• 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!

The ACC is Pretty Much Screwed

DownEastDeac said:
Should, and I think it eventually will. And I'm fine with that from a Wake perspective. The whole NIL thing will leave programs like Wake on the outside looking in, while the UNC's of the world that don't care a whit about academic or institutional integrity will (now legally) shovel $$ to guys who will either be one-and-dones, or if not NBA/NFL-caliber, can hang around a few more years and make good bank thru NIL handouts. And I'm fine with players making as much money as they can off their image or whatever, but the further that relationship gets from the student/athlete model, the less interest I'll have in it from a fan perspective.
Click to expand...

We shall see. When the college free agency via transfers and the NIL rules initially went into effect, seemed like the consensus was that WF would suffer. While the sample size has been small, so far, WF has thrived in the new age of college sports. WF seems to have its own stable of rich donors that have allowed WF to keep up financially, and our football and basketball staffs seem to work the portal better than most. Feel like WF always needs to stay ahead of the curve to succeed, while bigger schools can be less proactive. So, as long as WF has savvy leadership in the athletic department, and in the key athletic programs, WF will do very well.

FWIW, this discussion seems to be lumping all sports together. Athletic program access to maximum money does not seem to be as important for elite basketball success as football. Villanova, Gonzaga, UCLA, Arizona, even Baylor and Kansas aren't among the top schools in athletic department revenue and donor cash, yet they have ruled and appear to continue to be on track for dominating college basketball. Acknowledging that the SEC has improved its basketball profile through football money; still think that basketball success is not as directly tied to the overall size of the athletic department budget. No better example than UGA basketball. The UGA athletic department obviously has more money than it can spend (how much was the Tom Crean buy-out?), yet the basketball program is a joke, and remains a joke with Mike White hiring.

Football is a different story because the rosters are so large and the program requires SOOOOO much money. Even so, people can talk about the SEC or the Big 10 money skewing the sport's competitiveness, but it's still a club of four schools that dominate college football: Bama... gap... UGA, Clemson and tOSU and then a massive gap for everyone else. When Arkansas, Tennessee, or Mississippi State start winning football Nattys (or at least sniffing the 4 team playoff), that would be a sign that SEC money is the reason that no else can compete, but right now, it looks more like the same programs that dominated for the last decade are continuing to dominate regardless of the rules in place or the conferences that they play in.
 
Last edited:
What does the grant of rights have to do with the fact that the B1G and SEC are insanely outpacing every other conference in revenue?
 
It's almost like college football is a regional sport and the two regions that take it the most seriously are the ones making the most money off of it. Insanity.
 
w84it said:
It's almost like college football is a regional sport and the two regions that take it the most seriously are the ones making the most money off of it. Insanity.
Click to expand...

And it funds their entire athletic department, along with a few mega donors. Which allows them to hire and fire shitty basketball coaches till they wind up with one who might be okay.
 
BiffTannen said:
And it funds their entire athletic department, along with a few mega donors. Which allows them to hire and fire shitty basketball coaches till they wind up with one who might be okay.
Click to expand...

we-know-this-dr-wayne-wenowdis.gif
 
Nothing about this seems very collegial anymore. Athletic scholarships were always about giving access to higher education to students who otherwise wouldn't have access. That was the justification, as far as I can tell, for colleges even being in the "business" of athletics. But for most of the history of college athletics the emphasis was on student-athletes who were part of the culture of the school and the alumni. At this point it's basically unfettered free agency through the portal, pay to play, and not to mention a pretty terrible product.

Why should we be in the ACC or DI for that matter, anyway? There are plenty of "universities" out there that will be happy to throw money at "student"-athletes to come take community college video-conference classes while playing basketball for a year and prepping for the draft. And there are plenty of potential students out there who can't afford college who would eagerly take an academic scholarship for four years to get a degree and not spend all their time filing lawsuits demanding more money. It's silly, really. Our best football player transferred last year to get more draft exposure. I don't blame him, but I'm also tired of a system in which that actually makes sense. How many of us transferred out of Wake to spend our last year of academic eligibility at another school because it better prepared us for our career?

And...there is literally a 28 page thread about whether or not to hang the jersey of a student-athlete who never attended an undergraduate class at Wake, who never won a championship of any kind, on a team that choked away several opportunities to finish in the top 2 or 3 of the league, never hit the game-winning shot in a tournament game (quite the opposite, oof...). And his interview on Packer and Durham was a joke. Great opportunity to represent our school and talk up the program, and he acted like it was a complete joke. Our hope for the future is being good at the new transfer portal reality. Lol.
 
DeaconSig said:
Or Mike White. Whichever.
Click to expand...

This supposed jab misses the mark so wildly considering how much money Wake spent buying out those last two imbeciles while Crean is only owed $3.6 million. Take a look at White's coaching record at Florida and project your expectations for Forbes over the next seven years.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
Nothing about this seems very collegial anymore. Athletic scholarships were always about giving access to higher education to students who otherwise wouldn't have access. That was the justification, as far as I can tell, for colleges even being in the "business" of athletics. But for most of the history of college athletics the emphasis was on student-athletes who were part of the culture of the school and the alumni. At this point it's basically unfettered free agency through the portal, pay to play, and not to mention a pretty terrible product.

Why should we be in the ACC or DI for that matter, anyway? There are plenty of "universities" out there that will be happy to throw money at "student"-athletes to come take community college video-conference classes while playing basketball for a year and prepping for the draft. And there are plenty of potential students out there who can't afford college who would eagerly take an academic scholarship for four years to get a degree and not spend all their time filing lawsuits demanding more money. It's silly, really. Our best football player transferred last year to get more draft exposure. I don't blame him, but I'm also tired of a system in which that actually makes sense. How many of us transferred out of Wake to spend our last year of academic eligibility at another school because it better prepared us for our career?

And...there is literally a 28 page thread about whether or not to hang the jersey of a student-athlete who never attended an undergraduate class at Wake, who never won a championship of any kind, on a team that choked away several opportunities to finish in the top 2 or 3 of the league, never hit the game-winning shot in a tournament game (quite the opposite, oof...). And his interview on Packer and Durham was a joke. Great opportunity to represent our school and talk up the program, and he acted like it was a complete joke. Our hope for the future is being good at the new transfer portal reality. Lol.
Click to expand...

This isn't about basketball dude.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
Are we getting rid of basketball in the ACC?

Basketball was just on my mind. Insert whatever sport you want.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think college basketball is a declining product. I don't really know where it stands revenue wise from where it was ten years ago, but my interest in it wanes every year due to the incredible roster turnover and lack of legitimately good players in the sport for more than one year at a time.
 
Is Biff trying to shift the argument to "the SEC has a big edge in football because of the money that each school receives"? If so, who is arguing otherwise? How is this news?


Even with the ton of money that SEC receives, it's not a competitive football conference. The SEC East has been a joke for years. Its Bama and UGA, and a bunch of schools chasing their tails as they endlessly hop on an off the coaching carousel.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
How many of us transferred out of Wake to spend our last year of academic eligibility at another school because it better prepared us for our career?
Click to expand...

I and many others on this board went somewhere other than Wake to get a graduate degree because it helped us prepare for our careers. Not sure what the difference is.
 
94% increase for the SEC in that window
65% for Big 10
79% for ACC
28% for B12
64% for Pac12

So the ACC is actually well ahead of everyone except for the SEC in terms of growth.

And I still don't know why anyone expects a conference of smaller schools to have the same media rights as a conference of large state schools. The SEC has a stranglehold on Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, plus 50% of Kentucky, Florida, SC, and Oklahoma. The ACC "controls" NC, VA, and Massachussetts (LOL), plus 50% of FL, KY, and SC. A little NY, a little PA. Why would that ever get the same level of media dollars?

The SEC definitely has more money to throw around at coaches and facilities for sure, but my point is that this is a race that the ACC was never going to win, so why are we acting surprised about that now?
 
Time to poach Florida now that we're flush with our unit $$$$$
 
PhDeac said:
Can you paraphrase for us poors who don't subscribe to Sportico?
Click to expand...

Oh lol. I don’t either. The link just worked for me. Basically we are guaranteed like 35 mil from the tourney with only 5 teams making it. The Big 10 will get the same since they played the same # of games but with almost twice the # of teams. SEC 14 mil less than us. PAC and Big 12 even lower. So I don’t get the original article here that puts us even with the Pac and Big 12 with our better tv deal and better March Madness money. And I think we are closer to the top 2 than what is suggested here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top