(05-14-2022 12:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

Carolina and Miami had great recruiting classes. What are your thoughts there?

To answer your question, small ball mean anything to you? In the end, it’s a game.

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.

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

(05-14-2022 12:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

Carolina and Miami had great recruiting classes. What are your thoughts there?

To answer your question, small ball mean anything to you? In the end, it’s a game.

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.

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

To me, it doesn't matter whether a school that gets way more money does better on the field and court than one that doesn't or not.

That's because in college athletics money is the bottom-line score, not winning. Winning is for fans jumping up and down and screaming. That's nice, as a Rams fan I jumped up and down and screamed when we won the Super Bowl a couple months ago. But the only reason inter-collegiate athletics exists is to make money, either directly or via donations, sponsorships, etc.

There are zero institutions in the USA that would rather be Baylor, with its recent hoops national title and NY6 bowl win, than Maryland, winning nothing, but collecting those massive B1G checks.

The checks are the measure, not results on the field.

(05-14-2022 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

To me, it doesn't matter whether a school that gets way more money does better on the field and court than one that doesn't or not.

That's because in college athletics money is the bottom-line score, not winning. Winning is for fans jumping up and down and screaming. That's nice, as a Rams fan I jumped up and down and screamed when we won the Super Bowl a couple months ago. But the only reason inter-collegiate athletics exists is to make money, either directly or via donations, sponsorships, etc.

There are zero institutions in the USA that would rather be Baylor, with its recent hoops national title and NY6 bowl win, than Maryland, winning nothing, but collecting those massive B1G checks.

The checks are the measure, not results on the field.

Baloney. If money were everything, then schools would diminish their athletic departments and use the savings to create or invest in other, far more lucrative ventures than sports. Consider Harvard, for example, academically superior to any SEC or B1G institution, more influential, and far wealthier.

(05-14-2022 03:26 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

To me, it doesn't matter whether a school that gets way more money does better on the field and court than one that doesn't or not.

That's because in college athletics money is the bottom-line score, not winning. Winning is for fans jumping up and down and screaming. That's nice, as a Rams fan I jumped up and down and screamed when we won the Super Bowl a couple months ago. But the only reason inter-collegiate athletics exists is to make money, either directly or via donations, sponsorships, etc.

There are zero institutions in the USA that would rather be Baylor, with its recent hoops national title and NY6 bowl win, than Maryland, winning nothing, but collecting those massive B1G checks.

The checks are the measure, not results on the field.

Baloney. If money were everything, then schools would diminish their athletic departments and use the savings to create or invest in other, far more lucrative ventures than sports. Consider Harvard, for example, academically superior to any SEC or B1G institution, more influential, and far wealthier.

Harvard and the Ivys have a reputation without sports. History and money did that. Everyone else needs the notoriety of sports branding and the alumni tie to sports to keep enrollment up and money coming in. Many big sports donors also give buildings and endowments.

The upper class doesn't need sports for entertainment or identity. The middle class, even upper middle class, loves their sports. So you are talking apples and oranges.

(05-14-2022 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

To me, it doesn't matter whether a school that gets way more money does better on the field and court than one that doesn't or not.

That's because in college athletics money is the bottom-line score, not winning. Winning is for fans jumping up and down and screaming. That's nice, as a Rams fan I jumped up and down and screamed when we won the Super Bowl a couple months ago. But the only reason inter-collegiate athletics exists is to make money, either directly or via donations, sponsorships, etc.

There are zero institutions in the USA that would rather be Baylor, with its recent hoops national title and NY6 bowl win, than Maryland, winning nothing, but collecting those massive B1G checks.

The checks are the measure, not results on the field.

Agree with the fundamentals of your point.

It is about winning, at the top level.

So if you're not at the top level, the record is moot in the grand scheme of things. And the top level is soon the P2...maybe P2 plus best of rest.

No P5 school would willingly become a G5, even if some would actually be able to grow their brand more at that level.

An extreme example is the NFL In the NFL nearly all of the value of a franchise is the fact it is a franchise of the NFL. The Cowboys aren't going to the USLF just because they could win more.

(05-14-2022 03:26 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

To me, it doesn't matter whether a school that gets way more money does better on the field and court than one that doesn't or not.

That's because in college athletics money is the bottom-line score, not winning. Winning is for fans jumping up and down and screaming. That's nice, as a Rams fan I jumped up and down and screamed when we won the Super Bowl a couple months ago. But the only reason inter-collegiate athletics exists is to make money, either directly or via donations, sponsorships, etc.

There are zero institutions in the USA that would rather be Baylor, with its recent hoops national title and NY6 bowl win, than Maryland, winning nothing, but collecting those massive B1G checks.

The checks are the measure, not results on the field.

Baloney. If money were everything, then schools would diminish their athletic departments and use the savings to create or invest in other, far more lucrative ventures than sports. Consider Harvard, for example, academically superior to any SEC or B1G institution, more influential, and far wealthier.

What savings from dropping sports? The schools being discussed do not save money from dropping/diminishing sports. Most of them do diminish in profile to their peers though, so it would be a very bad decision.

Even schools with poor results like Vandy and NW, benefit from having sports. It is their product differentiation with other academic elites.

(05-14-2022 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

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

(05-14-2022 12:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

Carolina and Miami had great recruiting classes. What are your thoughts there?

To answer your question, small ball mean anything to you? In the end, it’s a game.

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.

(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:  

(05-14-2022 12:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

Carolina and Miami had great recruiting classes. What are your thoughts there?

To answer your question, small ball mean anything to you? In the end, it’s a game.

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.

(05-14-2022 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

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

(05-14-2022 12:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

Carolina and Miami had great recruiting classes. What are your thoughts there?

To answer your question, small ball mean anything to you? In the end, it’s a game.

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.

There are people who leave MAC and FCS jobs to be assistants at SEC schools.

And the gap between the B$G and $EC and everyone else if just starting. The gap between the P5 and G5 really didn't hit until about 10 years ago. I remember seeing the Pac 12 distributions around 2007 or 2008 and USC was tops at $7.5 million. Washington St. made $2.5 million. The Big 12 paid $7 to $11 million in that era. That wasn't that big a gap vs. the 200k-$1 million the non-BCS conferences were paying.

We haven't really seen the impact yet of the growth in TV $s.

(05-13-2022 08:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There are teams in the two conferences that are being paid way too much than what their on the field/court performance shows. This conference model sucks. Schools that are not in a P5 like Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State, UNR, UCF, SMU, Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, Marshall, Navy, App State etc deserves to be paid more than schools like Kansas, Nebraska, Rutgers, Oregon State, Washington State, Vanderbilt, Maryland, BC, Syracuse, Wake Forest and Duke.

Why, pray tell, do you believe that your first group of schools “deserves” anything? The second group of schools are either traditional rivals within those conferences or their additions to their current conferences did increase the size of the revenue pie.

Yeah, I’m in the middle of re-reading Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”, so I’m a little bit cranky. But as Mark Twain once wrote, “If you believe life is fair, then you have been sadly misinformed.”

(05-14-2022 03:26 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

To me, it doesn't matter whether a school that gets way more money does better on the field and court than one that doesn't or not.

That's because in college athletics money is the bottom-line score, not winning. Winning is for fans jumping up and down and screaming. That's nice, as a Rams fan I jumped up and down and screamed when we won the Super Bowl a couple months ago. But the only reason inter-collegiate athletics exists is to make money, either directly or via donations, sponsorships, etc.

There are zero institutions in the USA that would rather be Baylor, with its recent hoops national title and NY6 bowl win, than Maryland, winning nothing, but collecting those massive B1G checks.

The checks are the measure, not results on the field.

Baloney. If money were everything, then schools would diminish their athletic departments and use the savings to create or invest in other, far more lucrative ventures than sports. Consider Harvard, for example, academically superior to any SEC or B1G institution, more influential, and far wealthier.

Schools don't do the bolded because they believe the money spent on sports gives them name-recognition that attracts students and keeps their names on the minds of the legislators (if public) that vote them money. IOWs, they think that sports is a very lucrative investment. Athletics is invested in to build your school's brand and name so as to attract resources to your school, primarily money, as money can buy all other resources.

I personally don't think it works that way, but the schools believe it.

Winning titles is only important to the institution to the extent it helps with that brand-building process. But that pales in comparison to direct monies received. Baylor won't make anything near off of winning the Fiesta Bowl that Rutgers gets from merely being in the B1G.

As JR points out, the Ivies operate on a different level. They are world-famous for their academics, which by itself attracts far more money than athletics ever can. Harvard's interest income on their endowment dwarfs all the money brought in by Alabama's football and other athletic programs, and by a mile. So they don't feel the need to leverage athletics that way. Schools that don't have that have to try and use other things, like athletics, to bring in money that can raise their prestige, the true coin-of-realm in academia.

Alabama has actually done a good job of investing football money in to academics. Its enrollment is about 12,000 students higher than when Saban took over, and the student body average GPA and ACT/SAT scores are up significantly since then as well. They have really invested in merit aid and attracting better professors.

That's what it's all about. Using the money to build prestige.

(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:  

(05-14-2022 12:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  Carolina and Miami had great recruiting classes. What are your thoughts there?

To answer your question, small ball mean anything to you? In the end, it’s a game.

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?

(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.

(05-14-2022 08:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 03:26 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

To me, it doesn't matter whether a school that gets way more money does better on the field and court than one that doesn't or not.

That's because in college athletics money is the bottom-line score, not winning. Winning is for fans jumping up and down and screaming. That's nice, as a Rams fan I jumped up and down and screamed when we won the Super Bowl a couple months ago. But the only reason inter-collegiate athletics exists is to make money, either directly or via donations, sponsorships, etc.

There are zero institutions in the USA that would rather be Baylor, with its recent hoops national title and NY6 bowl win, than Maryland, winning nothing, but collecting those massive B1G checks.

The checks are the measure, not results on the field.

Baloney. If money were everything, then schools would diminish their athletic departments and use the savings to create or invest in other, far more lucrative ventures than sports. Consider Harvard, for example, academically superior to any SEC or B1G institution, more influential, and far wealthier.

Schools don't do the bolded because they believe the money spent on sports gives them name-recognition that attracts students and keeps their names on the minds of the legislators (if public) that vote them money. IOWs, they think that sports is a very lucrative investment. Athletics is invested in to build your school's brand and name so as to attract resources to your school, primarily money, as money can buy all other resources.

I personally don't think it works that way, but the schools believe it.

Winning titles is only important to the institution to the extent it helps with that brand-building process. But that pales in comparison to direct monies received. Baylor won't make anything near off of winning the Fiesta Bowl that Rutgers gets from merely being in the B1G.

As JR points out, the Ivies operate on a different level. They are world-famous for their academics, which by itself attracts far more money than athletics ever can. Harvard's interest income on their endowment dwarfs all the money brought in by Alabama's football and other athletic programs, and by a mile. So they don't feel the need to leverage athletics that way. Schools that don't have that have to try and use other things, like athletics, to bring in money that can raise their prestige, the true coin-of-realm in academia.

Alabama has actually done a good job of investing football money in to academics. Its enrollment is about 12,000 students higher than when Saban took over, and the student body average GPA and ACT/SAT scores are up significantly since then as well. They have really invested in merit aid and attracting better professors.

That's what it's all about. Using the money to build prestige.

Not all of them believe that. But there is bureaucratic inertia and influential alumni.

I remember one of the UT presidents who was a true sports fan talking about being told he was going to have to support sports to keep the big money donors happy.