The flavor of the day seems to be ACC kicking out members to maximize per
Team payouts to retian unc, fsu, Clemson and Pivy conference forming. The two perhaps related.
It takes a .75 vote to expell a member. Is next evolution going to be a vote to expell members who do not invest spend significantly on football?
Are we about to see ND, UNC, Miami, FSU, Clemson, VT, NCSU, Uva, Louisville, GT vote to expell WF, BC, & Syracuse? Is Pitt and/or Duke also expelled??
109 Replies
T
TVLander
2y
it happened. With what we went through with the Metro conference dissolving just to kick us and ODU out and form Conference USA, the idea that we would do that would be deeply disturbing to me. Now that I think about it, were we on board when the Big East kicked Temple out of the football conference back around the 2002 timeframe? The circumstances were disturbingly similar with today -- not investing enough in football.
Survival is one thing. But if you have to sell your soul to exist, is the resulting existence worth it?
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
Loserville settled by giving VT and VCU $1,000,000.00 each. VCU also got a few games thrown in the deal. VT didn't want part of extra games.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by TVLander)
L
lawhokie
2y
If their own fans and alumni don’t care enough to even halfway fill their stadiums, why should I care that much more than they do?
(In response to this post by TVLander)
2y
Unfortunately the Big 10 backstabbed the PAC 12 and the SEC was in the process of adding OU and Texas while negotiating the playoff. TV money has ruined college sports already. We either accept that and make some changes or our athletic programs will no longer be competitive at the highest levels. Not just VT but alot of ACC schools will need to adjust to the new world order.
(In response to this post by TVLander)
T
TDVick
2y
medal on!
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
V
VTCALS72
2y
They are in and can dictate things. We are still straddling 2 futures but we can't dictate a thing. IMHO we have never had the proactive ability to do much of what you think they should have.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
V
VPI 1924
2y
But we will be pissing in the wind.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
2y
I’m not old enough to have experienced the events since I started at VT in 95. I’m sure it left some bad feelings at the time. But the Metro became CUSA.
VT should be damn glad we were forced out of that. Sure the A10 was not glamorous, but we only had to deal with that for 6-7 years.
Side note: FU Big East for making us wait until 2000 and even then still treating VT poorly.
Anyway, the Metro stuff was 30 years ago. We need to let it go and just do what is right for VT going forward.
** Edited by HokieAl at 5/21/2024, 4:47:20 PM
(In response to this post by TVLander)
D
D-Day
2y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
2y
as the Metro as originally designed was far more than CUSA and with the proper leadership would have challenged and could have been better than the ACC or the Big East. Just needed someone to keep Dinner Crumb and the scumbags from Louisville in line. Retain FSU, add Penn State, retain South Carolina and possibly add the Canes in their prime and you have a very formidable conference with likely some ACC and BE teams looking to come aboard and you have the added benefit of never having to suffer Tranghese or Swofford.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
As mentioned by TVLander and what VT went through.
All the stuff you mentioned with FSU and PSU and USC happened 4-6 years before the end of the Metro where VT was impacted directly.
So I’m sure it could have and would have been great. I just wasn’t focused on that aspect at all.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
R
RJHokie
2y
They had a grandiose plan for a super conference though. If they could have worked it out with the schools you mentioned, plus maybe a few others, it might have been quite a football and basketball conference.
Link:
Metro
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
T
TDVick
2y
rules don't apply. It just got announced today that there are huge payments for NCAA settlements AND that going forward it looks like 20 million annual payments will be made. The SEC and B10 can afford this. The B12 will probably squeek by, and the ACC team that don't include the small schools probably won't be much better off. Not to mention, these small schools might finally see the writing on the wall and cut a deal and walk away.
In that case an expulsion vote isn't needed. But if these guys are going to ride the Titanic down to the water line, then maybe they need to face reality and be shoved into a dry boat where they can stick to hockey or lacrosse or whatever.
The relative incomes between schools was a huge catalyst, but this pressure on the cost side knocks over the chess board.
Maybe everyone had factored in the NCAA lawsuit part, but the time to write the check is approaching.
Plus, if something really dramatic doesn't happen, the TV deal is going to get shut down in three more seasons, so it is just a minor timing issue if that is the case.
** Edited by TDVick at 5/21/2024, 4:15:02 PM
(In response to this post by TVLander)
2y
In a few years the ACC will cease to exist as we know it. It is morphing into something different. We can either float with the breeze and see where that takes us (Which will not be a good place) or create a breeze that will create a better destination. Either way, schools are going to get left out. So the choice is, do we want to help choose that future to whatever extent we can, or just hope something good falls our way ? There is no really good choice here. I feel better about the possibility of voting schools out, knowing they voted in favor of adding SMU, Stanford and Cal. Of course VT voted in favor of that as well.
Another option the ACC could take to prevent schools from being voted out would be to allow schools out of the gor. Then whatever schools that wanted to leave could leave and form their own separate conference. Everyone else can stay in the ACC. So schools that would be voted out, if that route was pursued, could potentially have another option, If they would be willing to vote for it.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/21/2024, 3:40:44 PM
(In response to this post by TVLander)
2
2hhoop3
2y
however, I have two reasons for disagreeing. First and foremost, I view voting a conference member in good standing out akin to cutting a sport. I view both type cuts as a last resort reaction to unforeseen and likely unchanging future circumstances. In essence, an until death do us part commitment. Second, and related, there really are debatable perspectives as to whether floating with the breeze or creating your own breeze has the better possibility of creating the best result and is significantly dependent on the acumen of those creating the breeze.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
and let the chips fall where they may. Voting to cut a school out is a kin to going to court to keep a school in.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
M
Marooned
2y
is the small schools won’t want to leave the ACC, so what do you do with the TV contract, the bowl tie-ins, auto bids, etc.? All that would need to migrate to the BAACC for this to work and there’s no way to secure those arrangements ahead of time.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
M
Marooned
2y
I would think that a composition clause would get triggered by the defections. That would provide the network the out they would need to make separate arrangements with the BAACC. What am I missing? I’m more concerned about the other considerations of being part of the ACC. These include the ND games, bowl tie ins, NCAA autobids, access to the CFB playoffs for the champions. The BAACC would also have to work through whether or not they would have critical masses of teams for the various sports their schools want to retain, or if they need to find new homes.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
2y
leave (do they have landing spots?), then the ACC can get on with their lives, constitute that academic and academy conference, keep ND basketball and athletics, and move on.
It would be a good conference, and they would be fine. The Mag7 can move on to bigger and better things.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
M
Marooned
2y
The operating premise is that the upper echelon forms the Break Away ACC (BAACC, not catchy as the BABE I’ll admit). There would be enough revenue split fewer ways to help close the gap with the P2. Given the current conditions of the ACC and the B12, coupled with the likelihood that F$U and CU don’t move the needle enough to get offers to move up, it’s the only other viable move to make.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
two left holing the bag, also controlled the assets of the conference. The idea that the MAG 7 or some variation of that will form a separate conference without the lower members - with the ACC assets - is a non starter. it's no different than the ACC being entitled to $500M+ from FSU if they want to leave. Kicking schools out because they do not generate the same revenue for the conference, would work in reverse.
Going with the logic of the GOR, and some on this board, BC and Wake own VT's media rights through '36. No differently than VT wanting FSU to cough up some insane amount of money to leave.
It would be all but impossible to "vote" a group of schools out - but it is possible to change the GOR with the ESPN lookin.
With the court filings, FSU and Clemson will be gone, the court cases are just deciding when, or by how much it costs them. Here in the B12, I think I'd be OK with an exit fee that stings, but get rid of the GOR all together. If a school doesn't want to be here, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
If there wasn't a GOR, could there even be a conference formed that would compete with the media money of the P2? Honestly, I don't think so. The P2 already got the "brands", and except for ND and FSU (maybe Clemson and Miami) it's already done. The ACC top brands could be left behind if the GOR holds, and may never get an invite if the NCAA settlement is as egregious as has been reported. I just don't think the money is there, and I also think that FOX over paid for the Big 10, and ESPN is re evaluating their media right expenditures.
No matter what happens with the court cases, I don't think anyone is going anywhere.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
M
Marooned
2y
Voting to totally disband a conference. So there’s no comparison to make with what happened to the PAC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
because of the GOR, and the unknown length of the media contract. The monies became more profound with the guaranteed playoff payments, and the court cases.
The B12 and the ACC should drop their GOR's, and let the chips fall where they may. I'm not at all convinced that the P2 "wants" to have a break away league, but the impending NCAA settlements may determine that for them.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the GOR is a contract willingly executed for a specific period of time and it has not yet been distinguished whether they went to court to keep someone in or to ensure they adhere to the terms, including payment of all amounts due, with their exit.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Schools could avoid being kicked out of the ACC by simply agreeing to vote to end the GOR. That way the so-called magnificent seven can simply leave. The remaining schools can add SMU, Stanford and Cal. They would continue as the ACC. That was proposed as a way schools could avoid being kicked out and if a group of schools want to try to form their own smaller conference, they would have their opportunity. Of course they would also be surrendering some ACC benefits. All of this is mostly crazy speculation. But people expressed a distaste for kicking schools out, this was an option to avoid that, and accomplish a similar end result.
The contract constraints of the GOR become irrelevant as schools would essentially be agreeing to set that aside. If the choice became voting to end the GOR and staying with a remnant in the ACC, or being kicked out of the ACC, then it would make sense to vote to end the GOR.
I don't see any of these things happening, however, a smaller conference of 9 or 10 of the best teams of the ACC is probably the best option for the most schools. It's highly unlikely that many schools will actually get invitations to the P2. Clemson and Florida State may be the only two invited.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
member vote to set aside the GOR absent a guaranteed P2 landing spot? I doubt any ACC school, including FSU and Clemson, really has that at present and even if they think they do they have no concrete idea what the money might be.
You're right it is all crazy speculation. My original reply was why I disagreed with the initial speculation and my subsequent reply was why I disagreed with Big 12 guy's assertion that eliminating the GOR was a good point but, more importantly, there was another reason they went to court solely beside trying to keep someone in which he had totally ignored. Finally, I think all would be better served when making any decisions on moving or breaking up a conference to have a stronger conviction than "it is probably the best option."
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
the ACC. If your option was between being voted out of the ACC and voting to end the GOR, then that would be motivation. Instead of being voted out, you let the others leave. Remember, this is based on the scenario mentioned above where a group of schools either vote out members and reform the ACC, or seek to leave the conference and form a new conference which would require a means out of the GOR or a vote to dissolve the ACC so they can leave. In this situation it would be in the best interest of a number of schools to vote to end the GOR, otherwise the remaining option is they get voted out.
Regarding a "stronger conviction", unless a large number of schools have a landing spot in the P2, it would definitely be the best scenario for most of those schools. The only exceptions being those with P2 invites, which may be as few as two or none. For this option to work no schools could leave for the P2, which is another point against such a move actually happening. Basically, the ACC is done as a power conference unless they can find a way to increase payments, and they are looking at a future without their best teams. The only reasonable suggestion to increase payments which I have heard is a smaller conference made up of 8-9 of the best ACC teams, with the hopes of a deal with ND similar to what the ACC currently has, and no one leaving for the P2. And they would have to be able to negotiate an appropriate media deal including a network to make this work. Whether this is a modified ACC or a new conference, it seems the only option to compete. And it would need to be explored beforehand to ensure it would work financially, even then it probably still leaves these schools behind the P2, but perhaps close enough to compete. Perhaps FSU and Clemson would prefer being in a conference with an easier route to the playoffs and be willing to take a few million less, but at some point the money difference would become too great, assuming they have an invite.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/22/2024, 11:10:07 AM
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/22/2024, 11:14:53 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
being voted out is a realistic threat? Do you know what provisions are involved in voting a member out aside from a requisite number of votes? I am guessing it is a PR nightmare at best and likely a legal minefield as well. I think the competition train with the P2 has already left the station and doing anything without a much better understanding of the litigation outcomes pending and the future landscape is akin to looking for the door in the dark in a doorknob factory. You manage what you know and, until a court says otherwise, you know you have a GOR in place.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
schools being voted out as presented by the original post. How likely is the situation of the original post to happen; I agree, it is not very likely. But the discussion was based on the assumptions being presented in the original post. Based on the assumption that schools are about to be voted out, I presented ideas. As I stated, in that scenario those decisions would be valid. Is that scenario likely? I don't think so, and agree with your reasons that it is unlikely. In fact, I would add the issue of SMU, Stanford, and Cal, whose membership invites would be uninvited and result in an additional lawsuit.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
I just believe realistic assumptions lead to more useful discussions.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
S
saret
2y
I think your minefield analogy is quite apropos'. Most of these guys on here are just shilling for FOX and ESPN, and maybe some are shilling for FSU/Clemson/UNC. Bottom line, they're just shills.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
likelihood of schools being voted out, as you can see from my response. I was simply responding to the scenario in the original post as it was presented. Within the framework of that scenario certain decisions would make sense. The likelihood of that scenario happening is irrelevant when discussing possibilities within that scenario. So, no shilling for anyone. Only a few comments about what might happen "if" a group decided to vote out schools from the ACC.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2y
I can see that. So, perhaps my post should have been directed to the OP, who posed an unrealistic scenario based on false conditions.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
internet suggesting there is some discussion taking place among schools along those lines. Mostly sources I wouldn't trust. Though I did see someone quote a legit journalist on the possiblity of some sort of smaller conference being formed from the top ACC schools. However, they didn't give a direct quote so I would be skeptical of the context.
I think the most likely scenario is what we see playing out, schools leaving over time to join the P2. Time frame will be determined by what happens with Clemson and FSU, and who can get invites, if any. This results in the ACC shriveling to a lesser conference. Depending on who and how many leave for the P2, a few of those left behind might eventually defect to the Big 12. I do think a smaller conference with the top 8-9 ACC schools and ND (with a similar deal to their current one with the ACC) would be preferrable to the current situation, might even be financiall sufficient to allow schools to compete with P2 (though still behind in money) I just don't see how we get there, and really see no evidence of anyone trying to make that happen.
(In response to this post by saret)
T
TVLander
2y
certainly going to be pressed into.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
to the PAC 12. All that history and tradition right down the crapper.
(In response to this post by TVLander)
2y
The first time by the Big East Football Conference and the second time by the Big East Conference. A part of me hopes Temple joins the Big East again just to see if the Owls can go for the trifecta.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
VT was the only NO vote on the Temple Big East expulsion IIRC.
(In response to this post by TVLander)
2y
In 2001 when they were voted out by the presidents, they were 9-58 all time in the BE with five seasons they didn’t win a single BE game. That is a full decade of being dead weight and bringing no value to the conference.
Maybe they could have just kicked out the football team and kept the other sports. I don’t know if that was an option. But on the football side it was the right decision to remove them. The BE is a business and temple football was bad for that business.
(In response to this post by TVLander)
2y
Villanova wasn't going to share the BEBC in Philly with Temple
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
And somehow forgot while I was typing my post haha. Good catch.
I blame my doc for having me try a med that is giving me some serious brain fog.
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
2y
I always had a soft spot for them because their uniforms were sometimes similar to ours. I also felt bad for them because they always seemed to try really hard but were just outmatched. Then the infamous game happened! Also thank Temple for being the meeting place for Hall and Oates.
I liked the old Big East games with Temple, Rutgers, Miami, West Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt.
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
2y
fits every time.
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
S
saret
2y
school acting like a skeeze.
(In response to this post by TVLander)
2
2hhoop3
2y
meant VCU but, your point is still well taken and I agree with it.
(In response to this post by TVLander)
have a hard time seeing this happen in the Conference of Gentlemen
(In response to this post by vtox1)
L
lawhokie
2y
Your proportion of conference revenues is based on the number of fairly-priced football and basketball butts in the seat each school has for ACC games. That would set off an arms race (or butts race) of stadium expansion and fan solicitation.
Wake and BC absolutely need to go. NOW. A scheme like this might scare them off voluntarily.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2
2hhoop3
2y
distribution model must be designed to incent and reward desired behaviors and minimize the potential imbalance between haves and have nots. There must be minimum levels of investment in the major revenue sports and penalties/taxes for failure to meet or exceed those levels with the penalties/taxes redistributed amongst those actually in compliance.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
college athletics has been doomed from the start because parity in a model driven by ticket sales(stadium size), donor contributions and even varying levels of government and institutional subsidization will likely never be equitable. That is before you ask leagues that have made an investment to share their rewards(media rights revenue) with leagues that have not made a similar commitment.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
parity is a great goal and the pro sports leagues(football, basketball and baseball) recognize this and work toward it with revenue sharing, payroll luxury taxes, etc.. Similar type mechanisms are much harder to implement at the collegiate level because of the things mentioned earlier and the present structure and why I believe that with the classification of athletes as employees looming, now is as good a time as any to blow it all up a hopefully design something that can work. Not everybody is going to be happy regardless and it may just be that if everybody is a little bit unhappy(sharing the pain) that may be the best possible solution.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
possibly win the B12 championship. 8 with a realistic chance based on many metrics. To me, as a fan, that is fun football. I for one am not interested in watching an Alabama of Texas team blow out a Vandy, or a FSU blowing out a (pick a couple). Does that equate to viewers of the kind that raises a media contract? I don't know, but the fans will be in the seats, and that Iowa state game against whoever will be worth watching as it directly effects the outcome of the conference race.
Will you watch it? probably not, as it has zero bearing on your team or region, but if it determined the champion of the B12? Maybe.
If the privates, or any school in the AC, do not have plans to ever beat (compete) FSU on a regular basis, then maybe they don't have any business being in the same conference. Who wants to watch a blowout year after year? It's the same with the expanded playoffs - if the B12, ACC, and group of 5 can not compete, then ratings will go down, and it's not good for business.
The blue bloods of the P2 do not want to give up their competitive advantage, but I'm already weary of watching an over rated tOSU in the playoffs, and the SEC winning year after year - If there is no pathway to some version of parity, then we might just be urinating in the wind, because I don't think it will work as a business model.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
is a much more likely goal than across conferences. You assert 8-10 teams could win the Big 12 but, of that group how many have a realistic chance to win 3 or 4 games in the playoff? The ACC does not have at present 8 or 10 but, in the history every team has made runs to contend or play in the championship game. At present, I am not sure the ACC is any different than the Big 12 in terms of having a team capable of a 3 or 4 game playoff run. Your view of overall parity while appealing has never been a reality in college football and, in my opinion, the sport is moving further way from rather than closer to that goal. Hence, my rising indifference to blowing it all up.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
major bowl games since their inception, and the playoff format up to the 12 team expanded playoff was a monopoly as well, or very very skewed.
Today, the monopoly transitioned to guaranteed playoff money - but at least now, they have to play the games. We will find out soon enough which schools have been over rated, at least so I thought. With the money disparity set in stone, the parity i aspire for may neve materialize - but damned if they don't have to beat that G5 or undefeated ACC champion now. They will have to maintain their advantage (monopoly) on the field now, not through the rankings.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the monopoly still does not exist and it just has taken a different form? We will have to see how the bids and formats play out but, if the P2 gets more money and more bids I am not sure the others are really any closer to the championship game, much less the title. Having to win 3 games is significantly harder than 2 games and 4 wins in a row is an even heavier lift.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
Unless somebody votes to expel themselves. You would also have to vote to remove the invitations to SMU, Stanford, and Cal. I don't know if that's even possible.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/21/2024, 9:37:30 AM
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
If the percentage is 75%, why wouldn't that be 75% of the entire conference of 15 members, not 75% of 14 members. And if you wanted to vote out five members, then are you saying that would be 75% of 10 members that remain.?
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
favor the privates.
If your school is not in the P2, and it takes an extra 420M - $50M annually to be competitive on a national scale, where does the money come from? Public Universities, many of them, are subsidized by the State. Historically, there have been very few large athletic programs that have been "profitable". I have read that the average FBS athletic budgets are financed by donations to the tune of 20%. Today, we have NIL, and now, a media money deficit - and add the hit from the lawsuits coming down the road - how is that deficit going to be made up?
It will be extremely difficult for the publics to turn to the administration, foundations, and the State to receive that kind of money annually - there are just too many other State colleges and Universities int a state to justify subsidizing that kind of athletic budget deficit annually, for the one or two "P5" per State. I just don't see the money coming from the taxpayers.
The FBS privates recognize how much they get out of top tier athletics. Would any of us here know that a TCU, SMU, Cuse, BC, or even a Miami University even existed if they didn't have big time athletics? It's too important to them for prestige, name recognition, academic donations, and student recruitment.
The privates are not tax payer subsidized, and while most do not have Texas oil money, they most certainly have the alumni base to come up with the money it will take to compete at the highest level.
Look at the politics in NC as we speak. If they are not invited to the P2, will the State come up with the money to support them? It would be easier for Duke to get athletic support from their foundations, administrations, and school budgets to support athletics than it would for the publics. it's too important to them, not for their fans, but for their academics, prestige, and that goes to the donors, grants, and research monies, not to mention recruiting the best and brightest academic students that pay the tuition.
Without the political handcuffs, the privates that WANT to be top athletic programs, will be right there competing, and this idea that your going to throw them out with the bathwater is preposterous.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
Athletics, why haven't they done so yet ? If the ACC private schools put a lot of money into their football programs to build up those programs, maybe the ACC wouldn't be in the situation they are in. But they haven't done so, which tells me they won't be doing so, because they don't have that money. At least they're not willing to earmark that money for Athletics.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Their new indoor practice facility cost $260 million. The new, reduced size stadium has a price tag of $800 million. That's over a billion dollars recently on football, alone. That is "investment." That is "commitment."
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
Stadium at today's prices.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
two different things, Wake has been competitive lately, BC and Cuse have history, and they win games as well. Seems to me, they are investing into their programs, but with such small alumni bases, it's difficult for them to fill their stadiums, and get eyeballs to watch.
You could be right, but public schools have things like student fees that are separated from tuition, and the privates don't have to line item that. In addition, they do not have the same reporting constraints as the publics, so when you say that they don't have the money, it's based on what?
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
First, if they are investing the money, I'm not seeing the evidence of it. Yes Wake Forest has invested some money. And I give them lots of credit for that and have previously. That investment has helped Wake Forest keep up with the public schools when it comes to building facilities. I've not seen similar commitments from other ACC public schools, I've also not seen evidence that its more than a one-time thing at Wake Forest. Also, that does not put Wake Forest ahead of the public schools, it only helps them be competitive with the public schools in facilities. Wake Forest still has the problem of being a small school, with small football attendance, and small TV viewership.
Second, the small public schools are complaining about the financial Gulf between the SEC and ACC. If they could overcome that on their own, why haven't they.
Third, although I recognize that finances is not the only factor in having a successful program. It is clearly an important factor which is why FSU and Clemson among others are wanting out of the ACC. If the small private schools have the money, why have They not been more successful in the ACC.
I recognize that although Miami and Notre Dame are private schools, they're in a different boat from the other private schools. They do have the money and are spending it on athletics. Other schools are not. Duke has around a $12 billion endowment. If they took the interest off of 2 billion of that and invested it in athletics, they would have a huge athletic budget, they would not even need to be in the P2. But the huge endowments some of these private schools have are earmarked for academics, not Athletics. And they can't just change that. They might have some big big pocket donors who have helped build those endowments. But are they willing to donate to Athletics. Mostly that seems like no based on what I said previously. A lot of private colleges are really struggling these days as well , with many shutting down every year. These are mostly smaller schools, not schools the size of a Boston college. But in today's climate it might be difficult to put too much emphasis on athletic fundraising.
Harvard has a $50 billion endowment. If anybody could afford to buy a national championship in football they could. But the other ivy League schools have large enough endowments to give them some competition. Fact is many of these private institutions are just not willing to emphasize football. For some reason they still think college is about academics. And their donors seem to agree with them.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/21/2024, 10:40:08 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
L
lawhokie
2y
After a concentrated effort to compete. Sounds like a lot but still dwarfed by the big public Us.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
L
lawhokie
2y
Privates may not be required to report, but a surprising number self-report. That means one of the most successful private athletic programs in the country spent about same amount as Kansas State.
Duke is a good sized private U sitting on a $15 billion dollar endowment (that dwarfs 99%+ of every public school), yet athletic spending isn’t even top 50.
There is Notre Dame and then everybody else when it comes to private schools, and Miami is in no danger regardless.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
This is about football. I see you trying to spring negativity. Way I see i. I hope the private schools continue strong in other sports. No way they will in football. This is all messed up but the demise of ACC is some schools are not desiring to play the football game. Some just cannot do it. The small private schools are taking up money they probably need to be getting from people you mentioned.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
are in a much better position to get institutional support than the publics. I not only think that the ACC needs the privates, but those wanting to throw them overboard are short sighted, and are looking through the media numbers as the only metric that matters.
It's far easier for Duke, Cuse, Wake, BC, Miami, BYU, TCU, Baylor, SMU**, and Stanford** to get the institution to support their athletic programs than it is for any public university. The ones that want to compete against the best of the best will find the resources, and it goes way beyond donations.
The publics will have difficulty getting institutional support depending on the State they are in, and the political appetite to spend 10's of millions a year to keep up with the Joneses.
**Stanford and SMU already have the money earmarked for their football and athletic programs.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
L
lawhokie
2y
Other than use of facilities and the standard in-state tuition rates, I understood that VT athletics were funded by a small athletic fee, and revenues from TV, ticket sales, etc. I.e. the are privately funded as are private U athletics. The institutional support to spend is irrelevant because schools can only spend what they earn.
None of your posts jibes with my 30+ years of association with VT athletics. Some private schools have zealous boosters and some do not. Same for public schools. Alumni either care or they do not care. Public v private is irrelevant.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
For football no. That said GT and UVa might fit that also. I sort of get your thought. Football drives this.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
as all the other public institutions in their State.
I think you are confusing being competitive with garnering national TV audiences, and thus, media contracts.
What I'm sayin is that the privates have a much better pathway to make up media contract deficits than the publics, and the ones that want to be in big time college athletics, will. It will be tougher for a K-State to overcome a $40M revenue deficit than it will for a BYU or even an SMU. I don't know the politics in Virginia, but getting institutional Money from the academics is like pulling teeth in the fly overs - football success or not.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
L
lawhokie
2y
If private schools had a better path to revenues they would have taken it. Duke is larger than Notre Dame, has about the same endowment, and has the massive Duke Energy and healthcare presence driving funding.
Why hasn’t Duke drawn level with the Irish, instead of pulling 1/3 of Irish revenues? It’s about the alumni and other fans, and whether they care. If schools get dumped that will be the basis.
** Edited by lawhokie at 5/21/2024, 10:40:03 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Just the game being played does not fit PVT and football. Yes they may do well in other sports.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
And in the next 5 years, some of the small private colleges may not want to pay players $2mm/year. Or may not be able to afford it.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
Revenue. So players in the SEC might be getting 2 million, but in the ACC getting a lot less because revenue is smaller
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2y
Duke and Wake could go INDY for football. Still play in league basketball. Probably not but Duke is a major player in other sports not named football. I can see Pitt, Cuse and BC doing same but forming their own other sports league.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2y
After all, they are a self-proclaimed public ivy.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
L
lawhokie
2y
And in hoops they are much more than competent
** Edited by lawhokie at 5/21/2024, 9:54:43 AM
(In response to this post by ScottsdaleHokie)
2y
(In response to this post by ScottsdaleHokie)
Correct. The idea is to get the best football brands from as many states as
possible. So many people with this cockamamie theory are out here thinking about booting Syracuse. Syracuse has more football pedigree and basketball pedigree than UVa, and is from the fourth largest state in the country.
But anyway, a slimmed down ACC is a non-starter.
(In response to this post by ScottsdaleHokie)
2y
As anyone can clearly see if they're paying attention, nobody is clamoring to add Boise State, North Dakota State, New Hampshire, The University of Montana, or Delaware. Why? Because, in the grand scheme of things, nobody really cares about those football programs. Just like nobody really cares about Syracuse football, and, even if they're still a thing in basketball, basketball is less than an afterthought in all this. Does Syracuse have "football pedigree?" Sure, I guess you could say that, but, then again, so does Sewanee and the University of Chicago. 90+% of people in the great state of New York could care less about college football, and, if they do, there's about a 90+% chance they're fans of Michigan, Notre Dame, or Penn State.
At some point, people have to get it out of their heads that cable market or a geographic area have anything to do with the current conference realignment paradigm. Neither matters anymore, at all. The only question for consideration now is, "will a casual viewer recognize this program and actually tune in to watch this program play?"
The University of Maine is the premier program in that state, but I'd bet most folks here couldn't tell me without looking what their mascot is, and nobody is going to be chomping at the bit to see them play a noon kick vs. Ohio State.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 5/21/2024, 9:16:57 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
Only makes logical sense that more viewers from a populated state (VA), for schools that have a large following in football (VT), are going to put more eyeballs on the broadcast even if not a "national" type matchup. I do agree that matchups are extremely important but not the only factor imo
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by MVIII)
2y
play Bates in football on WatchESPN. The nickname surprised me because I assumed that nickname was probably better suited for one of the Alaska schools; Anchorage (UAA) or Fairbanks (UAF).
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
Actually, no.
The ACCN in a state makes money based on satellite and cable subscribers. At least for now (and we are only worrying about up to 2036, at the very latest).
So it makes sense to have a single school from a big state where possible. That's the contract.
So Syracuse would be much more valuable than small-state Maine for instance; or a fourth team from North Carolina.
And last time I checked, University of Chicago isn't sponsoring football. And since it dropped football, Syracuse has 39 first team all-Americans, a Heisman Trophy and a national championship. So comparing them to Syracuse is a flawed.
It's hardly worth talking about anyway since the ACC isn't going to go and kick members out of conference anyway.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/21/2024, 9:49:39 AM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2y
They currently compete at the NCAA DIII level for all sports. At least I don't think they compete in DII or DI for any individual sports.
Link:
Chicago Maroons Football
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
the profitability model of the ACCN, because I thought this was a discussion board and thread about conference realignment.
Your point, that "the idea" behind the current round of conference realignment is for the B1G/SEC "to get the best football brands from as many states as possible" was wrong before, and it's still wrong now.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I never said the current round of conference realignment was about that.
What I said was, if you are talking about kicking members out (i.e., contraction, not expansion) so the remainders can be more profitable, kicking Syracuse out before UVa was not wise.
And to your overall point. State ARE still important in realignment. I guarantee you if the SEC didn't already have UF, that they would be all about adding FSU to get the SECN into Florida. Getting into new states is still a thing. And conferences don't want to take more than one per state unless they absolutely have to (e.g., taking UCLA to get USC). Otherwise, schools like Oklahoma State are on the outs.
I think the SEC will balk at taking UNC AND NC State, or UVa AND VT. And I know the B1G will as well.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2y
yeah, they would definitely want Florida State, but not because they're located in the state of Florida, because casual viewers watch their football games. A football program could be located on the moon, and if they averaged 7 million viewers a game, both the SEC and B1G would be clamoring to add them, even if they already had 5 other programs located on the moon.
Also, disagree re: Syracuse vs. UVA. While both football programs are bottom of the toilet bowl garbage, and I don't think either even blips onto the radar of the SEC or B1G as a priority target, when it comes to TV ratings, I'd be willing to bet that (1) more people watch UVA football on a per-game average; and, (2) a significant number of casual, man-on-the-street types around the country couldn't even tell you what state Syracuse is located in, let alone who Ernie Davis or Ben Schwartzwalder were.
Outside of basketball, which has become almost completely worthless notwithstanding the NCAA tournament, Syracuse has little to no value at all, they're a complete afterthought, and adding them to the conference is a lasting testament to the fact that the people running the ACC had no vision or idea what they were doing in 2011, much like today.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
that the final stage of realignment will be the SEC and Big 10 kicking out schools at the bottom of their conferences (or at the very setting up tiered revenue sharing to favor greedheads like OSU etc).
I could see mass expulsions from the ACC or a secessionist movement within the conference.
(In response to this post by VaTechHokiesACC)
M
Marooned
2y
voting out BC. Also, what happens to the newbies under this scenario? Rather, I think a breakaway is more likely if the Mag 7 can figure out how to tie up the loose ends.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
Crass. And a non-starter. Would prefer a 3-tiered (R&P) merger with the B12
Non-starter. I'd rather do a mega merger with the Big XII and create a 3-tier national relegation and promotion stsyem where the top level makes big money. But every year you have to earn it on the field. Do the same thing in basketball.
Probably a non-starter as well. But has way more of an upside. And way more interesting for national TV audiences.
Also, it is crass to kick out members. And I think the country would not find this slimmed-down ACC very exciting to watch.
I'm ready to blow it up, and try something new.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/21/2024, 8:46:59 AM
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2
2hhoop3
2y
while courts and suits seem to be an ever increasing reality, things will get exponentially worse IF conferences look to kick members out. That does not mean conferences may not shrink or reform but, using expulsion as the means to accomplish that comes with a lot of land mines that conferences and member institutions will seek to avoid.
(In response to this post by vtox1)