Am I the only one that thinks the BIG and the SEC have had a "Yalta"
type agreement to divide the spoils? What I don't know is will the division of spoils be by territory or by individual schools.
65 Replies
S
Stech
1y
they had a meeting to decide who gets what schools. I can’t find the article, but I thought I read that.
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
1y
Would go to the B1G with FSU, Clemson, VT and NC State to the SEC. Both get in new states, both get to 20 teams. All are cultural fits while ESPN only loses 1 major property. I still don't see how UVA or UNC are going to essentially drop all its non revenue sports they excel in to go to a conference that doesn't sponsor them. The ACC and B1G are the only conferences that are big on women's non revenue sports, soccer, lacrosse, etc. The SEC just doesn't care about those.
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
1y
SEC women's strong I think
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
UVa to B1G is the best angle for us to get into the P2 (in this case, SEC).
I think the SEC would actually prefer us to UVa. But if UVa is a tag-a-long with UNC to the SEC. Then our chances are slim, put not impossible, to get into the B1G.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
much different if you were in the SEC?
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
we kinda have nothing to lose right now....
we are on a sinking ship, so any new ship is better than a sinking one
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
SEC is a possibility. BigXII more likely. Staying in a watered down ACC is
a possibility too. I don't make predictions or try to act like I know anything. But I think most would agree that this is what we are looking at right now.
I wouldn't completely rule out the Big Ten, but that is less likely than the three options above.
I'd like to think that we have people in VT leadership working their angles to get into the P2 without making anything public. But I have no way of knowing that. Or, we could just sit around and just let things happen to us.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
1y
schools need an extra $30M or so to meet the athlete payroll, I don't think it will make a hoot of difference moving forward. Even if you got the same media money as Bama, Texas, and other blue bloods, there isn't any way to compete with them financially.
The answer is Minimum and salary caps. If that is a real thing, then the B12 and ACC can remain competitive - with or without the media money.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
It's also about geography and established conference affiliation.
KU is at the center geographically of the BigXII and they have decades committed to the Big 8 and BigXII.
If the ACC is blown up, it will be better for us to go to and East Coast conference.
KU wouldn't turn down an invite to the B1G or SEC IMO. But if they try to low ball them and offer KU a permanent half share or something crazy like that, they might as well stay in the XII.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
all that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The biggest problem with VT's geography, is the DC market North. Charlotte North isn't much better. A lot of people for sure, but as we know, markets do not determine these moves anymore. All on has to do is look at the (the biggest market, the Boston Metro. Heck, even the biggest market, NY. The football media numbers are not that great, especially when you use the % of people watching College Football.
That doesn't mean that the ACC is irrelevent, or 4th, or doesn't have the potential to be a top 3 conference, it just means that the population doesn't care as much as they do in the South (SEC), or the Midwest. There are just too many really good institutions of higher learning IN NC, Virginia, NY, and New England.
You go to Midwest States, and it's just different. VT is worthy of an SEC invite because of her passionate fanbase, but the State, as large as it is, will in all likelihood, never produce the media numbers, and the success of a blue blood. There are just TOO MANY other schools to recruit against.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I was referring to travel, not markets (re: geography)
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
hour bus ride is the same as a 3 hour flight. It's the expense of the non revs that are the difference. So, it comes down to money, as fans are not traveling to NC State to watch the Women's softball game.
The idea of a geography fit for a major conference sounds good, but doesn't matter that much. I think those on the East Coast have everything so close, they think that it was like that for other conference - and it was not. If you look at the miles involved with the old PAC, Big 8, and even the SWC, I think you will find that while they "sound" close, they are not.
Houston to Lubbock in Texas is an 8 hour drive. That was the old SWC. After VA and NC, the schools in the ACC really aren't that close. With Boston and Miami in your conference, it's not like tabaco road. A regional conference is over rated. ND proves that.
VT is in a conference with too many privates because of geography, yet everyone thinks they should be in a conference that is local.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
rated" because the SEC is a "regional conference" even before it started expanding beyond 12 members.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
a "regional" conference to begin with. I'm talking miles and travel. It's a big deal for some VT fans, but I ask, how many fans actually travel to away games? I would even include Football and basketball.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
1. Where the people live.
2. Where the game is being played at.
If you think about it, then you will see the concept of a "regional conference" isn't a new idea. The Pac-8/10/12 is/was a regional conference. The same could be said for the Big Sky, the original WAC, the current WAC, MWC, original Big 8/12, Southland, SWAC, MEAC, Horizon League, MAC, Big South, Missouri Valley, Missouri Valley Football Conference (not the same conference as the Missouri Valley), Ohio Valley, Big West (aka the All CA Conference), Summit League, West Coast Conference, Ivy League, Northeast Conference, and MAAC. Heck even the pro leagues have embraced the regional concept with their divisions for the most part. Depending on how big the P2 conferences want to grow, don't be surprised if at some point they decide to subdivide into regional divisions for various reasons.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
conferences that you mentioned, I think you will find that those types of travel distances are exactly what many are against in the ACC. Get past the Mississippi, and there is no such thing as a regional conference when compared to places like New England, the Mid Atlantic, and the South.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
rivalry element. Most schools will have an easier time building rivalries in a regional conference, even an expanded regional conference, than a coast-to-coast conference because the odds are greater that the two fan bases will have interaction outside the athletic venue. One reason a lot of Hokie fans wanted to see VT in the ACC is because the ACC had more schools closer to campus than the Big East or Atlantic 10 and those Hokie fans had more interactions with ACC fans than the other conferences. It is the main reason I wish WVU was a member of the ACC today. At the same time, it is the main reason I wish VT was a member of the SEC because outside of UVA fans I don't have too much interaction with other ACC fans. When I do interact with them there isn't that friendly banter that exists with other rivalries either because they are not as passionate about their school and/or they don't view VT as a "rival" to their school. That is definitely not the case with the SEC because they are passionate about their team and they are willing to talk friendly smack to other SEC fans even if the 2 schools are officially rivals.
Plus, you made a flawed statement earlier when you said a 3-hour flight is the same as a 3-hour bus ride. We both know that is definitely not the case because an airplane can cover a greater distance than a bus in the same amount of time. Heck even a train could probably cover a greater distance than a bus depending on the number of stops the train has to make on its route.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
historic rivalries are in State, an adjoining state, or in conference, no matter how spread out the conference is measured in miles.
I don't think it's a binary choice however. Pitt still has a rivalry with WVU, and they haven't been in the same conference for years. Playing every year would certainly be more fun for the fans, but that doesn't make it less fun when they do play.
If there is a mega conference of 24+ schools, I think it will be an ACC/B12/select G5 conference with pods. Scheduling non revs could be tweaked to save money and time with travel, and they could be competitive enough to grab a national championship from time to time.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
I can think of 3 other historical exceptions besides Notre Dame-USC.
1. Air Force-Army-Navy (I lumped all 3 together because they do have a rivalry with each other even though Army-Navy is the biggest rivalry)
2. Miami-Penn State (when both programs were Independent for football)
3. BYU-Hawai'i (technically Hawai'i was an Independent and BYU was in the WAC when the rivalry developed)
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 4/2/2025, 4:25:23 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
VT is in any position at all to be picky.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
those conferences, including the 12. IMHO, it's just that VT was late to the scene of big time football, and it's very difficult to get a national brand.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1y
of any list for people making the decisions. Fans can figure it out.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
not sure the timing is what prevented VT from achieving a national brand. VT's inability to win majority of the marquee games (perceptually speaking) is most likely what held VT back from building a national brand. If you think about it, then you will realize that ESPN gave VT every opportunity to take that next step. However, VT failed to delivery too many times. When VT did beat a program with a name brand, then it was usually when the opponent brought their C Game instead of their A Game.
Alabama (Music City Bowl)
Nebraska home-home series
TAMU 2003 game in the home-home series (TAMU went 4-8 that year)
An argument could be made that VT may have feasted too much on OOC cupcakes when it was gaining momentum in the 90s. A potential with taking that scheduling approach is it could mean the program isn't as battled tested as it needs to be when stepping up to a higher quality opponent. Also, it could mean the OOC marquee games are perceptually more important to how people view the current status of the program because they are few and far between. If VT had won a few more of the following games on the list, then it could have been enough to put the program on a slightly different trajectory.
OOC
2002 Gator Bowl: #15 VT lost to #24 FSU 17-30
2003 Insight Bowl: VT lost to Cal 49-52
2004: #1 USC at FedEx (game completely changed on a phantom offensive PI call in the first half)
2005 Sugar Bowl: #9 VT lost to #3 Auburn 13-16
2006 CFA Bowl: #14 VT lost to Georgia 31-24
09/08/07: #9 VT lost to #2 LSU 7-48
2008 Orange Bowl: #5 VT lost to #8 Kansas 24-21
Conference Games
12/1/01: #14 VT lost to #1 Miami 24-26 at home
2002 season: VT was ranked in the Top 15 and lost 3 games in a row in November to #25 Pitt, Syracuse (in the Jiffy Pop Dome), and WVU. Also, VT lost to #1 Miami in December by 11 points.
11/05/05: #3 VT lost to #5 Miami at home 7-27
10/25/07: #8 VT lost to #2 BC at home 10-14 (aka the game that probably gave Matty Ice his name)
There are plenty of other games that could be added to either list. I suspect VT having too many of these types of games on its resume made it easier for people to come up with the "Chokies" nickname. Plus, the perception may have developed that VT was content with squeaking out wins against quality opponents instead of blowing out the opponent when it had the opportunity. Particularly when you factor in the number of times VT got blown out in a marquee game.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
in there where if you're going to include them, you also need to include the big games the team won that season. In particular, you include the 2004 USC game and the 2005 Auburn game (in the same season). Those were big games. However, if those are in the negative category, you also need to include the WVU and Miami games that same season in the positive category.
I agree that ESPN would have loved for us to take the big step forward. We just never made it there.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
VT's conference record. However, I am not sure the wins move the needle enough for the overall perception given people's perception of the Big East and later the ACC during that time period. Even if VT lumped all of its big games together, I believe VT lost more big games than it won. Particularly if you compare VT's big game record to someone like Boise State who perceptually won a lot more big games than it lost during that same time period.
If someone wanted to break it down even further, then they could compare the level of impressiveness of the win (or loss) by the margin of victory (or loss). The LSU home-home series and the Nebraska home-home series compared to the Orange Bowl are 2 examples of what I am talking about.
LSU-VT History
#16 VT 26 - #14 LSU 8 (2002)
#2 LSU 48 - #9 VT 7 (2007)
Most people would say that LSU had the more impressive victory.
Nebraska-VT History
#10 VT 21 - #6 Neb 41 (1996 Orange Bowl)
VT 35 - Neb 30 (2008)
#13 VT 16 - #19 Neb 15 (2009)
Most people would say that Nebraska had the more impressive victory and justify VT's sweep of the home-home series because the Nebraska program was "down" compared to where it was in the '80s or '90s. A similar argument could be made with the history against Alabama even if the focus is only on the Music City Bowl vs. the 2 CFA Kickoff Games in 2009 and 2013.
When people hear Reese Davis or whomever say "Style points matter," this is what they are talking about. Historically VT is perceived to be content to just eek out a victory instead of blowing the opponent out when it had the opportunity. For the record, there is nothing wrong with having that mindset. It just means the program may not receive as much credit for the win because of other factors (i.e. perception of the conference, opponent is perceived to be "down", margin of victory vs. margin of loss, etc.).
(In response to this post by HokieEngineer)
1y
also shouldn't count the conference losses. And are we really going to penalize the 2001 team for losing by 2 points to one of the all-time great teams? (A team that had 13 eventual NFL Pro Bowlers on it.)
In a sense, Boise St. had an advantage--nearly anytime it beat a "Power whatever" team, it was considered a big win. There's another selection bias in your approach--in seasons where VT beat a top team, it lowered the ranking of that team and devalued the win. Where's the 2005 WVU game? (That's the only game WVU lost that season.)
And if we're going to go back to 1996 to look at VT/Nebraska, do we get to go back to 1995 to look at VT/Texas? Or do we count a 1996 thumping of UVa (with a big bowl trip on the line)?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
drop 1 or 2 places in the next poll and using revisionist history won't change it. You assume I am using selection bias, but you forget listing every big win and big loss would be a lengthy task and maybe exceed character space (assuming TSL has one for its posts). Also, the WVU game is a conference game which has no impact on the OOC narrative is what people typically use when comparing 2 or more conferences against each other.
If you truly believe that ESPN and other third parties are incorrect about their perception of VT football, then by all means prove them wrong. Show VT has won just as many big games as it has lost, VT has just as many impressive big wins as big losses, or whatever other criteria you want to use. Heck it doesn't even matter the starting point for your exercise because there is always the possibility the narrative began for VT before that point. I guess if you truly want to be safe, then you would use 1892 as your starting point because that was the first year VT played football.
I don't believe I have anything else worthwhile to add to this conversation. I believe I have shown more than enough examples to respond to Big 12 guy's statement that VT being relatively new to the scene as being the main thing holding the program back. Heck I didn't even talk about how FSU has a similar history as VT given that the program really didn't "arrive" until Bobby Bowden became their HC in 1976. It really wasn't until 1987 season when the program really took off to become what it is perceived today. If you have something to say about the being new to the scene vs. big game record discussion, then I may (or may not) have something worthwhile to add to that discussion. If not, then I hope you enjoy the rest of your day and have a great weekend.
(In response to this post by HokieEngineer)
S
Stech
1y
The top schools in the SEC and B1G are just waiting to see what the ACC does first, and then they will learn from their mistakes. Most likely the B12 too. Probably a crazy thing to say, but maybe schools will be able to make the same money and stay in their current conference. The unequal revenue sharing could be a big paradigm shift. Maybe you can make the same money if you win mainly in football, but also in basketball too, especially if they make and win in the *eventual Sweet 16’s. (16 eventual for football IMHO)
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
M
Marooned
1y
RU and UMd are both in the B1G AND bleeding cash now. Layer on unequal payouts and they, as well as some other struggling programs, may drop FB and open up slots for others to take their places.
(In response to this post by Stech)
M
Marooned
1y
They mentioned RU as losing money in the B1G. If these guys can’t stay in the black now, now much worse will they get when there’s a significant disparity in payouts with the conference heavyweights?
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
me know about it.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
V
VTCALS72
1y
And that is another data point in the idea of a 3 conference mid level (ACC/B12/new PAC) as a testing ground for P2 coaches, ADs, players and concepts.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
a conference under the restraint of trade laws. The way things have gone in the court the last few years, I could see Oregon State winning, no guarantee, but it’s entirely possible. Look at the change on penalties (have to red shirt) if you transfer rule, this seems philosophically in the same place.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
VTCALS72
1y
The ACC is totally under the control of ESPN or maybe better said, big media.
(In response to this post by VTNuke)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
S
Stech
1y
it’s expected to be done in their conference too. So yes, they have an eye on it and will likely come up with their own version.
(In response to this post by VTNuke)
H
HOO86
1y
But understanding that FSU and Clemson insisted on it, it's back. When the conferences were allowed to negotiate their own football television contract, and Commissioner Gene Corrigan got FSU to join, he got the ACC agree to equal revenue sharing. Up to that point UNC and Duke split 50% of the revenue between those two, and everyone else got proportional share of the remaining 50%. But remember it was all basketball revenue. It was also a smaller confrerence.
Since that time, we've been equal until now. We'll see how it goes.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
1y
prior to FSU joining for football? Not saying you're wrong just do not remember that being the way those discussions went.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
Most interviews or stories I've read over the years reference it. Gene Corrigan got the ACC to agree to equal revenue sharing by getting UNC and Duke to agree to share basketball television revenue, and by getting Florida State to share football. This was all around 1990.
Link:
link
(In response to this post by HOO86)
2
2hhoop3
1y
I knew Corrigan got equal revenue sharing through. I also knew that Duke and Carolina were on TV more and thus got more basketball money. I just did not know they got 50% and the remaining schools split the other 50%. Basketball was making about $15 million at that time and I thought the split was closer to 40(UNC/Duke)/60( the rest).
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
This stuff that Gene Corrigan got the ACC to give up appears to be what we are going back to. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
how good or bad it will be or even the realistic amounts until more details on the success and branding initiative calculations are disclosed. The ironic thing is that pool is greater than the sum total of the basketball and football contracts when Corrigan got the original equal revenue sharing compromise.
Prior to FSU coming aboard basketball made $15MM and football $3MM. FSU came aboard and football jumped to $16MM on par with hoops. Duke and UNC didn't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts or conference support. It was a pure math decision that recognized they were falling behind almost out of the gate if football followed the same formula as ball formally. In reality, they did not give up much, if any, to start and would be better than whole no later than the first projected renewal.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
S
Stech
1y
The P2 have both the higher and guaranteed money, but what happens if they too go to unequal sharing? What happens if/when they expand the NCAA 🏀 tournament, and pay the Sweet 16 in basketball like the IMHO eventual Sweet 16 in football? As they said on the TSL Podcast yesterday, what happens when the basketball schools with no football can poor all their NIL money into basketball? While the Football schools have to prioritize football first. How many schools are going to shy away from paying an ever growing 20+ million payroll without NIL money included in that?
You are right, we really don’t know, because each and every question above is a huge game changer by itself, much less collectively.
Strap on the 🪖because the 🚀 is about to take off and take us to another 🪐!!!
** Edited by Stech at 4/1/2025, 9:34:41 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
follow the money is applicable here. This isn't about sport vs. sport(i.e. football v. hoops) but, conference vs. conference and the P2 is well on their way to controlling the whole shooting match. The basketball changes you discuss MIGHT look far different if the P2 is in charge as opposed to the NCAA. You have been shown the likely future with the way the House settlement negotiations played out.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
The problem the P2 have even though it appears they have all the power now, but there is another adage. British politician Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely …
Speaking of the British they were once trying to colonize the world, and seemed unstoppable, until October 19, 1781, on the banks of the York River at a little place called Yorktown Virginia, the once prosperous happened mainly due to British arrogance, and American determination.
Or as Frank Beamer would put it, you better watch that arrogance now, they will get after you now! 🤣🤣
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
Probably knows more than they are stating with future. I also think there are majority that bunch trying to save ACC. Why? Conference realignment in time will IMHO be a failure. NIL as is now will become a failure. Travel across country will get old. USC will miss AZ state and AZ. Will miss Stanford. Texas and some big dogs of college athletics will not like not having total say within their league. EGOs will explode. Hope it is sooner than later.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
Probably won't happen soon enough to prevent some schools' athletic
departments from being destroyed (such as Oregon State, Washington State and more to come), IF it happens at all.
My position is that one of two things should happen.
1. Throwback...to small, round robin, regional conferences (Big actual Ten, old-order SEC, Big 8, Pac-10, SWC, old-order ACC, old school Eastern Independents forming into a conference). The new 12 (or 14 or 16) CFP would be great for this. 7 or 8 conference champs and 4 or 5 at-large. Would be awesome. Heck, make the CFP 16 teams here.
2. Futuristic...to a relegation and promotion system within the Eastern US and Western US. Have the champs of each region play in a national title game at each tier. The regular season would be so nuts that there will be no need for a big playoff to water it down. Merit over entitlement. Everyone has a chance to move up or down. Huge ratings
These two are the extremes. But the "compromises" at present are ruining the college athletics.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 3/31/2025, 9:34:21 AM
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
S
Stech
1y
You are saying that was for the basketball revenue, was the football revenue split evenly?
Part of what is surprising to me about that, was NC State was the one that beat UCLA, and Duke was not really a powerhouse until Coach K got there.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
UGA and OU sued the NCAA over the football contract and won. After that, the College Football Association was formed as the organization that represented pretty much the P4 and the funds were distributed to the member schools. After a few years of this, the conferences started to negotiate their contracts for football.
Fun Fact: Because of the Jefferson-Pilot/Raycom TV deal that the ACC had, when FSU was looking for a home, they went with the ACC because it had the biggest TV deal at the time. The JP/R deal had been in place for so long, and the ACC basketball product being so popular, that JP/R had a nationwide network of TV stations already in place while the rest had to build out a network of regional tv stations.
(In response to this post by Stech)
H
HOO86
1y
Football was distributed by the CFA until the Oklahoma lawsuit broke that up. This was back in the days of Raycom paying the ACC for basketball.
Yes it was challenging for Gene Corrigan to get Duke and UNC to give that up. It was done promising them that the Florida State Football money coming in would offset the difference for them. I've read articles about this over the years, but don't know where they are now. At that time basketball was the big money maker, not football. Things changed.
(In response to this post by Stech)
H
HOO86
1y
The UNC Athletic Director at that time when they agreed to equal revenue when Florida State came in was none other than John Swofford.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
Yes. And other programs were no joke either: Maryland and GT for instance.
Len Bias and UMd were must see TV in the 1980s. Ditto for Kenny Anderson and GT. And there was Ralph Sampson and UVa.
I don't remember Duke being such a superior draw until people would hate-watch Christian Laettner and Bobby Hurley in the early 1990s. LOL.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 3/31/2025, 1:50:11 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
H
HOO86
1y
They played in the final four 7 times in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Vic Bubas and Bill Foster had them rocking back then before Coach K came on the scene. They had a couple of lousy coaches in the early 70s, but the rest of the time they were contenders.
UNC, of course, was dominant with Dean Smith.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
S
Stech
1y
them as dominant as they were under Coach K.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
Vic Bubas and Bill Foster just played in Championship Games. As did Coach K for his first 2. He lost to Louisville and Kansas.
Maryland and NC State were both great in the 1970s. The issue was that the television contract was with Raycom, and within that agreement Raycom called for more television appearances on their broadcasts for Duke and UNC than for any other member. So Duke and UNC got the ACC to give them more cut due to Raycom's demands.
** Edited by HOO86 at 3/31/2025, 9:26:33 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
the anti-trust lawsuits clog up federal courts, and if the ACC, etc. are smart ( I know, lmao), they stay out and let the P2's continue their money-making frenzy by kicking out some "inconsequential" members and let the lawsuits keep the SE lawyers happy making millions!
(In response to this post by manassashoo)