Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away

The Tower

By The Tower
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Sandbagging Steve,

How many teams will be left when the dust settles in a few years? I think there's a way for all the teams to still have some involvement. I will explain that at the end of this list. Here's my list of the top 32 programs and a list if it goes to 48. There's some debate if it goes to 48, but not much debate if it stops at 32. I guess one could debate Arizona State, but that's about it. The top 32 at least come close to carrying their own weight. Everyone below that line is losing money for t

This is great content for free.

Recommended by immamac

  • Hook 'Em

6 reactions

Go to this post
  • Replies 36.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bullet

    1507

  • Hurtlocker

    1322

  • Al_4_ISU

    1079

  • BurntOrange&White

    976

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hiphopopotamos
Hiphopopotamos
MAUFRAIS
MAUFRAIS

Aggy should abstain so the vote is 13-0 and then we can then brand it on their dog.

jofus
jofus

Posted Images

Park Gothic

Park Gothic 5,020

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Being in the same athletic conference as Stanford (or whoever) does not bring grant funding/ research upgrades/ etc. Any ASU researchers working on projects that overlap with Stanford researchers are building those collaborations regardless of athletics, and vice versa. Hell most researchers don't even know what athletic conference their school is in. This internet myth of "being in the same conference impacts academics" sounds right to people who aren't in academia, and as such it just refuses to die. It's like the old line of Ann Richards getting Baylor into the Big XII (it was Bullock).  

The drum that schools like ASU have been banging is not that they share revenue, but that the schools' athletic association opens up the doors for additional academic association. It's not codified in the conference bylaws (like the B1G's Academic Alliance), but the school presidents would be hard pressed to say they only discuss athletics outside of the conference rooms when they meet semi-annually. The schools that align together in the athletic conference (Pac-12) also align together and help each other as institutions, including research projects.

You are correct that research funding isn't pooled and split across the members of the athletic conference. The argument made by the people in charge at Utah and ASU has been that by associating with schools like Stanford they increase their potential funding from research.

Personally, I don't know anything about this. If you do, then I'm happy to defer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John80

John80 157

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Being in the same athletic conference as Stanford (or whoever) does not bring grant funding/ research upgrades/ etc. Any ASU researchers working on projects that overlap with Stanford researchers are building those collaborations regardless of athletics, and vice versa. Hell most researchers don't even know what athletic conference their school is in. This internet myth of "being in the same conference impacts academics" sounds right to people who aren't in academia, and as such it just refuses to die. It's like the old line of Ann Richards getting Baylor into the Big XII (it was Bullock).  

Th Big Ten fans and schools really keeps this myth going. I point to a school like UC-San Francisco (great research funding, no sports) and I just get blank stares from them. If academics actually mattered the Big Ten wouldn't have rejected Cal and added Nebraska.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTbear

LTbear 4,168

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

The drum that schools like ASU have been banging is not that they share revenue, but that the schools' athletic association opens up the doors for additional academic association. It's not codified in the conference bylaws (like the B1G's Academic Alliance), but the school presidents would be hard pressed to say they only discuss athletics outside of the conference rooms when they meet semi-annually. The schools that align together in the athletic conference (Pac-12) also align together and help each other as institutions, including research projects.

You are correct that research funding isn't pooled and split across the members of the athletic conference. The argument made by the people in charge at Utah and ASU has been that by associating with schools like Stanford they increase their potential funding from research.

Personally, I don't know anything about this. If you do, then I'm happy to defer. 

It is not true; it's just something that sounds right to people online. Grants aren't awarded for athletic association (and that's the only association that is being discussed here), and playing football against another school doesn't make a researcher suddenly realize there are people at Stanford working on similar projects and thus a collaboration could be born (any decent researcher already knows of EVERYONE in their field). 

FWIW, I'm a college professor who spent a combined 7 years at Stanford and Cal. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gatormarc

gatormarc 911

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

ACC and Pac fans who talk about the academic benefits of playing in a certain conference (other than the B1G) are a lot like people who believe in bigfoot. They are passionate about their beliefs, but get really upset when you press them for specifics. 

It's not limited to those two conferences.

I heard from a B1G fan this morning that all of their expansion targets have been a great fit because similar culture and geography aren't important.

That's not to say that all fanbases aren't like that, but SEC fans don't really need to move any goalposts right now to explain what Sankey is doing.

Edited by gatormarc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Richard Kimball

Richard Kimball 1,494

Posted
Posted (edited)

When the SWC broke up, Rice decided they weren't going to emphasize athletics (not that they ever did, that much.) They're an academic institution, and are okay with annual conference payouts of $5 to $8 million. 

The Ivy League doesn't give out any athletic scholarships. 

Some of the PAC schools have to make a decision. If they are too academically prestigious to deal with a "Truck Stop" conference, that's cool. They can't expect to get the benefits (money) of being in a conference that emphasizes football when they think they're too cool to associate with schools that do emphasize it. 

My breakdown right now:

Oregon wants their football, but the only reason the administration gives a shit about athletics is because of the Phil Knight money. 

Washington. The administration doesn't give a shit about football, but wants the reputation of being a football school. 

Stanford doesn't give a shit about football and with their endowment, not sweating the money. 

Cal doesn't give a shit about football, but really wants the money. 

Washington State and Oregon State are remoras looking for a bigger fish to latch onto. 

Utah is like Sarah Jessica Parker. They think they're a lot hotter than they are. 

Arizona doesn't have delusions. They're looking out for #1. 

Arizona State. All I know about them is their administration seems to peg out the goofy scale.  

Edited by Richard Kimball
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Nate

Uncle Nate 2,097

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

When the SWC broke up, Rice decided they weren't going to emphasize athletics (not that they ever did, that much.) They're an academic institution, and are okay with annual conference payouts of $5 to $8 million. 

The Ivy League doesn't give out any athletic scholarships. 

Some of the PAC schools have to make a decision. If they are too academically prestigious to deal with a "Truck Stop" conference, that's cool. They can't expect to get the benefits (money) of being in a conference that emphasizes football when they think they're too cool to associate with schools that do emphasize it. 

My breakdown right now:

Oregon wants their football, but the only reason the administration gives a shit about athletics is because of the Phil Knight money. 

Washington. The administration doesn't give a shit about football, but wants the reputation of being a football school. 

Stanford doesn't give a shit about football and with their endowment, not sweating the money. 

Cal doesn't give a shit about football, but really wants the money. 

Washington State and Oregon State are remoras looking for a bigger fish to latch onto. 

Utah is like Sarah Jessica Parker. They think they're a lot hotter than they are. 

Arizona doesn't have delusions. They're looking out for #1. 

Arizona State. All I know about them is their administration seems to peg out the goofy scale.  

Pretty accurate. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21,805

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think Stanford cares, they just aren't going to muck around SEC style to win, they have a unique offering, and it leads to them having really good teams every now and then. I think they'd join the BIG if offered, but would be just fine getting paid less with a few west coast friends, or going independent if necessary.

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites
USC Traveler

USC Traveler 488

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Sandman said:

Does ND have some sort of out that I've missed (Which is entirely possible)? I thought they were locked in the ACC for years?

ND can resign from the ACC, then buy their way out of the ACC GOR very cheaply b/c they are non-football members, and the value of their non-football rights doesn't amount to much. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gatormarc

gatormarc 911

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

ND can resign from the ACC, then buy their way out of the ACC GOR very cheaply b/c they are non-football members, and the value of their non-football rights doesn't amount to much. 

1/3 of the cost is still not cheap. Plus they still need to pay the full exit fee, correct?

And they'd also be gaining less because their NBC+ACC deal combined is a smaller gap compared to what they would get by jumping.

Edited by gatormarc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurntOrange&White

BurntOrange&White 39,931

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

1/3 of the cost is still not cheap. Plus they still need to pay the full exit fee, correct?

And they'd also be gaining less because their NBC+ACC deal combined is a smaller gap compared to what they would get by jumping.

Yes. They have to pay full exit to conference and GOR to move their other sports that aren’t football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky 1,666

Posted
Posted

Taking time to listen to the utterances of YouTubers associated with FSU, their strategy seems to include leveraging an ACC withdrawl to the B1G in 2024. They say that a negotiated 2 to 3 year transition to the SEC with a lowered buyout of about 300 MM or so with ESPN would be ideal. This transition would include a renegotiated media rights revenue distribution for FSU while they wait for their membership to the SEC.

They say there have been conversations with ESPN this week, and conversations between ESPN and the ACC this week. However, I would assume a negotiated transition to the SEC with ESPN would lead to lawsuits between the ACC and ESPN.

On the other hand, if ESPN does not offer terms that are acceptable to FSU, then they are prepared ro withdrawal from the ACC before August 15th. They would then face lawsuits with the ACC and ESPN. They say that the B1G is going to be aggressive enough to give them a full revenue distribution while these legal battles take place, as the B1G seems to really want a foothold in the Southeast.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
USC Traveler

USC Traveler 488

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

1/3 of the cost is still not cheap. Plus they still need to pay the full exit fee, correct?

And they'd also be gaining less because their NBC+ACC deal combined is a smaller gap compared to what they would get by jumping.

 

8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yes. They have to pay full exit to conference and GOR to move their other sports that aren’t football. 

The exit fee is three times the annual revenue received, so, like the GOR buyout, ND's exit fee will be small because it's only their non-football rights that are involved.  It's a completely different world than what FSU and Clemson are looking at.

ND would make at least $70m/year in the BIG, but we know there are escalators in the BIG deal specifically for ND, so that base number would be higher.

The payout also goes up each year.  Compared to the their current deal, they'd be in the black by year 3 even with the exit fee and buying out the GOR.

The question is how much is NBC willing to pay them for an ACC-heavy home schedule each year ?

The delta between NBC's offer vs what they can make in the BIG (and still have their home games exclusively on NBC as part of the deal to join) is what will determine things.  

If FSU does actually announce they're leaving in the next two weeks, and that causes a chain reaction, that would shift things heavily in favor of ND to the BIG.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Wahoo

Texas Wahoo 3,394

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Taking time to listen to the utterances of YouTubers associated with FSU, their strategy seems to include leveraging an ACC withdrawl to the B1G in 2024. They say that a negotiated 2 to 3 year transition to the SEC with a lowered buyout of about 300 MM or so with ESPN would be ideal. This transition would include a renegotiated media rights revenue distribution for FSU while they wait for their membership to the SEC.

They say there have been conversations with ESPN this week, and conversations between ESPN and the ACC this week. However, I would assume a negotiated transition to the SEC with ESPN would lead to lawsuits between the ACC and ESPN.

On the other hand, if ESPN does not offer terms that are acceptable to FSU, then they are prepared ro withdrawal from the ACC before August 15th. They would then face lawsuits with the ACC and ESPN. They say that the B1G is going to be aggressive enough to give them a full revenue distribution while these legal battles take place, as the B1G seems to really want a foothold in the Southeast.

This seems like nonsense to me, but if the Big Ten is willing to give FSU a full share without being able to sell/broadcast their home games for the next 13 years in order to get into the southeast, I guess it’s a win-win-win. FSU gets more money, the ACC doesn’t lose any money on broadcast rights, and ESPN gets to broadcast 4/5 Big Ten games a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...