling-ons

Appears you're not a fan of Wake, BC, Cuse, Oregon State or Wazzu to name five...

(Agree with your point, too)

(04-09-2022 12:49 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 12:32 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don’t think you can go by pure revenue. I don’t think there will be a minimum buy-in, but rather, your fate will be decided based on your relationships with TV and University partners, which will go a lot further in deciding if you stay or go.

You’re hoping your friends’ good looks gets you past the bouncer.

I’d rather they let the 50 hottest chicks in the club. Not the 35 best looking and their 15 cling-ons

The fuglies had the advantage of world class beauty salons for the past 30 years and personal trainers. Their parents are friends with the hotties parents.