The days of the ACC being an elite BB conference are over.

[superjohn]

You are being intentionally dense. Coach K was like Michael Jordan. His deal was special and irrelevant.

We’ve already seen evidence that schools like Alabama have decided to start paying up for basketball. As the salaries continue to creep up, more schools in the SEC, B1G and elsewhere will have to pay to get a decent coach. We are right on the cusp of that sea change. When it happens, we will be in trouble. Our AD is tapped, that’s why our football assistant pool is so small. There isn’t endless money for basketball. There is a breaking point.

Yep, if only Hurley could compete with Nate Oats and UConn men's basketball could compete with Alabama men's basketball. I'm tired of being owned by them.

UConn Rewards Head Coach Dan Hurley With Massive New Contract, per Report - AthlonSports.com | Expert Predictions, Picks, and Previews

https://athlonsports.com/college-basketball/uconn-dan-hurley-new-contract-national-championship

 

[Inyatkin]

But the rest of those schools have essentially no history.

• Wake has a Final Four in the 1960s but hasn't been in the second weekend since 1996. Before then, 1984.

I mean, Tim Duncan and Chris Paul does not equal "essentially no history."

 

[Husky68]

I prefer Uconn right where we are over anywhere else. DO NOT make decisions based on money - it never works out. I live my life by this. If a new job offers $50,000 more per year BUT I have to work way more and/or sacrifice more time and happiness, I will never take it. Money is just an idea...a thought. My life and my happiness are real. Unfortunately, I don't think many others think like this, and we will eventually end up in another conference. It's sad.

You do if it's the difference between feeding your kids or not. Anyone can pass up money they don't need.

 

[ucp990411]

Pitt and SMU fans and that's about it.

Doubt very much that Pitt fans will be excited about playing SMU

 

[PNolanFan]

A few things:

1) You think there is a bottomless pit of money at the football schools? Do you think we on the boneyard are the only ones that realize that every conference is on its last big linear contract? Have you read any interviews of P4 athletic directors? Also, do you think we are the only ones that have considered that ESPN may have a hard time meeting their contractual obligations on the back end of some of these huge linear deals. Every school is looking at the back end of those deals and looking for ways to mitigate risk, which will include managing their overhead.

2) The Demographic Cliff is here, and while WVU is the first major casualty, it will not be the last of the big time athletic schools that are mediocre or worse academically that wake up one morning and find out no one wants to go there. Alabama is known for being very generous with scholarship money to out-of-state applicants. How long can they keep that game going without pulling money in from somewhere, including the athletic department? Every million dollars they pay a coach is 20 scholarships they can't offer to boost their average GPA and test scores.

3) There will be a lot of money in streaming, but it won't be as focused on football. Basketball generates a lot of content that fans care about, and in streaming, the focus is not on coming up with the big matchup for the 3:30 Saturday time slot like it was in the cable bundle era. It is about generating a lot of content that will hopefully get a fragmented target customer base to sign up.

4) It amazes me how people who are not idiots continue to believe the self-serving ESPN PR about how all the talent and all the money and all the power in college athletics will consolidate in a handful of programs, that (not) surprisingly happen to be under contract with ESPN or Fox. NIL and the Transfer Portal are having the exactly opposite impact, and are in fact spreading the talent around. The players are smart enough to realize they won't get paid much if they don't play.

That last one cuts both ways, since Fox does promote UConn hoops pretty well.

What I think will be interesting is that in the future I think the main revenue stream will be a streaming fee that fans pay. For instance I assume that eventually I will have a basic tv package that I pay for and then I pay 10 dollars a month for access to all UConn games. I am not sure if that is the case but if it is I think we will come out pretty well nationally on subscribers to our athletic department. Wont be alabama but I bet we could get more subscribers than half of the Power 4 schools. Especially when considering all of the old people subscribing for uconn womens basketball

 

[superjohn]

What I think will be interesting is that in the future I think the main revenue stream will be a streaming fee that fans pay. For instance I assume that eventually I will have a basic tv package that I pay for and then I pay 10 dollars a month for access to all UConn games. I am not sure if that is the case but if it is I think we will come out pretty well nationally on subscribers to our athletic department. Wont be alabama but I bet we could get more subscribers than half of the Power 4 schools. Especially when considering all of the old people subscribing for uconn womens basketball

That model probably wouldn't be bad for UConn compared to many schools but that model would be really bad for college sports.

 

[BlueMAB]

Money is just an idea...a thought.

 

[noeynox]

That model probably wouldn't be bad for UConn compared to many schools but that model would be really bad for college sports.

Well the current model is good for college sports but not good for UConn. So i would prefer the model that is good for UConn because I'm selfish.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

What I think will be interesting is that in the future I think the main revenue stream will be a streaming fee that fans pay. For instance I assume that eventually I will have a basic tv package that I pay for and then I pay 10 dollars a month for access to all UConn games. I am not sure if that is the case but if it is I think we will come out pretty well nationally on subscribers to our athletic department. Wont be alabama but I bet we could get more subscribers than half of the Power 4 schools. Especially when considering all of the old people subscribing for uconn womens basketball

In a cable bundling world, the relationship between Alabama and UConn is about 20:1 in terms of media revenue. I would be very happy with 5:1.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Well the current model is good for college sports but not good for UConn. So i would prefer the model that is good for UConn because I'm selfish.

The current model is good for the major football conferences, but not good for UConn.

 

[tzznandrew]

I mean, Tim Duncan and Chris Paul does not equal "essentially no history."

They have two all time greats within a decade that didn't win anything while they were there. Cool.

 

[tzznandrew]

Miami is strong now. Pitt recovered nicely.

Pitt was an 11 seed after 6 straight losing seasons. Let's pump the breaks there.

Miami made an E8 and a FF as a 10 and 5 seed respectively. That's after three straight losing seasons. They weren't ever ranked the season before and beat 2 Auburn and then an 11 seed in the S16 before getting mauled by Kansas. Let's see it sustained.

Your post is way too mired in recency bias. Programs need to have more than two winning seasons in a row before I call them "strong" or say they've "recovered nicely."

 

[HuskyHawk]

Pitt was an 11 seed after 6 straight losing seasons. Let's pump the breaks there.

Miami made an E8 and a FF as a 10 and 5 seed respectively. That's after three straight losing seasons. They weren't ever ranked the season before and beat 2 Auburn and then an 11 seed in the S16 before getting mauled by Kansas. Let's see it sustained.

Your post is way too mired in recency bias. Programs need to have more than two winning seasons in a row before I call them "strong" or say they've "recovered nicely."

If so, then your post discounting a bunch of programs like Wake, NC State and GT that have better history than much of the Big East didn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways. In all time wins, 7 of the top 30 are in the ACC. Now that lacks recency bias too much. So maybe NCAA tournament wins since 2000? Couldn't find a newer one than 2020. ACC looks at least as strong as any league by that measure (not counting Maryland's).

My comment remains, if Syracuse and Louisville stay down, then that changes things. But Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, UVA, WVU, Pitt, Notre Dame is very strong and Miami, NC State and FSU have been successful at times too. Back in 2020 when they did that list, Bama and BC both had 6 wins. Things can change.

 

[mussels]

Over the last two seasons the ACC has more final four teams than any other conference. If that’s a sign of a conference in decline, it escapes me.

 

[zls44]

Over the last two seasons the ACC has more final four teams than any other conference. If that’s a sign of a conference in decline, it escapes me.

Have you considered reading the article that started the thread which explains it?

 

[mussels]

Have you considered reading the article that started the thread which explains it?

Just skimmed it now.

By the article’s logic, since the Big 12 just watered down their basketball product, they won’t be an elite hoops conference either. The SEC has never been an elite basketball conference, and the BIG 10 can’t make a legitimate claim on that, so I guess that leaves the Big East as the only elite basketball conference in the country.

I like that conclusion, but know that the top of the ACC will always be in the game. They are, and will continue to be an elite hoops conference.

 

[zls44]

Just skimmed it now.

By the article’s logic, since the Big 12 just watered down their basketball product, they won’t be an elite hoops conference either. The SEC has never been an elite basketball conference, and the BIG 10 can’t make a legitimate claim on that, so I guess that leaves the Big East as the only elite basketball conference in the country.

I like that conclusion, but know that the top of the ACC will always be in the game. They are, and will continue to be an elite hoops conference.

Having two elite teams and 10 teams that suck doesn’t make you an elite conference. We already have that.


It’s called the West Coast Conference.

 

[Jbirdp5]

You are being intentionally dense. Coach K was like Michael Jordan. His deal was special and irrelevant.

We’ve already seen evidence that schools like Alabama have decided to start paying up for basketball. As the salaries continue to creep up, more schools in the SEC, B1G and elsewhere will have to pay to get a decent coach. We are right on the cusp of that sea change. When it happens, we will be in trouble. Our AD is tapped, that’s why our football assistant pool is so small. There isn’t endless money for basketball. There is a breaking point.

Hurley literally just received a keeping up with the Joneses contract. Our whole league is paying coaches at the top of the market. Your fears are exactly that and not evidence based

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I mean, Tim Duncan and Chris Paul does not equal "essentially no history."

Chris Paul left Wake almost 20 years ago. They haven't been real contenders since he left.

 

[mussels]

Having two elite teams and 10 teams that suck doesn’t make you an elite conference. We already have that.


It’s called the West Coast Conference.

In the last five years four different ACC teams have made the final four.

The West Coast Conference can’t claim that. In fact, no conference other than the ACC can.

 

[zls44]

In the last five years four different ACC teams have made the final four.

The West Coast Conference can’t claim that. In fact, no conference other than the ACC can.

The Big East and Big 12 are indisputably better leagues right now. Adding Cal and SMU isn’t going to help. They’ve been tumbling down the KenPom rankings over the last five years and they just grabbed a pile of anchors. Duke being elite won’t change that.

 

[Vowelguy]

Last seasons Massey ratings:
91 Stanford
161 SMU
258 Cal

Stan would be 11th of the 18.
SMU and Cal would be in the bottom 3 with Lou.

 

[Hoophound]

Hurley literally just received a keeping up with the Joneses contract. Our whole league is paying coaches at the top of the market. Your fears are exactly that and not evidence based

Yet. The AD is literally telling us we’ve got a problem. We can’t be charging students much more to fund athletics. UConn costs twice as much for in state students as many other state U’s around the country. We’ve gone to that well way too many times.

 

[Inyatkin]

Chris Paul left Wake almost 20 years ago. They haven't been real contenders since he left.

He said "essentially no history." I pushed back. What's confusing?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I mean, Tim Duncan and Chris Paul does not equal "essentially no history."

Dr. J went to UMass. Does that mean UMass has a great basketball history?

 

[Inyatkin]

Dr. J went to UMass. Does that mean UMass has a great basketball history?

The category wasn't "great." It was "essentially none."

This is already the dumbest argument I've ever been a part of, so I think I'm done.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Dr. J went to UMass. Does that mean UMass has a great basketball history?

They also had Cal and Camby. UMass 528 W-L% all time. They have been lousy since Cal really. Maybe Frank Martin can turn it around, but we're talking an A-10 team and that whole league is getting crushed by the focus on hoops at P4 football schools.

Wake has a .553 W-L% since 1906. They won 25 games two years ago. They were consistently good under Dave Odom and Skip Prosser. Manning wasn't good. Let's see what Steve Forbes can do. Wake is a quality program.

The ACC's problem is that Louisville, a historic power, is truly awful. Notre Dame, another school with plenty of success in its history, is also awful. GT is pretty bad right now. Syracuse slipped to mediocre. Looking at the Big East, if not for two new coaches in Pitino and Cooley, you'd say St. Johns and Georgetown were bad as well. But Georgetown has a .602 winning percentage all time. Louisville is much better than that, at .657. Notre Dame is .641. Betting on them to continue to stink is probably a losing bet.

 

[superjohn]

They also had Cal and Camby. UMass 528 W-L% all time. They have been lousy since Cal really. Maybe Frank Martin can turn it around, but we're talking an A-10 team and that whole league is getting crushed by the focus on hoops at P4 football schools.

Wake has a .553 W-L% since 1906. They won 25 games two years ago. They were consistently good under Dave Odom and Skip Prosser. Manning wasn't good. Let's see what Steve Forbes can do. Wake is a quality program.

The ACC's problem is that Louisville, a historic power, is truly awful. Notre Dame, another school with plenty of success in its history, is also awful. GT is pretty bad right now. Syracuse slipped to mediocre. Looking at the Big East, if not for two new coaches in Pitino and Cooley, you'd say St. Johns and Georgetown were bad as well. But Georgetown has a .602 winning percentage all time. Louisville is much better than that, at .657. Notre Dame is .641. Betting on them to continue to stink is probably a losing bet.

Wake sucks and UMass sucks even more than them.

What is your point in constantly defending the ACC and constantly taking little shots at the Big East? The ACC sucks right now and the Big East is way better than them, that isn't at all a controversial take.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Right now?! Preseason rankings seem close with 3-4 top 25 for each conference. What are the facts supporting "way better"? ACC hasn't added the new teams yet.
In 21-22 the ACC was better, put 2 teams in final four.
In 22-23 the BE ended up better, though each put 1 team in final four and the national storyline all year was who will be the BE banner wielding team if Nova without Wright isn't dominant. Obviously that question was answered resoundingly, I'd say putting BE on same level with other major BB conferences.

 

[superjohn]

Right now?! Preseason rankings seem close with 3-4 top 25 for each conference. What are the facts supporting "way better"? ACC hasn't added the new teams yet.
In 21-22 the ACC was better, put 2 teams in final four.
In 22-23 the BE ended up better, though each put 1 team in final four and the national storyline all year was who will be the BE banner wielding team if Nova without Wright isn't dominant. Obviously that question was answered resoundingly, I'd say putting BE on same level with other major BB conferences.

UConn had the most dominant run in the history of the 64 team tournament, Miami was the only ACC team to make it past the first weekend on their way to getting waxed by UConn. Yes, Jay Wright is gone and yes they'll be ranked heading into the season. You want to do a comparison of current Big East coaches vs. current ACC coaches?

Yes, ACC will suck even harder than they currently do once they add Cal, SMU, and Stanford.