• 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:
Tell Pat Narduzzi that the ACC isn't in danger of becoming a farm system for the larger programs.
Click to expand...

A farm system just like Oklahoma is?

I’ll take that.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Georgia too. Their receiver hit the big time by going to Bama.
Click to expand...

It's a bizarre and disappointing move. He'll be very productive there for sure. His transfer and Addison's transfer are obvious examples of schools enticing players.

I think Georgia will throw it a lot more this year than they did last year though (while the games are still close). But with Burton leaving, the four elite tight ends will get even more targets.
 
Deaconblue said:
According to recent NBC report

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/college-football-head-coach-salaries-kirby-smart-2022-new-contract

Clawson at $3.6 million is making more than the average salary in every P5 conference except the SEC. So he is likely making more than average. Perception is skewed by the big numbers that get reported for the National championship contenders/winners (Kirby Smart, Nick Saban et al) and the "Wanna bes" (Jimbo Fischer, Brian Kelly et al). Everybody else in P5 is making less and Clawson's number would be competitive with them.

Because the slow mesh RPO is considered a "gimmick" offense by many, Clawson is considered by many to be a little less desirable as a head coach than somebody who runs a more conventional offense. So I don't see him as a candidate to be poached. Not many schools are paying more than Wake. Not many of those would want the slow mesh RPO. Would Clawson change his offense? I don't know. He probably would for $10 million.
Click to expand...

This is so stupid. Clawson runs the offense he runs because that is what best fits the caliber of player he is able to recruit at Wake. If he were to go to a larger school with a much deeper recruiting pool, he could and would change his offense to what fits best for the players. But I am very glad that the perception that he wouldn't or can't makes him "less desirable" to other schools.
 
Deaconblue said:
According to recent NBC report

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/college-football-head-coach-salaries-kirby-smart-2022-new-contract

Clawson at $3.6 million is making more than the average salary in every P5 conference except the SEC. So he is likely making more than average. Perception is skewed by the big numbers that get reported for the National championship contenders/winners (Kirby Smart, Nick Saban et al) and the "Wanna bes" (Jimbo Fischer, Brian Kelly et al). Everybody else in P5 is making less and Clawson's number would be competitive with them.

Because the slow mesh RPO is considered a "gimmick" offense by many, Clawson is considered by many to be a little less desirable as a head coach than somebody who runs a more conventional offense. So I don't see him as a candidate to be poached. Not many schools are paying more than Wake. Not many of those would want the slow mesh RPO. Would Clawson change his offense? I don't know. He probably would for $10 million.
Click to expand...


$3.6M was also from calendar year 2019. He got an extension last December. It will be some time before we know how much that is. Probably 2024.
 
If Clawson leaves it will not be because of money. We have plenty to throw at him.
 
Money helps... a lot, but its far from the only factor that determines success in CFB. The Big 10 and the SEC have apparently had the benefit of the infusion of money for a while now; yet, the dominant teams are the same teams that were good before the cash spigot opened up (Bama, tOSU, Clemson). I guess you can argue that UGA's recent success is an example of the cash making a difference, but UGA was always positioned to be elite in football as that state produced a ton of talent, and UGA has its pick of the best in-state prospects. UGA became dominant because they finally found a coach with a clue.

The argument that money is the determinative factor will be undeniable when a team from the SEC or Big 10 without the history dominates or at least shows that the money has allowed them to reach a new level. When Illinois or Mississippi State or Missouri or Indiana start grabbing CFP bids, then the money argument prevails. Right now, even with the SEC and Big 10 financial gains, college football hasn't changed that much: there are less than 5 teams with a shot at the Natty every year before the season begins, and everyone else is playing for a high profile bowl game. This year, does anyone think anyone other than Bama or tOSU is winning it all? If SEC or Big 10 conference money was such a massive determining factor of success why wouldn't their be more parity at least within the big money conferences? How could it be that, last year, a school like Cincy could be better than every other Big 10 team with the possible exception of tOSU and Michigan?

For years, Texas has been the most well funded program in the nation. They are the only school with their own sports network, and TX has an endless supply of donors that just can't spend money fast enough on the football proram. Yet, Texas has ONE finish in the last 11 seasons higher than #19 in the nation. Texas has lost 5 or more games in a season 9 times in the last 12 years, and one of the seasons they did not was because it was COVID shortened. Texas LOST TO KANSAS last year. Obviously, its great to be flush with cash, but there are just so many examples of the richest programs being unable to translate unlimited resources to football success.
 
Pilchard said:
Money helps... a lot, but its far from the only factor that determines success in CFB. The Big 10 and the SEC have apparently had the benefit of the infusion of money for a while now; yet, the dominant teams are the same teams that were good before the cash spigot opened up (Bama, tOSU, Clemson). I guess you can argue that UGA's recent success is an example of the cash making a difference, but UGA was always positioned to be elite in football as that state produced a ton of talent, and UGA has its pick of the best in-state prospects. UGA became dominant because they finally found a coach with a clue.

The argument that money is the determinative factor will be undeniable when a team from the SEC or Big 10 without the history dominates or at least shows that the money has allowed them to reach a new level. When Illinois or Mississippi State or Missouri or Indiana start grabbing CFP bids, then the money argument prevails. Right now, even with the SEC and Big 10 financial gains, college football hasn't changed that much: there are less than 5 teams with a shot at the Natty every year before the season begins, and everyone else is playing for a high profile bowl game. This year, does anyone think anyone other than Bama or tOSU is winning it all? If SEC or Big 10 conference money was such a massive determining factor of success why wouldn't their be more parity at least within the big money conferences? How could it be that, last year, a school like Cincy could be better than every other Big 10 team with the possible exception of tOSU and Michigan?

For years, Texas has been the most well funded program in the nation. They are the only school with their own sports network, and TX has an endless supply of donors that just can't spend money fast enough on the football proram. Yet, Texas has ONE finish in the last 11 seasons higher than #19 in the nation. Texas has lost 5 or more games in a season 9 times in the last 12 years, and one of the seasons they did not was because it was COVID shortened. Texas LOST TO KANSAS last year. Obviously, its great to be flush with cash, but there are just so many examples of the richest programs being unable to translate unlimited resources to football success.
Click to expand...

Agree with all of this. Don’t forget TAMU when you’re talking about programs flush with cash that doesn’t have the on-field success to show for it.
 
deacdixieboy said:
Agree with all of this. Don’t forget TAMU when you’re talking about programs flush with cash that doesn’t have the on-field success to show for it.
Click to expand...

TAMU is throwing so much cash around (and now directly and presumably legally), they will have success in spite of themselves.
 
ESPN has reportedly lowballed the PAC-12 with an offer of $24.5 million per school annually.
 
So now, who has reason to outbid ESPN ? The PAC 12 is really only good for networks that need late night programming. So, it's really just ESPN and FOX and the FOX regionals.
 
apple is paying $250 million a year for 10 years for the rights to the entire MLS, that is basically the same number that ESPN is offering for 10 PAC 12 schools without the LA market.

which is more valuable, the MLS or the PAC 10?
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
apple is paying $250 million a year for 10 years for the rights to the entire MLS, that is basically the same number that ESPN is offering for 10 PAC 12 schools without the LA market.

which is more valuable, the MLS or the PAC 10?
Click to expand...

Given that the MLS got more than expected and the Pac-12 got less, the PAC-12.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top