Expansion

[Walton]

On Maryland, there is an Athletic article that says their move to the BIG has been a financial disaster. Do the facts actually back that up?

 

[aeromech]

No one in Texas give's two öööös about SMU. I'm sure they'll add a whole dozen new eyeballs to ACC broadcasts. The same goes for Stanford and UCal. If those schools had any fanbase, the BIG 14 would have swallowed them up, too.

RIght now no one cares about SMU. The speculation is that if SMU can get into a conference, the money guys at SMU will NIL them into relevance. SMU has about a 2 billion dollar endowment and a confirmed history of paying players; so while it is a gamble it isn't far fetched. IF SMU can buy a team, they will get eyeballs just like they did the last time they bought a team.

 

[Buzzilla]

It's been brought up several times already, but I genuinely wonder how much longer before underperforming programs begin to be targeted within their respective conferences for demotion. Without digging too deeply, you can generally identify the under performers here: https://www.winsipedia.com/ranking/all-time-record. All time records may not be the best metric since ancient history can really skew the data, but it is still revealing.

For reference: Georgia Tech .581 (749-534-43) ranked 35th all time by overall winning percentage.

Here is the list of programs with all time losing records for the P5 conferences.
ACC
Duke .490 (529-551-31)
Wake Forest .421 (488-677-33)

B1G
Rutgers .491 (666-690-42)
Northwestern .447 (559-696-44)
Indiana .420 (503-704-44)

SEC
Mississippi State .495 (589-602-39)
Vanderbilt .486 (617-655-50)

BIG12
Kansas .469 (594-677-58)
Kansas State .458 (561-667-41)
Iowa State .456 (559-672-46)

Currently homeless and other notables
Washington State .498 (571-575-45)
SMU .484 (526-563-54)
Oregon State .474 (561-624-50)

There are a lot of programs in the P5 conferences with just over a 50/50 winning record. They would likely be in the danger zone as well.

These P5 losing football programs have gotten a free ride feasting at the conference's expense. Some of these programs have been much more competitive in recent years and have started investing their conference payouts back into the program to make them more competitive. Some of them are still languishing and are basically just collecting paychecks.

It is interesting to note that Oregon State and Washington State have all time losing records and are now homeless.

 

[DinnerJacket]

And what I was told, the existing Big 10 pays out $100 mil/ yr, the SEC pays out $80 mil /yr., the expanded ACC would now be around $75-77 mil/ yr.. A whole lot more than we currently are getting at $35 mil/ yr.

 

[GoGATech]

And what I was told, the existing Big 10 pays out $100 mil/ yr, the SEC pays out $80 mil /yr., the expanded ACC would now be around $75-77 mil/ yr.. A whole lot more than we currently are getting at $35 mil/ yr.

Where did you see the expanded ACC would be $75-77mil/year payout per school?? The only numbers I've seen indicate that adding those 3 would increase the total payout by about that much annually. Then you have to subtract the 30% or whatever payout Cal and Stanford get, so about net $50-55 mil to split between the 14 remaining teams. So say $4 mil tops, add to the current $35 and we're at $39 mil/yr, not $75 mil.

 

[WracerX]

RIght now no one cares about SMU. The speculation is that if SMU can get into a conference, the money guys at SMU will NIL them into relevance. SMU has about a 2 billion dollar endowment and a confirmed history of paying players; so while it is a gamble it isn't far fetched. IF SMU can buy a team, they will get eyeballs just like they did the last time they bought a team.

The problem with SMU is that if they could buy a team, then they would have already done it. They should have made themselves a Boise State record. Or had a Cincinnati argument or just enough wins over good teams plus a multi year history of smashing bad teams. It is the Miami in the Big East model.

 

[aeromech]

On Maryland, there is an Athletic article that says their move to the BIG has been a financial disaster. Do the facts actually back that up?

Maryland was in a financial disaster when they left the ACC (you can google plenty of articles of that). It would not be shocking to find out they are still in financial trouble; but I can't imagine is worse than what they had before joining the B1G. I haven't heard any rumors they want back in the ACC.

 

[aeromech]

The problem with SMU is that if they could buy a team, then they would have already done it. They should have made themselves a Boise State record. Or had a Cincinnati argument or just enough wins over good teams plus a multi year history of smashing bad teams. It is the Miami in the Big East model.

It is harder to get your money guys to buy a team for The American conference than it is for a P4 (or P5) conference. It is also tough to get players to come to The American. It is still a gamble for sure.

 

[THWUGA]

The vaaaaaaaaaast majority of folks here who think GT going to the BIG 14 (which, BTW, is never going to happen) is a panacea are literally ONLY worried about beating dwags. They could not give two öööös about "in-conference." They are just beaten down and tired of all their dwag neighbors, family, and co-workers laughing at them, and they think that if Tech only had more money then maybe it could beat ugag once in a while.

It really is just that simple.

BYW, are there any BIG 14 schools who have an annual rivalry with some school outside the BIG 14? Iowa-Iowa State, FWIW (which is not much)? Any others? When ND joined the ACC in everything except sharing their football moneys, they stopped playing UMich, Purdue, Mich St, etc.

For example, when Penn State joined the BIG 14, they had to abandon a nearly unbroken 100 year rivalry with Pitt. Ditto Nebraska/Oklahoma - which used to be one of the biggest bational games every year.

In the SEC, ditto Texas A&M/Texas. The "Border War" between Missouri/Kansas. It looks like Bedlam ist kaput. Etc., etc., etc. However, they did maintain Clem's Son vs South Carolina.

So IF in some alternate universe Tech joined the BIG 14, it might have to stop playing dwags anyway.

It’s not that simple. Those of us who want to get into the B1G realize that just them and the SEC will be playing the top level of football in a decade or so, max. The rest of the programs will be a bunch of Conference USA teams, by comparison of the 1990s.

Long term, what’s the upside of that? GT being an occasional Boise State type team is the best outcome. I’d rather suck and be relevant than be above average and irrelevant, and it’s not even close.

 

[THWUGA]

Where did you see the expanded ACC would be $75-77mil/year payout per school?? The only numbers I've seen indicate that adding those 3 would increase the total payout by about that much annually. Then you have to subtract the 30% or whatever payout Cal and Stanford get, so about net $50-55 mil to split between the 14 remaining teams. So say $4 mil tops, add to the current $35 and we're at $39 mil/yr, not $75 mil.

Correct. It’s reported that the total conference payout would increase by $70-75MM. Which means they barely pay for themselves. Which means our next deal was (is?) about to go way down. Which makes sense if you have been watching the ACC programs on the field, including ours unfortunately.

 

[juraitwaluzka]

Apparently the TV contract can be renegotiated if the membership drops. If say Clemson and FSU left, we would be in a world of hurt.

I’m still holding on to my fantasy that 8 teams will vote to disband the league and join the SEC. If you follow the logic of the SEC in adding large public institutions in adjoining states then we are in.

I'll agree that is a total fantasy scenario. As a Tech fan it should be abundantly clear that there are an infinite number of scenarios that could play out if the ACC disbanded and history suggests that no matter which outcome the collapse of the wave function produces, the overwhelming odds are that we are left on the outside looking in with our dick in our hand.

Case in point, who else would have their ACC title "vacated" because of a pair of shoes or whatever. The universe isn't going to change to a Tech friendly view.

 

[juraitwaluzka]

It’s not that simple. Those of us who want to get into the B1G realize that just them and the SEC will be playing the top level of football in a decade or so, max. The rest of the programs will be a bunch of Conference USA teams, by comparison of the 1990s.

Long term, what’s the upside of that? GT being an occasional Boise State type team is the best outcome. I’d rather suck and be relevant than be above average and irrelevant, and it’s not even close.

What does relevant and irrelevant mean in this context?

Football? Money? American Idol votes?

Is Vandy relevant, but Boise is irrelevant?

Thus you would rather have Vandy results vs Boise results?

Vandy has an easier path to the title being in the SEC? Technically perhaps in that regard, but the reality is they haven't and never will. Boise was at least in that discussion.

Doesn't seem like there is a clear answer.

 

[WracerX]

It is harder to get your money guys to buy a team for The American conference than it is for a P4 (or P5) conference. It is also tough to get players to come to The American. It is still a gamble for sure.

True, but you don’t need great guys to go 11-1 in the American. Success brings success. I’m afraid SMU is going to be all hat.

 

[clapper]

I don't get those that are convinced that the ACC is on its way to implosion. If nobody can leave and they are still brining in the third most dollars, what causes it to disintegrate? Sure, they will struggle to compete with much of the $EC/B!G, but everyone else is in even worse condition.

 

[THWG247]

And what I was told, the existing Big 10 pays out $100 mil/ yr, the SEC pays out $80 mil /yr., the expanded ACC would now be around $75-77 mil/ yr.. A whole lot more than we currently are getting at $35 mil/ yr.

No that $75mil/yr is how much more the three teams are projected to add to the ACC’s yearly revenue, which is not great since the payout to each team is 40mil/year, not sure whats going to happen when Stanford and SMU start getting a full share, maybe FSU, Clem and UNC are gone by then....

 

[stech81]

No that $75mil/yr is how much more the three teams are projected to add to the ACC’s yearly revenue, which is not great since the payout to each team is 40mil/year, not sure whats going to happen when Stanford and SMU start getting a full share, maybe FSU, Clem and UNC are gone by then....

This sounds right. Not that it matters I see no way they vote on it this week. FSU is shut down their campus this week ( not that it matters what the cry babies want)

 

[clapper]

This sounds right. Not that it matters I see no way they vote on it this week. FSU is shut down their campus this week ( not that it matters what the cry babies want)

So, one member voting no brings a shooter on campus and another summons a hurricane. Can't wait to see Clemson's excuse next week. (Rooting for the meteor.)

 

[WracerX]

So, one member voting no brings a shooter on campus and another summons a hurricane. Can't wait to see Clemson's excuse next week. (Rooting for the meteor.)

3:1 odds it involves monkey pox

 

[GTCrew4b]

I don't get those that are convinced that the ACC is on its way to implosion. If nobody can leave and they are still brining in the third most dollars, what causes it to disintegrate? Sure, they will struggle to compete with much of the $EC/B!G, but everyone else is in even worse condition.

This is correct staying in the ACC is the best option right now, but if the Big Ten wanted to drag us out along with FSU, Clemson and a few other ACC teams. I would do it in a heartbeat. I think eventually the Big Ten and ACC will merge and the SEC and Big Twelve will merge.

 

[stinger78]

It's been brought up several times already, but I genuinely wonder how much longer before underperforming programs begin to be targeted within their respective conferences for demotion. Without digging too deeply, you can generally identify the under performers here: https://www.winsipedia.com/ranking/all-time-record. All time records may not be the best metric since ancient history can really skew the data, but it is still revealing.

For reference: Georgia Tech .581 (749-534-43) ranked 35th all time by overall winning percentage.

Here is the list of programs with all time losing records for the P5 conferences.
ACC
Duke .490 (529-551-31)
Wake Forest .421 (488-677-33)

B1G
Rutgers .491 (666-690-42)
Northwestern .447 (559-696-44)
Indiana .420 (503-704-44)

SEC
Mississippi State .495 (589-602-39)
Vanderbilt .486 (617-655-50)

BIG12
Kansas .469 (594-677-58)
Kansas State .458 (561-667-41)
Iowa State .456 (559-672-46)

Currently homeless and other notables
Washington State .498 (571-575-45)
SMU .484 (526-563-54)
Oregon State .474 (561-624-50)

There are a lot of programs in the P5 conferences with just over a 50/50 winning record. They would likely be in the danger zone as well.

These P5 losing football programs have gotten a free ride feasting at the conference's expense. Some of these programs have been much more competitive in recent years and have started investing their conference payouts back into the program to make them more competitive. Some of them are still languishing and are basically just collecting paychecks.

It is interesting to note that Oregon State and Washington State have all time losing records and are now homeless.

Agree. Where have the dollars gone, Vandy? Indiana? Where are you investing all those millions of $$$? It's the minor sports, the so-called Olympic sports, that are sucking them down. Building and maintaining venues for all these teams gets expensive when you multiply it by 15-20. Also, the major sports coaches' salaries are outrageous. But they're not eating up all of it. With conferences stroking annual paychecks north of $50M a year, where is the money going?