Shane Walsh
aka "Captain Oblivious"
- Cynthiana, Kentucky
Conference Realignment
- Status
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
Good luck with that GoR, dude.
Yeah, I get that some schools are going to break it, but not with 13-14 years left.
redwingillini11
White and Sixth
- North Aurora
Assuming there could be a palatable exit from the ACC, and of course understanding FSU would likely take an invite from either B1G or SEC, AND assuming B1G looks past AAU membership, what do we think would be FSU's preferred destination? They are certainly in SEC country and would culturally fit in perfectly, but would they rather collect the B1G money and be the lone Florida school in the B1G? There seemed to be a rumored appeal to Texas and Texas AM to be the only Texas school in the SEC or B1G.
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
I'd rather have Florida. But if that's not happening, I fully expect FSU will get an invite. I think getting a foothold in FL is very important to the powers that be.
Exactly, I don't think there is a solution to break the GOR. It isn't just the the money you would lose out on, but FSU couldn't bring their media rights with them until 2036, so the new conference gains nothing. It would be one thing to break it in ~2032 and take nothing for the first half of a better SEC or Big Ten media deal to make a lot, lot more in the second half of that future deal. But this is so far in the future, who knows what the landscape will even look like then.
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
is the U any more attractive than FSU ?
academically yes, but overall ? do we get any real eyeballs to TV with U Miami ?
from a football brand, FSU is stronger, but overall academically , FSU is basically Ole Miss , just 500 miles southeast, and I love Ole Miss as one of my sons went there
Last edited:
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
Some pretty knowledgeable people WRT realignment think FSU AND Miami are/will be in play, but who really knows? (purely rhetorical).
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The Big Two have the welcome opportunity to let the next decade play out before deciding on either, both, or neither.
It feels at this moment like FSU is in a lot of trouble, whereas the U seems like a team well positioned to take advantage of the NIL world. But that's why they play the games, let's see.
I agree that all other schools being told where to go, but disagree with the bolded. There are currently 15 schools with NO choice and ND is one of them.
Their GoR obligates them to the ACC, and stipulates that if they join a conference in football then the ACC gets their football TV money. Everyone wants to prognosticate as if the GoR can be easily dismissed, and I don’t believe that’s the case. Same thing happened with Texas and OU leaving early and they couldn’t even break the contract to leave 1 year early.
Notre Dame is not coming until ACC breaks up. I don’t think ND is tied to Stanford at all.
If there is more expansion I think it will include these Pac 12 candidates: Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Colorado
When the ACC implodes (can’t survive on current TV deal so implosion is just a matter of time) I think the candidates are: Notre Dame, UNC, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Miami
I think you raise good points but I also think the B1G has telegraphed their position a bit more with Warren stating that they support paying players directly. I wouldn’t be shocked if their end game goal isn’t simply being the richest conference but fully replacing the NCAA after growing to the point they can actually poach the SEC teams.
Last edited:
I don't believe that is correct. ND is not a full member for football and it is my understanding the GoR applies to them for all sports except football. There is still a one time financial penalty, but that's it. That's how ND is able to have their own agreement with NBC. Theoretically ND can join another conference for football only and keep all their other sports in the ACC until the GoR expires or the ACC disbands.
redwingillini11
White and Sixth
- North Aurora
This definitely seems like the best four teams to steal from out west. Cal would be a good football foil for Illinois, but swapping them with Colorado is even better.
As for those ACC schools, I don't know what to think about Miami. Barely any fans, decent university, decent athletics. But seeing them play games at the Dolphins' stadium is brutally underwhelming. Its almost sad that a team could have so little in-stadium support. I sneaky would like to see us get Georgia Tech. I think they'd be another fun Illinois foil.
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
he's not wrong:
BTW, apparently Oregon is in that group.
BTW, apparently Oregon is in that group.
Shief
- Champaign Area
Assuming Oregon has an athletic budget in a similar range to B1G schools currently, between 60 and 100 million per year, that's a bit concerning that their research budget is similar or lower. How is Oregon an AAU member at that research spending level? I am still open to them joining the B1G, if they apply, but they need to increase their research spending in the coming years.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The idea that anything having to do with football or athletic conferences will have any bearing on research grant award decisions in any way whatsoever is 100% balderdash, period, end of story. Reveals that the claiming person has zero idea what they're talking about.
And by the way, the University of Alabama is actually a very major research institution, it's just that the medical stuff is done at UAB (which is sensible because that's the state's biggest population center so that's where the patients are), and the high tech engineering stuff is done at UA-Huntsville (which is sensible because that's where NASA and the DOD are). Then the classical liberal arts stuff (low research dollars, high student population) is centered at the pretty legacy campus in Tuscaloosa.
That's a well designed higher education system. Our state could learn a thing or two.
Last edited:
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Another thought on conference expansion that isn't mentioned enough ... this is about money, but it isn't just about how much money each program can bring in tomorrow. Good investors consider future cash flows and the potential an investment offers should it realize that potential. As another poster said, I also don't know how the sausage is made. However, I can flat out guarantee you that the decision makers are looking at A LOT more data than we have our hands on ... this decision is not being made based on current football revenues and a school's average viewers in one frickin' season, lol. I would be shocked if they weren't looking at historical ratings, ratings per market, number of living alumni, average median income of alumni, potential "new fans" in major metros, etc.
Just as an example, let's look at two schools - Rutgers and Iowa State. Iowa State has been a much better football program with better revenues and better ratings ... but they're simply better at football! Who says it has to stay that way? The Big Ten will view each new school as an investor does - "If I throw some of my own money into this thing, how much better could the product be?" Iowa State might look "more valuable" right now from some lazy Forbes article using publicly available data, but there is a reason the Big Ten took Rutgers and not Iowa State back in 2012. And one big reason, if you ask me, is that RU's potential is WAY higher than Iowa State's. We're effectively seeing Iowa State's ceiling right now, whereas Rutgers has barely gotten off the ground. People can say "NJ doesn't care about college sports" or whatever, but RU scored the best-ever college football ratings in the New York media market in 2006 for their game vs. Louisville ... fans jump on the bandwagon of winners, and there is not some INHERENT reason that Rutgers couldn't be a winner with their instate talent, media placement and more Big Ten dollars coming in each year. We have all seen this phenomena with the Illini in Chicago - people barely care or wear their gear when we're awful, and then all of a sudden fans come flocking out of the woodwork when we're good. Some will say this is wishful thinking, but I guarantee you if Illinois were being considered for conference expansion, they would not only be looking at our current state of things ... they'd be pulling 2007-08 Rose Bowl TV ratings by market (especially Chicago) and seeing what Illini football looks like under competent leadership.
Because ANY program can get good with the right coach ... so I do think some of these decision makers are asking themselves, "What does Program A look like after five 9-win seasons in a row vs. Program B?" Because even if Washington looks less appealing than Oregon right now ... will that always be the case?? (I would have used Cal, but their budget mess is a whole other element, lol...)
Point for those who didn't want to read all of that crap ... potential matters. You cannot judge Illinois' following in Chicago or TV ratings ability during our stretch of 3-5 win seasons. You just can't. Wisconsin would not get the ratings they do now back in the 1980s. Schools like Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, etc. are complete non-starters for conference expansion, and I think this is why. We have seen their ceiling, and it's really not THAT much higher than the Illinois/Maryland/Rutgers/Cal programs of the world - and those programs are practically at their floors!
Just as an example, let's look at two schools - Rutgers and Iowa State. Iowa State has been a much better football program with better revenues and better ratings ... but they're simply better at football! Who says it has to stay that way? The Big Ten will view each new school as an investor does - "If I throw some of my own money into this thing, how much better could the product be?" Iowa State might look "more valuable" right now from some lazy Forbes article using publicly available data, but there is a reason the Big Ten took Rutgers and not Iowa State back in 2012. And one big reason, if you ask me, is that RU's potential is WAY higher than Iowa State's. We're effectively seeing Iowa State's ceiling right now, whereas Rutgers has barely gotten off the ground. People can say "NJ doesn't care about college sports" or whatever, but RU scored the best-ever college football ratings in the New York media market in 2006 for their game vs. Louisville ... fans jump on the bandwagon of winners, and there is not some INHERENT reason that Rutgers couldn't be a winner with their instate talent, media placement and more Big Ten dollars coming in each year. We have all seen this phenomena with the Illini in Chicago - people barely care or wear their gear when we're awful, and then all of a sudden fans come flocking out of the woodwork when we're good. Some will say this is wishful thinking, but I guarantee you if Illinois were being considered for conference expansion, they would not only be looking at our current state of things ... they'd be pulling 2007-08 Rose Bowl TV ratings by market (especially Chicago) and seeing what Illini football looks like under competent leadership.
Because ANY program can get good with the right coach ... so I do think some of these decision makers are asking themselves, "What does Program A look like after five 9-win seasons in a row vs. Program B?" Because even if Washington looks less appealing than Oregon right now ... will that always be the case?? (I would have used Cal, but their budget mess is a whole other element, lol...)
Point for those who didn't want to read all of that crap ... potential matters. You cannot judge Illinois' following in Chicago or TV ratings ability during our stretch of 3-5 win seasons. You just can't. Wisconsin would not get the ratings they do now back in the 1980s. Schools like Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, etc. are complete non-starters for conference expansion, and I think this is why. We have seen their ceiling, and it's really not THAT much higher than the Illinois/Maryland/Rutgers/Cal programs of the world - and those programs are practically at their floors!
How ACC Network deal impacts Notre Dame's football future | Sporting News
www.sportingnews.com
“Notre Dame's television agreement to have home games on NBC runs through 2025 and draws approximately $15 million per year. ESPN's contract with the ACC runs through 2036; Swofford said if the Irish choose to join a conference in football, they would be contractually obligated to join the ACC.”
GrayGhost77
- Centennial, CO
Illinois could easily be in the Top 15, or even Top 10, of those viewer rankings with a nice run of success (see Wisconsin, Iowa, or even Iowa State more recently). Our large alumni base and larger state population (and position as easily the most prominent university for sports in the state, sorry not sorry, Northwestern) virtually guarantees it if we ever stopped shooting ourselves in the foot repeatedly we could be a sleeping giant in the biggest and best conference in the country. If Whitman and BB can keep it going I think this will be proven out over the next decade. *knock on wood*
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
So, first of all, the reference to this as research "budgets" reveals again that the above tweeter has absolutely not the slightest iota of a clue of what they're talking about.
The research grant rankings being used for that data (viewable in full here) are for competitive awards that are granted to those institutions by outside funders, primarily the federal government. Faculty members put together proposals for research projects and agencies like the NIH or NSF decide which ones to fund. Comparisons to dollars spent directly by those schools on athletics is apples to oranges.
Incidentally, Oregon is a similar thing to Alabama. The Oregon Health and Sciences University in Portland was once the UO Medical Center, but in the 70's the state chose to spin it off into its own thing. So now you have OHSU in Portland doing the medical research, OSU in Corvallis doing the engineering research, and UO doing liberal arts, business, law, all of that sort of stuff, which is just as much a matter of stuffy academic hierarchy and prestige-mongering, just not something where you need Uncle Sam to award you $10 million to buy a bunch of complicated machines for your research project.
At the stroke of a pen the Oregon legislature could make OHSU part of UO again and they would be superficially back ahead of Iowa and even the University of Chicago on that list. And it would be totally meaningless. The ivy covered old buildings are in Eugene, the population center is Portland so that's where the big public teaching hospital needs to be. None of this has anything to do with how smart people who got BA's in political science in 1991 from these schools and yell about their football programs on twitter are. But they're all flopsweatting-ly desperate for that to be the case.
Kids don't believe in Santa Claus as intently as Big Ten fans believe in the idea there is something more elevated than just hand-to-mouth avarice at work in this conference carousel nonsense.
You'll shoot your eye out, kid.
Last edited:
SEC to Joel Goodson: If you spend more on research than sports, YOU'RE not a football conference
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
I disagree that political influence is #1, but it's a primary factor:
Schools like Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. are getting the majority of their research dollars based on merit. Yeah, I understand funding is a game.
Schools like Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. are getting the majority of their research dollars based on merit. Yeah, I understand funding is a game.
Last edited:
Yes, and the penalty of breaking that contract is the one time penalty I mentioned. Not the GoR penalty other teams face. Makes a big difference.How ACC Network deal impacts Notre Dame's football future | Sporting News
“Notre Dame's television agreement to have home games on NBC runs through 2025 and draws approximately $15 million per year. ESPN's contract with the ACC runs through 2036; Swofford said if the Irish choose to join a conference in football, they would be contractually obligated to join the ACC.”
- Status