• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

BiffTannen said:
They're falling financially behind with no obvious way to make more money and have assets desirable to both the ACC and B1G while the Big XII and PAC 12 are in the process of getting married ?
Click to expand...

Do the higher payouts in the SEC and Big10 make a major difference? Of course they do to some degree, but I think their importance may be overestimated. If they are so helpful, why is Vandy so bad? Did the pay increase help Maryland football? Why were we able to toy with Rutgers in the Gator Bowl? Clemson owns the SEC school in their state, despite South Carolina getting the SEC money. Why can't the Big10 win NCAA championships in football and men's basketball?

The schools can't pay for NIL deals (at least not yet), so it doesn't help in that regard. The money helps build facilities and pay coaches, but that only goes so far in college sports when there are hundreds of teams. I imagine a lot of the extra money will go towards more athletics administrators, which I'm not sure helps much at all. If ACC schools are getting $40 million and the SEC schools are getting $55 million, does that mean the ACC schools won't be able to compete nationally? I don't think so. I guess over decades the money may make a difference, but we sure have not seen that over the past two decades from the Big10.
 
Rafi said:
Do the higher payouts in the SEC and Big10 make a major difference? Of course they do to some degree, but I think their importance may be overestimated. If they are so helpful, why is Vandy so bad? Did the pay increase help Maryland football? Why were we able to toy with Rutgers in the Gator Bowl? Clemson owns the SEC school in their state, despite South Carolina getting the SEC money. Why can't the Big10 win NCAA championships in football and men's basketball?

The schools can't pay for NIL deals (at least not yet), so it doesn't help in that regard. The money helps build facilities and pay coaches, but that only goes so far in college sports when there are hundreds of teams. I imagine a lot of the extra money will go towards more athletics administrators, which I'm not sure helps much at all. If ACC schools are getting $40 million and the SEC schools are getting $55 million, does that mean the ACC schools won't be able to compete nationally? I don't think so. I guess over decades the money may make a difference, but we sure have not seen that over the past two decades from the Big10.
Click to expand...

I believe the argument is, there is currently a small (ish) gap which well-run ACC program(s) can overcome.

There will eventually be an enormous gap which will be very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

The B1G and SEC allegedly want to further capitalize on this by creating their own playoff, such that literally no one from outside their conferences has ANY chance of entering (and therefore winning) the tournament.

And, of course, to overcome such a deficit, one needs to hire super creative and energetic coaches, who...could make more money at one of those bigger conference schools.

H4T36vx0
 
Last edited:
Rafi said:
Do the higher payouts in the SEC and Big10 make a major difference? Of course they do to some degree, but I think their importance may be overestimated. If they are so helpful, why is Vandy so bad? Did the pay increase help Maryland football? Why were we able to toy with Rutgers in the Gator Bowl? Clemson owns the SEC school in their state, despite South Carolina getting the SEC money. Why can't the Big10 win NCAA championships in football and men's basketball?

The schools can't pay for NIL deals (at least not yet), so it doesn't help in that regard. The money helps build facilities and pay coaches, but that only goes so far in college sports when there are hundreds of teams. I imagine a lot of the extra money will go towards more athletics administrators, which I'm not sure helps much at all. If ACC schools are getting $40 million and the SEC schools are getting $55 million, does that mean the ACC schools won't be able to compete nationally? I don't think so. I guess over decades the money may make a difference, but we sure have not seen that over the past two decades from the Big10.
Click to expand...

The financial impact most directly impacts the non-revenue sports. Maryland's athletic department operated at a loss, according to them, until they joined the Big 10. The extra money has little impact on the competitive growth of the football and basketball programs; it floats the non-revenue programs.
 
Sco Deac said:
The financial impact most directly impacts the non-revenue sports. Maryland's athletic department operated at a loss, according to them, until they joined the Big 10. The extra money has little impact on the competitive growth of the football and basketball programs; it floats the non-revenue programs.
Click to expand...

That may be the case historically and right now, but once schools start paying players as employees in the next couple of years that extra money will have a huge impact on competitive advantage in football and basketball. Would you rather go play for $15,000 or $300,000 per season?
 
Rafi said:
If ACC schools are getting $40 million and the SEC schools are getting $55 million, does that mean the ACC schools won't be able to compete nationally? I don't think so. I guess over decades the money may make a difference, but we sure have not seen that over the past two decades from the Big10.
Click to expand...

You're grossly underestimating the difference in money - the Big Ten was already talking about their next media deal being worth over $1B annually, which is over $71M to each school each and every year. The addition of UCLA and USC has people predicting that the next Big Ten deal could now be worth in excess of $1.6B annually, or $100M per school (in addition to being well known brands by themselves, UCLA and USC allow the Big Ten an additional time slot to broadcast games in). We're talking about media rights deals that are going to almost triple the amount that the ACC is able to pay out.
 
Sco Deac said:
The financial impact most directly impacts the non-revenue sports. Maryland's athletic department operated at a loss, according to them, until they joined the Big 10. The extra money has little impact on the competitive growth of the football and basketball programs; it floats the non-revenue programs.
Click to expand...

I guess it's fitting that UMCP can welcome UCLA to its new conference.

 
thatguy2016 said:
I believe the argument is, there is currently a small (ish) gap which well-run ACC program(s) can overcome.

There will eventually be an enormous gap which will be very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

The B1G and SEC allegedly want to further capitalize on this by creating their own playoff, such that literally no one from outside their conferences has ANY chance of entering (and therefore winning) the tournament.

And, of course, to overcome such a deficit, one needs to hire super creative and energetic coaches, who...could make more money at one of those bigger conference schools.

H4T36vx0
Click to expand...

Good post. What are those payout estimates based on? New SEC/Big10 contracts?
 
ACC sports should be able to go to John Swofford's home and just take whatever they want and split it between them to help make up that gap.
 
Rafi said:
Good post. What are those payout estimates based on? New SEC/Big10 contracts?
Click to expand...

New and assumed future contracts. Those were from before UCLA/USC bolted to the B1G. B1G has probably moved ahead of the SEC in terms of projected revenue per school.
 
Based on that chart, does it make financial sense for the Power 2 to poach any/many more teams? Who is bringing 100 mil per year to the table?
 
Sco Deac said:
The financial impact most directly impacts the non-revenue sports. Maryland's athletic department operated at a loss, according to them, until they joined the Big 10. The extra money has little impact on the competitive growth of the football and basketball programs; it floats the non-revenue programs.
Click to expand...

The University of Iowa and U of Minnesota both cut multiple varsity teams in the past few years, despite Big10 money. Minnesota estimated it would save $1.6 million per year by making the cuts. The Big10 money doesn't seem to be helping the non-revenue sports much.
 
thatguy2016 said:
New and assumed future contracts. Those were from before UCLA/USC bolted to the B1G. B1G has probably moved ahead of the SEC in terms of projected revenue per school.
Click to expand...

Does it assume the other conferences are not going to have new contracts?

As I just wrote in another post, Big10 programs have been cutting sports. I guess the money is really only helping football?
 
Rafi said:
The University of Iowa and U of Minnesota both cut multiple varsity teams in the past few years, despite Big10 money. Minnesota estimated it would save $1.6 million per year by making the cuts. The Big10 money doesn't seem to be helping the non-revenue sports much.
Click to expand...

just as wildly increasing corporate profits don't seem to help hourly workers much [/political]
 
Rafi said:
Does it assume the other conferences are not going to have new contracts?

As I just wrote in another post, Big10 programs have been cutting sports. I guess the money is really only helping football?
Click to expand...

see the detail in Biff's thread from a few weeks ago !
 
skinnydeac said:
Based on that chart, does it make financial sense for the Power 2 to poach any/many more teams? Who is bringing 100 mil per year to the table?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Plus I assume SC and UF would rather take that money and crush Clemson, FSU, and Miami rather than split it with them.
 
HailToTheDeacons said:
I guess it's fitting that UMCP can welcome UCLA to its new conference.

Click to expand...

It seems like UCLA was in a similar position to Maryland. UCLA athletics lost $62.5 million last year. I assume this will help UCLA as much as it helped Maryland...

Aren't USC/UCLA going to spend tens of millions of dollars flying their teams back and forth across the country?
 
The SEC is the SEC and it's hard to match up with the teams they roll out, but it's weird to me that the Big 10 as a whole has publicly established itself as so clearly a tier above the ACC in football.

They have Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State, all very famous. Wisconsin and Iowa are solid, as is Michigan State lately, but I don't think many consider those programs college football blue bloods or anything. Then there's a whole lot of Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Nebraska, Northwestern. How the deuce did this conference vault itself to where it's seen as *obviously* the 2nd of the "Big 2" conferences? Is it just off the national strength of Ohio State and the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry? Certainly not saying ACC football is better, but it's interesting to look at how many of the Big 10 schools are pretty mediocre at football.
 
Rafi said:
It seems like UCLA was in a similar position to Maryland. UCLA athletics lost $62.5 million last year. I assume this will help UCLA as much as it helped Maryland...

Aren't USC/UCLA going to spend tens of millions of dollars flying their teams back and forth across the country?
Click to expand...

They already do - Berkley and Stanford are about 350 miles from Los Angeles
 
Are those estimates before OU and Texas announced they are leaving the Big 12?

It's pretty clear the Big 12 is hosed going forward, as the Big 12 lags behind all other conferences in the media markets as confirmed by the former head of FOX Sports:

Bob Thompson, the former president of Fox Sports Networks, told me on Tuesday that a potential Pac-12 partnership with the ACC captures TV markets that include 27.7 million households. By comparison, the Big 12 television markets have only 14 million households.

“If you put the geography aside, the ACC markets are just better,” Thompson said.

There are 10 ACC markets with more than 1 million television households each. They are: New York, Boston, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Tampa, Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, Pittsburgh and Raleigh. The Big 12 footprint has only four TV markets (Dallas, Washington, D.C., Houston and St. Louis) with more than a million households.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-getting-itself-back?sd=pf
Here is the link:
 
Say Hey Deac said:
The SEC is the SEC and it's hard to match up with the teams they roll out, but it's weird to me that the Big 10 as a whole has publicly established itself as so clearly a tier above the ACC in football.

They have Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State, all very famous. Wisconsin and Iowa are solid, as is Michigan State lately, but I don't think many consider those programs college football blue bloods or anything. Then there's a whole lot of Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Nebraska, Northwestern. How the deuce did this conference vault itself to where it's seen as *obviously* the 2nd of the "Big 2" conferences? Is it just off the national strength of Ohio State and the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry? Certainly not saying ACC football is better, but it's interesting to look at how many of the Big 10 schools are pretty mediocre at football.
Click to expand...

7 of the 20 largest schools in the US are Big Ten schools. That is a lot of potential eyeballs to consume live sports, buy gear (they need sweatshirts up there), etc.

You do not need to look for any reasoning or justification beyond that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top