innocentbystander {l Wrote}:So?
HJS {l Wrote}:It could create 3 pods based on rivalries:
ND-BC-Cuse-Stan-Cal-SMU
UNC-NCS-WF-Duke-VT-UVA
FSU-MIA-Clem-GT-Ville-Pitt
Won’t happen because money and college is all about the opposite of making sense.
HJS {l Wrote}:It could create 3 pods based on rivalries:
ND-BC-Cuse-Stan-Cal-SMU
UNC-NCS-WF-Duke-VT-UVA
FSU-MIA-Clem-GT-Ville-Pitt
Won’t happen because money and college is all about the opposite of making sense.
DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:HJS {l Wrote}:It could create 3 pods based on rivalries:
ND-BC-Cuse-Stan-Cal-SMU
UNC-NCS-WF-Duke-VT-UVA
FSU-MIA-Clem-GT-Ville-Pitt
Won’t happen because money and college is all about the opposite of making sense.
ND would love built in trips to CA and Texas for recruiting. I like playing ND, but maybe swap SMU with Pitt. (travel costs you know)
Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:I feel like the ACC is one of those shot-up bombers leaking fuel depicted in Masters of the Air, and we're just trying to keep the thing flying until 2036, but there's only enough fuel to get us to 2030 or so, if we're lucky. And one engine just started failing. One way or the other, we're going to have to ditch. It's just a matter of time.
HJS {l Wrote}:I don’t see why Michigan and Ohio State are going to keep feeding all those needy programs in the Big16 or how long Texas plays nice in the sandbox with schools with zero TV markets. My point is that the same dynamics that are causing the top teams in the P10 and ACC to leave will still exist in the Big 2. Eventually, wouldn’t a conference composed of only USC, OSU, Mich, PSU, Florida, Tex, Okla, Bama, UGA and ND be the way to best maximize the financial value of athletics at those schools? And, if not that, wouldn’t each of those schools demand 2x to 5x whatever payout the rest of their conference mates are making? At the end of the day, shedding ACC and B12 from the TV kitty won’t be enough to the very few programs that matter. They aren’t concerned about gaining a financial advantage over Wake. They are looking to gain a permanent financial over Tennessee and Wisconsin.
Bernard Lonergan {l Wrote}:Old friend with a hot take-
https://mikefarrellsports.com/college/could-acc-teams-be-fired-and-form-an-academy-academic-alliance-conference
DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:With the exception of the NFL, sports is becoming increasingly regionalized. I dont watch any basketball at all, once the NY team are out, I dont watch hockey, and if they Yankees are out of it, baseball is dead to me. College football will go this route too, they aren't becoming the NFL, unless they eventually have affiliations with NFL teams.
Why would a BC fan care about what happens in the SEC/BIG Baby Rapist league? I dont watch minor league baseball, why would I watch minor league football?
HJS {l Wrote}:DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:With the exception of the NFL, sports is becoming increasingly regionalized. I dont watch any basketball at all, once the NY team are out, I dont watch hockey, and if they Yankees are out of it, baseball is dead to me. College football will go this route too, they aren't becoming the NFL, unless they eventually have affiliations with NFL teams.
Why would a BC fan care about what happens in the SEC/BIG Baby Rapist league? I dont watch minor league baseball, why would I watch minor league football?
It has routinely been my point throughout this thread. The natural end of this is nothing that anyone would ever care about. As it relates to regional nature of sports, that was largely the situation about 35 years ago. It is only in that brief time where TV dollars began to corrupt and create the absurd affiliations we are stuck with today. But, with any economic bubble, the fallout from the pop could either destroy the sector or have it revert to some sort of rational norm. That norm may simply be regional rivalries with a few rivals with comparable mission statements.
Can I just again point out that the dollars that these conferences are chasing are laughable. "Oh noes... Big Ten teams may one day make more the $30mm a year over the ACC!" That's an effing rounding error in almost any successful business. And, to preserve said rounding error requires continued investment that yields diminishing ROI. Coaches salaries are always outpacing TV revs... as is constant investment in facilities. Finally (and most dramatically), the pay-for-play system guarantees schools' capture is lower. For instance... even if TV revenues increase by 50% (they won't), schools will wind up with less money once the union takes 50% of the new pie. For the FSU visitors: (100% * X) > (50% * 1.5X). And... OMG... the fact that some of these institutions need an influx of capital (coming off times of zero player labor costs) such that they are going to sell their soul to Private Equity firms tells you all you need to know about failed jocks ability to run a business line. FSU visitors: "soul" in previous sentence refers to giving up a permanent percentage of future revenues... for instance, if FSU joined the SEC and every member of the SEC received $100mm a year, FSU would forever be at a disadvantage over all 19 other conference mates because 15% of that revenue would go to a hedge fund.
Interestingly, the low-performing FB schools, generally happen to be the most profitable institutions, which may account for their lack of panic. The last thing Duke or Stanford or Cal or their ilk would ever care about is ways in which they can squeeze more pennies from athletes who otherwise shouldn't even be on their campuses. The Ivies, in this sense, were ahead of their time. In that, they do nothing to support their athletes and take a stance of "Isn't giving your dumb, undeserving ass an acceptance letter enough???"
Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:Welcome to the ACC Cal, SMU and Stanford.
Putting the ridiculous geography and all that aside, when you look at the list of schools that comprise the current ACC, it is an impressive group of academic institutions.
innocentbystander {l Wrote}:Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:Welcome to the ACC Cal, SMU and Stanford.
Putting the ridiculous geography and all that aside, when you look at the list of schools that comprise the current ACC, it is an impressive group of academic institutions.
Its true.
Forget about the private schools. Just look at the quality of the state universities: UVa, CAL, UNC, and even Mayland is decent. I think Cal is still #1 and UVa is #3 behind only Michigan. B1G can have Rutgers.
Bernard Lonergan {l Wrote}:Old friend with a hot take-
https://mikefarrellsports.com/college/could-acc-teams-be-fired-and-form-an-academy-academic-alliance-conference
BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:innocentbystander {l Wrote}:Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:Welcome to the ACC Cal, SMU and Stanford.
Putting the ridiculous geography and all that aside, when you look at the list of schools that comprise the current ACC, it is an impressive group of academic institutions.
Its true.
Forget about the private schools. Just look at the quality of the state universities: UVa, CAL, UNC, and even Mayland is decent. I think Cal is still #1 and UVa is #3 behind only Michigan. B1G can have Rutgers.
Maryland?
Another source stressed the Big Ten is “happy where we’re at.”
“What’s the upside of Florida State?” the source said. “We got what we needed by adding USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington — and Oregon and Washington were added at 50 cents on the dollar to help USC and UCLA. Who would Florida State help? And at what cost? And, most importantly, who’s going to pay for it?”
“Look what they did: getting the attorney general involved, accusing [former ACC commissioner] John Swofford of rigging the television rights to help his son, filing a suit to expose ESPN’s TV deals — something the other three power leagues are against, by the way,” the source said. “They’re not a good partner. There’s no congeniality. No one wants that.
Added another Big Ten source: “There are too many negatives; they’ve proven to be a disruptive partner. Even if you got them in a similar discounted rate as the Oregon and Washington deal, do you trust them as a partner?”
claver2010 {l Wrote}:hilarious takedown of our friends in tallahassee from our friend mcmurphy:
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big ... ttMcMurphyAnother source stressed the Big Ten is “happy where we’re at.”
“What’s the upside of Florida State?” the source said. “We got what we needed by adding USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington — and Oregon and Washington were added at 50 cents on the dollar to help USC and UCLA. Who would Florida State help? And at what cost? And, most importantly, who’s going to pay for it?”“Look what they did: getting the attorney general involved, accusing [former ACC commissioner] John Swofford of rigging the television rights to help his son, filing a suit to expose ESPN’s TV deals — something the other three power leagues are against, by the way,” the source said. “They’re not a good partner. There’s no congeniality. No one wants that.Added another Big Ten source: “There are too many negatives; they’ve proven to be a disruptive partner. Even if you got them in a similar discounted rate as the Oregon and Washington deal, do you trust them as a partner?”
claver2010 {l Wrote}:hilarious takedown of our friends in tallahassee from our friend mcmurphy:
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big ... ttMcMurphyAnother source stressed the Big Ten is “happy where we’re at.”
“What’s the upside of Florida State?” the source said. “We got what we needed by adding USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington — and Oregon and Washington were added at 50 cents on the dollar to help USC and UCLA. Who would Florida State help? And at what cost? And, most importantly, who’s going to pay for it?”“Look what they did: getting the attorney general involved, accusing [former ACC commissioner] John Swofford of rigging the television rights to help his son, filing a suit to expose ESPN’s TV deals — something the other three power leagues are against, by the way,” the source said. “They’re not a good partner. There’s no congeniality. No one wants that.Added another Big Ten source: “There are too many negatives; they’ve proven to be a disruptive partner. Even if you got them in a similar discounted rate as the Oregon and Washington deal, do you trust them as a partner?”
DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:claver2010 {l Wrote}:hilarious takedown of our friends in tallahassee from our friend mcmurphy:
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big ... ttMcMurphyAnother source stressed the Big Ten is “happy where we’re at.”
“What’s the upside of Florida State?” the source said. “We got what we needed by adding USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington — and Oregon and Washington were added at 50 cents on the dollar to help USC and UCLA. Who would Florida State help? And at what cost? And, most importantly, who’s going to pay for it?”“Look what they did: getting the attorney general involved, accusing [former ACC commissioner] John Swofford of rigging the television rights to help his son, filing a suit to expose ESPN’s TV deals — something the other three power leagues are against, by the way,” the source said. “They’re not a good partner. There’s no congeniality. No one wants that.Added another Big Ten source: “There are too many negatives; they’ve proven to be a disruptive partner. Even if you got them in a similar discounted rate as the Oregon and Washington deal, do you trust them as a partner?”
Karma. Thats why UConn was shunned. Nobody likes litigious pains in the ass.
BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:The ACC will have significant regrets about not adding them. They don’t expand the ACC’s footprint and don’t expand the west wing of the conference, but an annual contender in the 2nd most significant sport was right there for them. With the added funding, could have put their football program in a better spot too.
The ACC needs to have contingency plans on speed dial. Better start thinking about Memphis and Tulane. If they’re now stuck building out their western division, further assess the values of OSU and WaSt. Boise, San Diego State and UNLV have been thrown around for a decade+ but their merger-adjacent move to marry the scraps of the Pac12 probably won’t make them much stronger or more stable in an arms race
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests