many in the ACC. Over time it could, but the ACC can get it together relatively quickly if it is important to them. The SEC is showing that it's important to them.

Now if they expand the 🏀 tournament and pay the Sweet 16 to schools participating instead of the NCAA, that could help, but I still struggle to get the math where it comes close to football. PS I won’t bring up that the SEC is 14-2 against the ACC in the conference challenge right now, oops, I guess I just did. 🤣

contracts will not approach football numbers. The tournament money is distributed to all conferences, not just FBS schools, so there is no comparison there either. The consensus however, is that basketball media money in basketball is undervalued, and by separating basketball from football in media contract negotiations, that conferences like the B12, ACC, and even the PAC, can get more revenue by negotiating them separately. When the casual basketball fan watches games, they are no different than the football fan. They will tune into teams and games that pair the blue bloods, and games that have tournament implications. A game with Gonzaga and UConn continues to bring eyeballs, NC and KU bring national audiences. I don't know if the money will be significant or not, but even if it bumps the B12 media payout by $1M to $10M per season, it makes the B12 that much more competitive. The Big East gets about $10M per year, and they do not have football. If, for instance, you take $10M a year out of the ACC deal because of basketball, then the football part of your media deal is way undervalued. I don't think the BIG and SEC would be able to do the same thing at this juncture, as there is no argument that their basketball blue blood count is more valuable than the ACC, Big east, or the B12. No one cares if a Bama is playing a Penn State in basketball. But a NC - Gonzaga game? The casual basketball viewer will tune into a game like that.

don’t see numbers in the current structure.

to think otherwise is silly. Having a chance to compete with good coaching, recruiting, and execution is what concerns me. That is NOT a disparity in money. If the P2 can buy players, then we have a problem. The blue bloods have always been able to get the top recruits from the beginning of time. It's the mid and lower level programs that concern me. If they can "purchase" players, and out recruit the rest of FBS just because they get more playoff and media money? if that is the case, I may have to buy Baltimore a drink.

very different now. The ACC is 2-14 against the SEC, because now the SEC has way more money to pay players and staff. It’s very similar to Saban bringing an NFL staff to Alabama, it changed everything. Now more schools are doing what Saban did to have the competitive advantage (Georgia and other HC that worked for Saban) are doing it too. Cignetti at Indiana worked for Saban too. So did Kiffin at Ole Miss and now that you mention it so did number 2 🏈 ranked Texas coach Steve Sarkisian. I know you don’t like it, but it’s coming to basketball, it may already be here with the ACC 2-14.

but a question of "Are they motivated to make the required investment to achieve that goal?" For example, Northwestern probably has the money to buy Kansas' entire roster for this year. Is Northwestern motivated to make that kind of commitment to men's basketball or would they re-allocate that money to something else (i.e. football, "campus entertainment club," facilities, etc.)?

is currently building a new football stadium with an estimated cost of over $400M. KU might not be a good example, because players want to play for, and be developed for the NBA because of the coach. UConn has no problems recruiting for the same reason - as they so not have to "buy" players. Northwestern, or any mid to lower level BIG program, have to look at things differently. They do not have the pedigree or history to attract the 5 star players, nor do they have the coach. You could extend that situation to about 90% of the programs in the country. The bar of the investments needed to compete at the highest level has certainly been raised, and many will not be able to keep up. SMU is showing the country what can happen with money (which they always had), and more importantly, access. It's a lot easier and cheaper to do that in basketball. Remember the UNLV run? Get the coach and money together, and you can most definitely compete in basketball. It's a much tougher lift in football. How many institutions have 1/2 a mill to throw around to build a football program? Takes about 10% of that to build a solid basketball program. (numbers are out of my backside just to make a point). Even today, as we speak, it would be easier and less expensive for VT to compete for the final 4 than the football playoffs - so you are spot on, it all depends on the institutions and what they prioritize.

Northwestern paragraph is that the Big Ten and SEC schools WILL have the money to keep up. They just have to decide if they want to spend it or bank it to save for a raining day. Hence why my post was focused not on whether they can or not, but what choice they make. Just because Northwestern decides to not spend money on men's basketball this season, it doesn't mean the leadership won't change its mind at some point in the future. A good case could be made that you are starting to see it happen now in SEC. Does that mean the Big Ten isn't too far behind? I think it will eventually happen, but it may require SEC being known as the top basketball conference to motivate the Big Ten to take action.

if you look around, that will not be enough to win national Championships in football. Are those invited to the playoffs much different than were invited to the BCS bowls? The rich got richer, but there are only so many starters that will commit to Alabama for instance. In the past, 2nd stringers on the blue blood squads would have been starters at another school. The transfer portal has put a lid on accumulating all of the good players. The kids want to play, and yes, make money. That doesn't happen being developed on the bench. I think we will have more parity in football than we have had in the past, and don't be surprised when a Boise State makes a run in the playoffs from time to time. K-State did not need Texas money in the past to compete with them on the football field. Why do you think it's different now? Because Texas makes more money? Look at the budgets BEFORE these media deals came into play. There has always been a disparity.

if their goal is just keep on collecting the checks and saving money to be used at a later date? If Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, and Rutgers happens to make the FBS Playoffs, then great because they will probably see an increase in booster support. However, I don't think they have the same goals as Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Oregon, and USC. Programs like Indiana and Maryland may even care more about men's basketball, so they could even use the extra money generated from football to help pay for the additional cost associated with men's basketball.

better off with that money than if you are on the outside looking in. Competitively though, I'm not convinced we will see much change from the past with which teams regularly compete at the top. It will be refreshing to see an Indiana and SMU have their day in the sun, but in the long run, I think a VT and a K-State will be able to compete. No different than the last 50 years.

basketball and that is what my posts have been responding to. Hence why I didn't answer your question about K-State because that seemed to be a football question which may or may not be a separate conversation. The only piece of the football conversation I addressed was in the last post where I said some school, who may be basketball-first, could be using brief success in football to help fund their more important sport. At least I wouldn't assume that Indiana is suddenly now a football school because of the success the program had this season.

is what we were talking about. Whether they separate basketball media money from the pie or not only matters if it gives the non P2 conferences more money than not. All of this, whether basketball or football, is about the money, but more importantly the access and ability to compete. Basketball will be a bigger part of the equation moving forward, not because football is worth less, but if you look at the media numbers, basketball as a whole brings in comparable numbers to football, it's just less concentrated - so it's worth less because it's spread out, and the regular season games mean less to the casual fan.

only relevant basketball conferences as well. It's already happening, to be frank. I don't pay much attention to Big 12 basketball, but the narrative has been out there for years that the ACC is full of basketball pushovers coasting along off the fumes of history, even when Duke and UNC were both in the Final Four. The quicker you come to terms with the fact that this whole "my conference makes more money than your conference" thing is a zero-sum game, and that the SEC and Big 10 have an active agenda to strangle the ACC and Big 12 out of any semblance of competitive ability, and that this agenda is supported by their media partners, the quicker you will achieve enlightenment. This is not kumbaya. If the SEC and Big 10 had it their way, every single one of their teams would make the NCAAT, wouldn't have to play until the second round, and would get spotted 20 points.

If the rest of the non-P2 schools refuse to play any of the P2, they'll have no choice but to only play each other which will kill national interest in those conferences. I don't know if that could ever happen, but it seems like a great idea to mitigate what they are trying to do to everyone else outside of the P2.

the book of Metallica teaches us that you have to fight fire with fire.

That's the way it's been for the past 5+ years. I guess at least you can have your oil barons buy you a professional team of mercenaries to come in and win year to year before they transfer somewhere else.

I love how much SMU had to beg their way into a "power" conference, and still only made it in because the commissioner is a flop sweating coward who kneeled to the demands of Wake Forest and Boston College. I'm sure you'll enjoy being in a toothless has-been ACC once every football brand with any juice leaves here in a few years and the conference implodes, just as much as you enjoyed being in the AAC, CUSA, and the WAC.

You can put on whatever little happy face song and dance you want about it - SMU is, at best, the 7th draw when it comes to college football in Texas, and you had to beg your way onto what is an obviously sinking ship. Your future "power" conference mates are going to be Boston College, Wake Forest, and Syracuse, and some new additions like Rice and Tulane. That shouldn't bother you, since SMU already has plenty of experience flying across the country to lose to ECU and South Florida. And, best of all, your flippant sarcasm doesn't change anything. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 12/12/2024, 2:03:43 PM

while they get 8 and 9 can't be good for Acc recruiting. You are correct, they are trying to kill off Acc basketball too.

To suit up for games anymore. Game. Set. Match. It's all over. Ya, I don't think so....

uphill battle. Hopefully this won't be your reality at the end of the war.

However, I think Kansas will eventually be part of the P2, even though he doesn’t seem to want to be a part of it right now.

instead of near the end of it, so there is a lot more to play out. Yes, Kansas can compete right now, but the next shoe to drop for football is in 2026/2027 when the new FBS Playoff contract is announced. Depending on the changes to it could tip things even more in the P2's favor. I do think the trend we are seeing in football will eventually spill over into the other sports. March Madness may be the most important thing to a school like Kansas. Once the networks decide that the P2s should control that sport as well, it will motivate schools like Kansas to join a P2 conference even if it means joining the SEC.

will follow.