ACC endgame?

[BlueMAB]

I didn't think so. I think some assume several really good football schools don't rely on what the SEC is selling. I'm not sure about Ohio State, but I think in most of the Big10, people just like coming to games on Saturdays.

My question was rhetorical.

Finally, hell will freeze over before Northwestern or Vanderbilt will openly pay players, and that is the direction college athletics is going.

I think there is a meaningful chance that the remaining ACC schools, and several other schools east of the Rockies, say "no mas", and form a new conference. I think the top flight academic schools want no part of paying players, and that is where this is going...

...I think a lot of these schools are disgusted by the direction of college football. They don't want to drop to DII, but they don't want to be semi-pro either.

He may be right, it's certainly possible if the money is right. I'm just asking that he explain why the money would be right. The schools wouldn't be able to compete at a high level, and the product would suffer. And the content would be less valuable, and the contract would reflect that. They could potentially make enough to survive. Calling it "formidable" is nutty.

 

[upstater]

Everyone would love for their kid to go to Yale, Brown, Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn or Princeton. They are national universities in or near cities for the most part.

Only an idiot would debate that fact. Why isn't ESPN or NBC interested in their product?

You state the obvious, and then conclude that you think NBC or ESPN would pay decently for them. But you still haven't said why. Academics have nothing to do content and markets. You're using their location as a positive while ignoring the fact that most of that league would be 2nd (at best) and typically third rate programming compared to the alternatives.

Why?
1) Most of them are already largely considered second rate. Only 3 of the 10 are BCS programs. They aren't in the most valuable conferences now.

2) You said this would happen because schools would start to legally pay for play. Scholarships help to try and level the playing field. If schools are allowed to bid on players in an open market, and these schools refuse to do that, then the athletes they put on the field will be to the BCS conferences what the Ivy League is to the FCS conferences.

You're creating a scenario where they refuse to compete for top athletes and then argue they're going to get "formidable" money? Did that work for the Ivy League?

This has been debated on the B10 boards, and several of the schools' fans said they'd rather not pay players and continue on in the current fashion. I think such schools might actually lose more fans on Saturdays by paying them than not.

 

[BlueMAB]

This has been debated on the B10 boards, and several of the schools' fans said they'd rather not pay players and continue on in the current fashion. I think such schools might actually lose more fans on Saturdays by paying them than not.

I'm not debating that. Look at my last post where I quoted waylon.

I was responding to his argument using his assumptions. Not mine.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I'm not debating that. Look at my last post where I quoted waylon.

I was responding to his argument using his assumptions. Not mine.

You have no idea what you are debating. Upstater and I are saying the same thing.

 

[BlueMAB]

You have no idea what you are debating. Upstater and I are saying the same thing.

Yup, you're officially insane.

He disagreed with you about 2 posts ago about who Duke would associate with. Discussions with you would be a lot easier if you actually responded to what people say to you. The next time you have a discussion with someone without assigning them an opinion/statement/stance for you to disagree with will be the first time.

Your conference will be about as 'formidable' as the MAC is. You've yet to explain why it's valuable considering the competition in their markets and their current value.

 

[upstater]

Yup, you're officially insane.

He disagreed with you about 2 posts ago about who Duke would associate with. Discussions with you would be a lot easier if you actually responded to what people say to you. The next time you have a discussion with someone without assigning them an opinion/statement/stance for you to disagree with will be the first time.

Your conference will be about as 'formidable' as the MAC is. You've yet to explain why it's valuable considering the competition in their markets and their current value.

It's possible we all agree and disagree. I can disagree with Waylon about who Duke will associate with, but agree with him that Duke will only associate with schools that will not pay. Whether Cincy and USF are fine with that, it's up to them. They may both be better off paying players in the Sun Belt.

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm not debating that. Look at my last post where I quoted waylon.

I was responding to his argument using his assumptions. Not mine.

I'm having a trouble reading my computer screen. It looks almost like you are saying you quoted Waylon.

 

[BlueMAB]

It's possible we all agree and disagree. I can disagree with Waylon about who Duke will associate with, but agree with him that Duke will only associate with schools that will not pay. Whether Cincy and USF are fine with that, it's up to them. They may both be better off paying players in the Sun Belt.

The problem is he keeps assigning me an opinion.

I questioned the value of his conference. His response was "you think Duke wants to associate with Memphis, et al."

I don't doubt everyone would chose not to pay for play. The crux is, those who don't won't get the best players or the best coaches.

Therefore they will have inferior talent and coaching, inferior talent and coaching means inferior teams. Inferior teams means a worse product. A poor product makes less money. It might be very competitive between the programs, but nobody will watch because they don't just want competition. They want to see the best compete.

They won't watch WF vs. Tulane, or Duke vs. Rice becuase they are great academic institutions near big cities that they want their kids to go to. It's such a foolish argument.

 

[upstater]

The problem is he keeps assigning me an opinion.

I questioned the value of his conference. His response was "you think Duke wants to associate with Memphis, et al."

I don't doubt everyone would chose not to pay for play. The crux is, those who don't won't get the best players or the best coaches.

Therefore they will have inferior talent and coaching, inferior talent and coaching means inferior teams. Inferior teams means a worse product. A poor product makes less money. It might be very competitive between the programs, but nobody will watch because they don't just want competition. They want to see the best compete.

They won't watch WF vs. Tulane, or Duke vs. Rice becuase they are great academic institutions near big cities that they want their kids to go to. It's such a foolish argument.

Maybe, or maybe not. They're already inferior to the SEC, who pay. And maybe some kids play for Memphis who pays but not Michigan who doesn't. Michigan might actually pay--it's already a very wealthy campus full of BMWs and not much diversity. They may not care at all about paying. It will be interesting. I'm not sure we can automatically say it's inferior. If it's limited to the SEC and Big12, there may be really good teams elsewhere.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Against my better judgment....

Because those are national universities that are in big cities for the most part and every parent in the world would love their kid to go to. Those are national universities. Only an idiot would debate that fact.

So then about the league. IF, and it is a big IF, the ACC collapses, a few top academic programs will need to decide which direction they want to go. Affiliate with whatever is left east of the Mississippi, including city colleges that have open admission, or develop a brand. Duke and the rest may have to make a choice, and I think the could go in a direction of similar caliber institutions. I think that would not be a terrible idea, and I think an NBC or even ESPN would pay decently for that league.

I would argue that Harvard, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Columbia and Cornell are all more formidable academically any given day of the weak and twice on Sunday...
I think this is the 'brand' that Wing-u was referring. That league is not getting paid too much for TV rights.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Can the ACC explore the creation on an ACC TV Network with ESPN, ala LHN?

They have one, it is called Raycom Sports and it has been around for 3 1/2 decades.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I would argue that Harvard, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Columbia and Cornell are all more formidable academically any given day of the weak and twice on Sunday...
I think this is the 'brand' that Wing-u was referring. That league is not getting paid too much for TV rights.

Yes on Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Northwestern and Duke are the same class as Columbia and Penn. Cornell is actually a step down.

WingU has difficulty considering an argument comprehensively. The point I was making was that if there were 8 or 9 leftovers after expansion, Duke might go a different route than going into a conference with the leftovers and a bunch of city colleges. Something in that consideration apparently infuriated WingU, and we have 3 pages of hijack.

 

[UConnDan97]

Yes on Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Northwestern and Duke are the same class as Columbia and Penn. Cornell is actually a step down.

Nelson, you would be pretty much correct if we are talking about a USNews overall ranking, which is what most people talk about when measuring these things (although you are slightly harsh on Cornell and don't fully respect how strong Columbia really is).

But I just wanted to take this opportunity to say how much I absolutely detest these measurements! They are a farce; full of politics and lacking nuance. From subject to subject, the rankings differ wildy for schools (based on faculty, facilities, grant money, etc.). It makes only marginal sense when people bitch about a school's ranking. Here's a for instance:

Overall ranking: Columbia #4, Duke #8, Penn #8, NW #12, Cornell #15.
Chemistry ranking (what I do for a living): Northwestern #7 (thanks to Lyrica), Cornell #10, Columbia #10, Penn #19, Duke #45 (not in the same class anymore!)
Law ranking: Columbia #4, Penn #7, Duke #11, Northwestern #12, Cornell #14.
Medicine (research) ranking: Penn #3, Columbia #8, Duke #9, Cornell #16, Northwestern #18.

And on and on it goes. Are they all very good schools? Yes, indeed. Not one of those numbers exceeded #45 in any of those rankings. But what does it mean? Boston College is a fine school, but I wouldn't go there for medical school. The reason? They don't have one. Syracuse is ranked #58 overall (very close to UConn at #63), but their communications department is top 15 (#13). You'd be much more likely to be on ESPN with fellow alums McDonnaugh (sp?), Tirico, or Costas on NBC. But guess what? UConn Dentistry is ranked #16 in the country, well above Columbia (ranked #30)!!!

All of this crap really should be taken with multiple grains of salt, and in the context of what we are all saying in conference realignment, for the most part it is meaningless. Money ranks #1 in every athletic department in the country for 1-A sports...

 

[mavblues]

Nelson, you would be pretty much correct if we are talking about a USNews overall ranking, which is what most people talk about when measuring these things (although you are slightly harsh on Cornell and don't fully respect how strong Columbia really is).

But I just wanted to take this opportunity to say how much I absolutely detest these measurements! They are a farce; full of politics and lacking nuance. From subject to subject, the rankings differ wildy for schools (based on faculty, facilities, grant money, etc.). It makes only marginal sense when people bitch about a school's ranking. Here's a for instance:

Overall ranking: Columbia #4, Duke #8, Penn #8, NW #12, Cornell #15.
Chemistry ranking (what I do for a living): Northwestern #7 (thanks to Lyrica), Cornell #10, Columbia #10, Penn #19, Duke #45 (not in the same class anymore!)
Law ranking: Columbia #4, Penn #7, Duke #11, Northwestern #12, Cornell #14.
Medicine (research) ranking: Penn #3, Columbia #8, Duke #9, Cornell #16, Northwestern #18.

And on and on it goes. Are they all very good schools? Yes, indeed. Not one of those numbers exceeded #45 in any of those rankings. But what does it mean? Boston College is a fine school, but I wouldn't go there for medical school. The reason? They don't have one. Syracuse is ranked #58 overall (very close to UConn at #63), but their communications department is top 15 (#13). You'd be much more likely to be on ESPN with fellow alums McDonnaugh (sp?), Tirico, or Costas on NBC. But guess what? UConn Dentistry is ranked #16 in the country, well above Columbia (ranked #30)!!!

All of this crap really should be taken with multiple grains of salt, and in the context of what we are all saying in conference realignment, for the most part it is meaningless. Money ranks #1 in every athletic department in the country for 1-A sports...

PFFT...

Here is the only list that matters:

Playboy's top 10 party schools overall are as follows:
1. University of Virginia
2. University of Southern California
3. University of Florida
4. University of Texas
5. University of Wisconsin
6. University of Georgia
7. Vanderbilt University
8. Tulane University
9. Texas Christian University
10. Ohio State University

 

[MattMang23]

PFFT...

Here is the only list that matters:

Playboy's top 10 party schools overall are as follows:
1. University of Virginia
2. University of Southern California
3. University of Florida
4. University of Texas
5. University of Wisconsin
6. University of Georgia
7. Vanderbilt University
8. Tulane University
9. Texas Christian University
10. Ohio State University

We were retired from that list circa 2004 with the reasoning "We can not include professionals on a list full of amateurs."

 

[BlueMAB]

Yes on Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Northwestern and Duke are the same class as Columbia and Penn. Cornell is actually a step down.

WingU has difficulty considering an argument comprehensively. The point I was making was that if there were 8 or 9 leftovers after expansion, Duke might go a different route than going into a conference with the leftovers and a bunch of city colleges. Something in that consideration apparently infuriated WingU, and we have 3 pages of hijack.

The difficulty lies in your inability to show how that leftover conference would be "formidable". Everything else is your loony ass pretending I said something I never said so that you can argue with that rather than the ridiculous comment about that league being formidable from a marketing standpoint. It's why you refuse to discuss the formidable marketing aspect of the Ivy League.