Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

North Carolina passing Ohio and Michigan in population does not mean UNC will pass OSU or UM in student body size though. North Carolina being a big market does not mean that UNC will bring the eyeballs that those schools bring.

Plus, North Carolina's population will be passing Ohio and Michigan because of all the tOSU and Michigan fans moving here. The increased population will not be UNC fans for another generation or two.

 

[Sco Deac]

It's a fascinating decision for UNC, which I think probably has as much if not more appreciation for the ACC than any other member and all things being equal I'm sure has absolutely no desire to blow it up, but also wants to compete at the highest level and probably has the luxury of being able to choose where it plays.

So does it stick with the ACC, which probably allows the conference to maintain its existence in some form, out of appreciation for the history, geographic rivalries, and UNC's place as sort of the top dog in the conference, even if it means it's playing in a 2nd Tier league?

Or does it jump to the Big 10 or SEC, where it will be in the 1st Tier, but it destroys the historical ACC, loses it natural rivals and plays a bunch of games against Minnesota or Ole Miss, and is no longer top dog in the conference?

I mean, obviously I hope they stick with the ACC (even though, to be clear, I hate UNC sports with the passion of a thousand burning suns), but I also get why they might decide to "save themselves" by jumping. That's a really tough call, and there are a whole lot of UNC fans out there who care about their sports other than football.

Will schools start to demand other than equal revenue sharing? UNC could say, we want an annual payout of 1.75 X and we will stay. If not, we will go. Then the pressure is on the rest of the league to call or fold.

And for inspectah's analysis, its more like two cycles, but your point is valid that there is a relatively short term to make up the delta. I say 2 cycles, because the marginal increase a team stands to gain in jumping is closer to $50 MM/year.

 

[DownEastDeac]

If the BIG and SEC add teams and end up at 40 or so total, my hope is that every other DI conference would over time settle back into the old 8-9 team model with schools mostly within a couple hundred miles of each other.

 

[Frosty]

So with the projected new B10 payout of roughly $100M per school, per year (which may go higher), you make that up in a single football-player class cycle, give or take.

More like 10 years, if we assume the B10 payout is $100mm and the ACC payout is $50mm and neither of those change.

 

[macktheknife]

Plus, North Carolina's population will be passing Ohio and Michigan because of all the tOSU and Michigan fans moving here. The increased population will not be UNC fans for another generation or two.

More great local football prospects. One could make a case the Big Whatever knows their population is shrinking. Let's grab Southern California. Any long term demographic study would show the old Big Ten was in trouble via demographics. These are long term trends. There has to be a limit on the amount of money it takes to field a competitive football team. Alabama says it 170 million. Clemson says it's 110 million. The only thing I see another 50 million does is build a theme park for jocks. At some point a college President is going to figure out the brand belongs to The University and not the football coach. They are going to take this money and improve the academic side of their institutions. Replace the 30 year scam of student loans.

 

[macktheknife]

The ACC needs to look in the mirror. Who do you want to be. The current age of liberalism across the world got hold of college football. Days of front page coverage. Meanwhile an underpaid PHD level adjunct professor of physics at Alabama might figure out fusion reactors. Page 10 New York Times. Right thinking people know all this is wrong. Seriously. In your dream of dreams could you envision college atheletic depts receiving $1.1 Billion from a sketchy TV provider so the football coach can eat at Morton's instead of Outback.

 

[macktheknife]

The ACC needs to look in the mirror. Who do you want to be. The current age of liberalism across the world got hold of college football. Days of front page coverage. Meanwhile an underpaid PHD level adjunct professor of physics at Alabama might figure out fusion reactors. Page 10 New York Times. Right thinking people know all this is wrong. Seriously. In your dream of dreams could you envision college atheletic depts receiving $1.1 Billion from a sketchy TV provider so the football coach can eat at Morton's instead of Outback.

Meant to say illiberalism

 

[PhDeac]

Well said, mack. Thus understanding the diminishing returns of football spending. The ACC should focus on running lean programs with a culture that coaches and players can appreciate even without the theme park facilities and Morton’s steaks.

 

[Deacfreak07]

It's a fascinating decision for UNC, which I think probably has as much if not more appreciation for the ACC than any other member and all things being equal I'm sure has absolutely no desire to blow it up, but also wants to compete at the highest level and probably has the luxury of being able to choose where it plays.

So does it stick with the ACC, which probably allows the conference to maintain its existence in some form, out of appreciation for the history, geographic rivalries, and UNC's place as sort of the top dog in the conference, even if it means it's playing in a 2nd Tier league?

Or does it jump to the Big 10 or SEC, where it will be in the 1st Tier, but it destroys the historical ACC, loses it natural rivals and plays a bunch of games against Minnesota or Ole Miss, and is no longer top dog in the conference?

I mean, obviously I hope they stick with the ACC (even though, to be clear, I hate UNC sports with the passion of a thousand burning suns), but I also get why they might decide to "save themselves" by jumping. That's a really tough call, and there are a whole lot of UNC fans out there who care about their sports other than football.

The other piece of this is that you will give up some wins with some of these moves. Just look at how MD football has languished. Will unc fans tolerate not being as good relative to their conference?

 

[thatguy2016]

The other piece of this is that you will give up some wins with some of these moves. Just look at how MD football has languished. Will unc fans tolerate not being as good relative to their conference?

sure, that's a consideration. there is a gap between UNC's performance and the UNC fan perspective of their performance, of course (this is not unique to UNC)

UNC football is 45-45 in the ACC since Butch Davis left. 78-92 since Carl Torbush left.

 

[PhDeac]

All fans have that kind of gap though especially SEC and Big Ten fans.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

More great local football prospects. One could make a case the Big Whatever knows their population is shrinking. Let's grab Southern California. Any long term demographic study would show the old Big Ten was in trouble via demographics. These are long term trends. There has to be a limit on the amount of money it takes to field a competitive football team. Alabama says it 170 million. Clemson says it's 110 million. The only thing I see another 50 million does is build a theme park for jocks. At some point a college President is going to figure out the brand belongs to The University and not the football coach. They are going to take this money and improve the academic side of their institutions. Replace the 30 year scam of student loans.

You are missing the entire point of this. That $50 million is about to go to (legally) pay the players. That is what this is all gearing up towards. The money is not going back into the school. That spread from $110 to $170 is going to look massive when Bama's team payroll is triple that of Clemson after accounting for all of the normal AD operations. It is going to create a huge chasm, basically two divisions, between the schools that can afford to pay semi-pro salaries to their football teams and those that can afford to pay basic living stipends.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Well said, mack. Thus understanding the diminishing returns of football spending. The ACC should focus on running lean programs with a culture that coaches and players can appreciate even without the theme park facilities and Morton’s steaks.

There are diminishing returns now under the current system in flux. There will not be diminishing returns when the players start getting paid as employees.

 

[Pilchard]

You are missing the entire point of this. That $50 million is about to go to (legally) pay the players. That is what this is all gearing up towards. The money is not going back into the school. That spread from $110 to $170 is going to look massive when Bama's team payroll is triple that of Clemson after accounting for all of the normal AD operations. It is going to create a huge chasm, basically two divisions, between the schools that can afford to pay semi-pro salaries to their football teams and those that can afford to pay basic living stipends.

That's not exactly right, but in the real world application, there is no doubt that with more money for SEC or Big 10 schools from media rights sources, that provides more flexibility for donors to pay athletes at those schools.

The money that goes to the schools does not go to the players (at least not directly). Schools still can't pay players directly (other than stipends). That said, if Bama gets $170 million for its media rights and Clemson gets $110 million, then Bama doesn't have the same need to use donor revenue to support the athletic department and facilities. So, a larger percentage of donor money can be used to pay players (which is allowed under present NIL rules). As an example, if WF suddenly received a $170 million for its media rights, the need for the Deacon Club to raise money for scholarships, coaches' salaries and facilities, would not be as great, if at all. So, WF could indirectly direct donor money to NIL funding sources to pay (and recruit) athletes. The bottom line is that the schools that make the most money for their media rights have advantages (just like in pro sports). It doesn't mean that they will always win on the field or court, but it helps.

 

[Deacfreak07]

That's not exactly right, but in the real world application, there is no doubt that with more money for SEC or Big 10 schools from media rights sources, that provides more flexibility for donors to pay athletes at those schools.

The money that goes to the schools does not go to the players (at least not directly). Schools still can't pay players directly (other than stipends). That said, if Bama gets $170 million for its media rights and Clemson gets $110 million, then Bama doesn't have the same need to use donor revenue to support the athletic department and facilities. So, a larger percentage of donor money can be used to pay players (which is allowed under present NIL rules). As an example, if WF suddenly received a $170 million for its media rights, the need for the Deacon Club to raise money for scholarships, coaches' salaries and facilities, would not be as great, if at all. So, WF could indirectly direct donor money to NIL funding sources to pay (and recruit) athletes. The bottom line is that the schools that make the most money for their media rights have advantages (just like in pro sports). It doesn't mean that they will always win on the field or court, but it helps.

It would be naive and frankly pretty unethical to think that these absurd TV contracts don't end up going directly to players in some way. Frankly they should, and they definitely will end up there.

 

[PhDeac]

Absurd contracts haven’t gone to players yet.

 

[guitardeac]

I think the players will unionize relatively soon and demand a much bigger share of the money - and get it. You're going to have college programs bringing in money not far from some NFL teams. That money will to some large extent end up in the athletes' hands and you won't have anything even resembling college sports anymore, not that you do now .

 

[DownEastDeac]

You are missing the entire point of this. That $50 million is about to go to (legally) pay the players. That is what this is all gearing up towards. The money is not going back into the school. That spread from $110 to $170 is going to look massive when Bama's team payroll is triple that of Clemson after accounting for all of the normal AD operations. It is going to create a huge chasm, basically two divisions, between the schools that can afford to pay semi-pro salaries to their football teams and those that can afford to pay basic living stipends.

And I'd propose a 3rd division: schools that could afford to pay their players semi-pro salaries, but instead have the guts to call b.s. on the whole thing and say "thanks, but we'll pass".

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

That's not exactly right, but in the real world application, there is no doubt that with more money for SEC or Big 10 schools from media rights sources, that provides more flexibility for donors to pay athletes at those schools.

The money that goes to the schools does not go to the players (at least not directly). Schools still can't pay players directly (other than stipends). That said, if Bama gets $170 million for its media rights and Clemson gets $110 million, then Bama doesn't have the same need to use donor revenue to support the athletic department and facilities. So, a larger percentage of donor money can be used to pay players (which is allowed under present NIL rules). As an example, if WF suddenly received a $170 million for its media rights, the need for the Deacon Club to raise money for scholarships, coaches' salaries and facilities, would not be as great, if at all. So, WF could indirectly direct donor money to NIL funding sources to pay (and recruit) athletes. The bottom line is that the schools that make the most money for their media rights have advantages (just like in pro sports). It doesn't mean that they will always win on the field or court, but it helps.

Yeah no shit, under the current system. But the current system is failing at a pretty significant rate.

Within the next 5 years, I guaranty that college football players will be W-2 employees of their school. That is where this money is going, and why the SEC and Big Televenteen are pushing it. Once they lock in their new deals, they can easily capitulate to the players, openly pay them salaries, and bury the schools that can't.

 

[awakegirl]

[/B]

And I'd propose a 3rd division: schools that could afford to pay their players semi-pro salaries, but instead have the guts to call b.s. on the whole thing and say "thanks, but we'll pass".

So the “guts” to use them as slave labor?