Expansion Rumors…

[GTsapper]

I don’t want to play Memphis. FSU certainly doesn’t want to.

ZING!

 

[savbandjacket]

As time passes, I become more and more pessimistic of there being a lifeline for Tech to remain in top tier college athletics. The winners have been chosen by tv deals. Northwestern gets paid 3x more per year by its conference than any ACC schools do. That’s insane. There’s not any definite path for Tech to get to one of the chosen winners without there being some major shift in the current landscape. The current ACC deal is just a slow death - it’s enough oxygen to survive but not enough to compete long term.

 

[Buzzilla]

As time passes, I become more and more pessimistic of there being a lifeline for Tech to remain in top tier college athletics. The winners have been chosen by tv deals. Northwestern gets paid 3x more per year by its conference than any ACC schools do. That’s insane. There’s not any definite path for Tech to get to one of the chosen winners without there being some major shift in the current landscape. The current ACC deal is just a slow death - it’s enough oxygen to survive but not enough to compete long term.

I just don't believe this at all.

There are programs out there that have been successful for decades with far less. Boise State comes to mind. You have to find ways to succeed despite your limitations. That's the lesson of Georgia Tech. Find ways to succeed or decide to do something else.

These TV deals will continue to evolve. It should be obvious that none of this is set in stone forever. Practically speaking, Georgia Tech Athletics has never been in a better spot.

Tech has more money than it ever has. More TV exposure than ever. More opportunity now with the 12 team playoff.

Sure, there are others who have more, but Tech has enough to compete and will likely grow into more as time goes by. The ACC deal will likely be renegotiated next year. Regardless, the idea of two super conferences running college sports makes zero sense without adding A LOT more programs to each effectively neutralizing any advantage those programs have. A big pie can still only be sliced down so finely.

Ultimately, you can't have two super conferences without absorbing all of the ACC. ALL OF IT. No one is going to be left out. Certainly not Georgia Tech.

Tech will be fine. Better than fine.

 

[WracerX]

I just don't believe this at all.

There are programs out there that have been successful for decades with far less. Boise State comes to mind. You have to find ways to succeed despite your limitations. That's the lesson of Georgia Tech. Find ways to succeed or decide to do something else.

These TV deals will continue to evolve. It should be obvious that none of this is set in stone forever. Practically speaking, Georgia Tech Athletics has never been in a better spot.

Tech has more money than it ever has. More TV exposure than ever. More opportunity now with the 12 team playoff.

Sure, there are others who have more, but Tech has enough to compete and will likely grow into more as time goes by. The ACC deal will likely be renegotiated next year. Regardless, the idea of two super conferences running college sports makes zero sense without adding A LOT more programs to each effectively neutralizing any advantage those programs have. A big pie can still only be sliced down so finely.

Ultimately, you can't have two super conferences without absorbing all of the ACC. ALL OF IT. No one is going to be left out. Certainly not Georgia Tech.

Tech will be fine. Better than fine.

Not all of the ACC. Football would be fine without Wake or Duke. Those programs don’t have the alumni based to make a difference.

BC is kind of an outlier, but they likely make less sense than UConn or UMass.

 

[clapper]

Sources: ACC exploring new revenue structure to resolve Florida State, Clemson lawsuits

The conference’s presidents recently examined a proposal that would distribute revenue differently to conference members in a move to provide stability and preserve its current membership.

sports.yahoo.com

Talk about timing. Clemson and F$U argued in the Spring that success on the field should be rewarded by more money from the TV deal. The ACC gave them what they wanted. F$U starts out 0-3 and suddenly there's a new proposal tied to viewership. The ACC should pass that and then assign F$U to noon games on the CW.

 

[clapper]

BC is kind of an outlier, but they likely make less sense than UConn or UMass.

UMass is currently #7 in the Bottom 25 after losing to Eastern Mich., Toledo, and Buffalo by a combined 100-40. UConn couldn't even beat Duke last week.

 

[89Tex]

That’s funny. The only reason folks tune in to watch FSU at the current time is in the hopes of getting to watch them implode further.

 

[WracerX]

UMass is currently #7 in the Bottom 25 after losing to Eastern Mich., Toledo, and Buffalo by a combined 100-40. UConn couldn't even beat Duke last week.

But is it about winning? Or is it about fan interest? Does a BC that performs well about 10% of the time draw more viewers than a UMass team that performs 1% of the time? If BC got relegated to FCS, does it make even a ripple in FBS funding? Do Duke football fans watch the ACCCG?

There are teams in the ACC that wouldn’t move the needle in a new FBS-XL. Some teams like Vandy have gotten lucky to be on the gravy train. I just don’t see some of the smaller ACC teams making it, regardless of their success.

 

[Buzzilla]

Not all of the ACC. Football would be fine without Wake or Duke. Those programs don’t have the alumni based to make a difference.

BC is kind of an outlier, but they likely make less sense than UConn or UMass.

Wake and Duke won't be left out. There is enough to go around and you have to consider government politics which will undoubtedly begin leaning hard on the power brokers of college sports to sway how this evolves.

There are going to be more "big boy" programs in 10 years than there are now. Just like there are many more now than 10 years ago.

Houston, UCF, Cincinatti, SMU, BYU, TCU, Utah are just a few off the top of my head that have joined the "Power 4" conferences in recent history. There are others I'm sure.

The PAC-x is reassembling around Oregon State and Washington State and adding Boise State, Fresno State, Colorado State and San Diego State. That conference, once rebuilt, will have a say in all of this before it is over.

There are multiple "Group of 5" programs on the rise. Memphis, Tulane, Coastal Carolina, South Florida, and many others that will very likely find homes in the "Power 4" before this is all over.

There is going to be a lot of change coming and there are going to be more and more players in the game. It's a 12 team playoff now. That will likely grow as well. College football is rising in popularity and because of NIL and transfer liberation there is more parity than ever. The "have-nots" are getting better talent and better funding to compete.

Georgia Tech has benefited and will continue to regardless of what conference badge it wears.

 

[1982Jacket]

I just don't believe this at all.

There are programs out there that have been successful for decades with far less. Boise State comes to mind. You have to find ways to succeed despite your limitations. That's the lesson of Georgia Tech. Find ways to succeed or decide to do something else.

These TV deals will continue to evolve. It should be obvious that none of this is set in stone forever. Practically speaking, Georgia Tech Athletics has never been in a better spot.

Tech has more money than it ever has. More TV exposure than ever. More opportunity now with the 12 team playoff.

Sure, there are others who have more, but Tech has enough to compete and will likely grow into more as time goes by. The ACC deal will likely be renegotiated next year. Regardless, the idea of two super conferences running college sports makes zero sense without adding A LOT more programs to each effectively neutralizing any advantage those programs have. A big pie can still only be sliced down so finely.

Ultimately, you can't have two super conferences without absorbing all of the ACC. ALL OF IT. No one is going to be left out. Certainly not Georgia Tech.

Tech will be fine. Better than fine.

Georgia Tech Athletics has never been in a better spot?!? Are you ööööing delusional?

These folks might disagree. See the year 1990 (and yes, I know the last picture isn't from 1990, but it's a great pic and the point remains).

 

[gtGreg768b]

Just curious. What makes you think based on the current results through week 3 that the ACC is better top to bottom? Both leagues are 2-2 against one another.

The ACC “brands” (Clemson, FSU) are not exactly rolling right now. Miami is now the leader in the clubhouse? You really believe Miami is better than we’ll say Utah in a 1 off game based on the history of the 2?

Clemson still feels like the team who will come out on top. Just don’t trust a Mario C led team.

Both leagues need more middle teams to rise to the top and win 8-9 games. For the ACC, will Cuse, Pitt, GT, be those teams?

I think Clemson and Miami will both be stronger than Utah at the end of the year, and I would further assert that joining the Big12 that just lost Oklahoma and Texas would suck. Stanford, who was universally chosen as one of the lowest level ACC teams this year nearly beat TCU in one of those head to head games. I would put the Big12 above the ACC only in how proactive the league office has been in controlling the narrative about their conference, and getting the natural fits from the leftovers of the PAC12.

 

[Buzzilla]

Georgia Tech Athletics has never been in a better spot?!? Are you ööööing delusional?

These folks might disagree. See the year 1990 (and yes, I know the last picture isn't from 1990, but it's a great pic and the point remains).

You have misunderstood what "being in a better spot" means.

We have more money than we did in 1990.
We have better facilities than we did in 1990.
We have better opportunity with a 12 team playoff & automatic conference bid than we did in 1990.
We have better TV coverage than we did in 1990.
We make much more revenue from media rights than we did in 1990.
We have more academic options and less academic restrictions for student athletes than we did in 1990.

Georgia Tech athletics has never been in a better spot to compete. That's not even debatable.

 

[JJacket]

You have misunderstood what "being in a better spot" means.

We have more money than we did in 1990.
We have better facilities than we did in 1990.
We have better opportunity with a 12 team playoff & automatic conference bid than we did in 1990.
We have better TV coverage than we did in 1990.
We make much more revenue from media rights than we did in 1990.
We have more academic options and less academic restrictions for student athletes than we did in 1990.

Georgia Tech athletics has never been in a better spot to compete. That's not even debatable.

So does everyone else. We were in good shape in 1990 compared to other schools in 1990. Better shape than 2024 compared to other schools in 2024. Hell, even Northwestern is building a palace to football now. I remember when having an indoor practice field was rare. I remember having over 50k FT2 of training space was outstanding.

 

[The Jacket]

Georgia Tech athletics has never been in a better spot to compete. That's not even debatable.

The question is, will this still be true in five years?

 

[Buzzilla]

So does everyone else. We were in good shape in 1990 compared to other schools in 1990. Better shape than 2024 compared to other schools in 2024. Hell, even Northwestern is building a palace to football now. I remember when having an indoor practice field was rare. I remember having over 50k FT2 of training space was outstanding.

It's grow or die.

Tech is growing. More investment in every way. Tech isn't going away. The fear that Tech will be left out of "big boy" college football is way overblown.

Yes, Tech needs to continue investing and finding ways to improve the position for competing. It's pretty clear the President gets that. The AD gets that. The donors get that. Tech needs to continue fighting for the best position possible which may include moving conferences when the time comes. As long as the leadership understands that and continues making progress, Tech will be fine.

I disagree that Tech has lost ground relative to the general competition since 1990. You might want to go back and look at how bad the facilities at Tech were in 1990 and the years leading up to the Wardlaw Center. You might want to go back and look at how hard it was to get any academic exceptions for an athlete to enroll at Tech. Tech has gained significant ground in this regard.

Yes, programs like UGA have outpaced Tech. They've outpaced everyone. Yes, it sucks.

But Tech continues to steadily improve its position . I think things are only getting better from here.

 

[OptionJacket]

The question is, will this still be true in five years?

Was it true 5 years after 1990? The problem GT has had is we can’t sustain success. It’s been incredibly fleeting. We ahead Ross then disappeared. We had O’Leary then disappeared. We had Johnson then disappeared. We had Cremins, Hewitt had a year then we’ve been dead in hoops for 15 years. As Buzzilla points out, we are in an upswing right now with an opportunity to sustain something. Our past tells us we won’t. Can we finally break through under Key and Stoudamire?

 

[JJacket]

I honestly feel like, and some will say this is sacrilege, we need to raze and rebuild BDS.

 

[1982Jacket]

You have misunderstood what "being in a better spot" means.

We have more money than we did in 1990.
We have better facilities than we did in 1990.
We have better opportunity with a 12 team playoff & automatic conference bid than we did in 1990.
We have better TV coverage than we did in 1990.
We make much more revenue from media rights than we did in 1990.
We have more academic options and less academic restrictions for student athletes than we did in 1990.

Georgia Tech athletics has never been in a better spot to compete. That's not even debatable.

WE LOSE A öööö TON MORE THAN WE DID IN 1990. THAT's "not even debatable."

Which is ALL that ööööing matters. And if you don't agree wIth that . . . öööö you and the horse you rode in on..

 

[clapper]

WE LOSE A öööö TON MORE THAN WE DID IN 1990. THAT's "not even debatable."

Which is ALL that ööööing matters. And if you don't agree wIth that . . . öööö you and the horse you rode in on..

Since we had a tie in 1990, we've only lost 1/2 game more this year in football, and we're currently 7 games up in basketball.

 

[Buzzilla]

I honestly feel like, and some will say this is sacrilege, we need to raze and rebuild BDS.

I've been saying this for years. Most people hate the idea and get defensive when I point it out.

There has never been a comprehensive long term plan for the stadium and adjoining buildings and as a result it has become a hodgepodge of ill conceived architectural warts, bound by all kinds of code restrictions, glommed together like some kind of nightmare facility fruitcake. None of it really works on it's own, and none of it really works together. It's a ööööing mess.

It would take many years to demolish and start with something new and there are so many hoops to jump through for getting approval by all of the governing bodies it would take years to even design and even then you might not be left with a stadium worth doing. You have historical buildings to take in to consideration as well.

Love it or hate it, I think we're kind of stuck with it to stay mostly as it is. Might as well learn to love it and all it's "quirkiness".