In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 878
Online now 886 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I think another issue is the fact that sooner rather than later they're going to have to start paying players, and I don't mean Cam Newton style. The pot of money in college football is now just too big.
Schools are going to have to decide if they want to do that, or play at another level (between the Alabama/Texas division but above the Eastern Kentucky/Western Carolina division).
Schools that have never made the NCAA Tournament — the 2014 edition http://wp.me/plDgR-1WQ
To do something like that, you need a majority of the members of the division to vote in that change. The 4 team playoff as it is proposed requires a rule change that has not passed yet.
Actually, the Wetzel article calms my fears. Ultimately, a 4-team playoff is bad for CFB. Despite all the evidence to the contray, people insist on claiming that a conference championship equals a conference championship equals a conference championship. As well all saw last year, the number two team in the SEC was better than any other conference's best team. Having the two best teams hail from the same conference is nothing new; hell, when was the last time this wasn't the case? However, no one is willing to give up the lucrative conference championship game; after all, that is what drove expansion and realignment in the first place.
Eventually, we'll have to face the reality that this setup prevents us as fans from seeing the best football matchups, and it prevents the schools (and thus, the conferences) from making the most money. The second point will be a bigger driving force, obviously, for the change that will follow. We'll go to 8, and hopefully, as Wetzel penned in Death to the BCS, 16. There is simply no divorcing the conference championship games from college football now, so the only way to account for the flaws of a playoff are to make it big enough to include every worthy competitor at the cost of including several teams who have no business competing for a trophy.
We'll have to expand past the 4-team model, and if it can be done quickly enough, the ACC should be able to weather the storm. Depending on how long it takes to get to 8 and beyond will be the key.
Pretty good blog from Jon Spence, scacchoops guy, who went to Clemson and GT.
When I think of how much Texas ($133 Million) and Oklahoma ($94 Million) vs Clemson ($58 Million) Georgia Tech ($55 Million) spend on athletics, even with a few million dollars bump that Texas and Oklahoma also get, I fear the schools I follow most will be spent into the ground. It’s a losing arms race. Both Clemson and Georgia Tech would be at or near the bottom of Big 12 spending. USA Today lets you compare athletic budgets…. Remember your increase is their increase… Throw in that most Championship events would likely be held in the Midwest or Texas and these are virtual home games for current Big 12 members while Clemson and Georgia Tech get to travel across the country. I attend many championship events and they are within driving distance. They would not be in the future should they move, and I simply couldn’t go to as many.
Lastly the point the ACC would get left out of any playoff is just ridiculous. Any conference of 14 teams that includes Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech isn’t getting left out of any format. I had prepared an article a couple of weeks ago where I looked at every final BCS Standings, before expansion went viral. Yes only the 2007 Virginia Tech team would have been the ACC’s only 4 team playoff representative going back to 2005, but that is a shortsighted and incorrect analysis of the rankings. I won’t even discuss an undefeated ACC team, that’s a virtual given final 4 team, but look at closer at the data, which most people failed to do. Extrapolate where the final 1 loss ACC team winning out would have ended. In each case the ACC would have been high enough to be in the thick of the national title discussion, but it’s pointless to go through it now.
As a fan of both schools, I will always think a decision to move is the wrong one barring being left out of the upcoming playoff format which wouldn’t happen if the ACC stays together.
Stay up to date with all of the latest ACC Basketball News
Clemson fans are tailgating at the BOT meeting.
mouth breather agenda alert
They'll need something to replace road game tailgating if they go to the Big 12.
I'd love to see Clemson come out with a one line statement with unanimous support from the BoT:
Andy Haggard is a moron.
On Sept. 1, the Big East will enter perhaps the most important 60-day stretch in the conference's history.
On that day, it's allowed to begin renegotiations with ESPN for the league's media rights deal.
Just last spring, the Big East turned down a nine-year deal from ESPN worth $1.17 billion, an average of $130 million annually, which would have earned full members $13.8 million a year and non-football members $2.43 million.
Neil Pilson, a media consultant and former president of CBS Sports, told the New York Times he believes the Big East could surpass the $130 million-per-year deal rejected last year.
But industry sources told CBSSports.com they expect the Big East to get much less -- maybe as low as $50 million annually -- because of the loss of West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and TCU. And then there's the possibility the Big East could lose two more of its biggest names -- most likely Louisville, Connecticut or Rutgers -- if the Big 12 expands and the ACC has to replace two schools.
A $130 million deal per year (as speculated by Pilson) would be worth $8.66 million each for the 10 full members; $6.5 million each for the four football-only members (Boise State, San Diego State, Navy and TBA); and $2.16 million each for the eight non-football members.
A $60 million deal per year (as speculated by CBSSports.com's sources, slightly better than their low end) would be worth $4 million each for the 10 full members; $3 million each to the four football-only members; and $1 million each to the eight non-football members.
The Big East's best hopes are that ESPN and NBC/Comcast get in a bidding war to drive the price up. But industry sources said network executives wouldn't go beyond "the 60s [million dollars]."
Expecting better leverage later, the Big East turned down a billion-dollar TV deal in spring 2011. Now, with their position weakened, Brett McMurphy says a negotiation window opening Sept. 1 will be critical to the league's future.
This is basically what I posted on the other board about Maryland to the Big Ten. The majority of a schools athletics revenue is coming from things other than the conference's TV deal - i.e. things only tangentially related to conference affiliation. If Clemson wants to make up their 20M+ revenue gap with South Carolina, they probably ought to look in the mirror rather than jumping ship to a conference where the top teams dwarf them in revenues just to make up 5M of that gap.
Clemson's BOT Chairman to Big XII: Call us, maybe?
First post after a 4 year hiatus. You guys go through message board iterations like a whore goes through rocks. Anyway, some CU fan perspective:
1) Clemson flies everywhere except Columbia and Atlanta. 2 hour flights to Texas/ Oklahoma arent't all that different from a 1 hour flight to Raleigh or a 2 hour flight to DC. Fan travel would take a hit but we'd still represent at the UT, OU type games.
2) CU AD and Swofford acknowledged 80% of the new contract is football. LOL at the basketball purists. Times are a changin, stop sounding like UNC fans.
3) Not crazy about a B12 move but I don't think it will happen. Maybe FSU has happy feet, but this reeks of a power play to get the league to stop being so GD Mickey Mouse Bush League about all the moves they make. If it does happen, the only thing that makes sense is an Armageddon scenario where the B12 eats up enough turf to go east-west. That I wouldn't mind at all, in fact I'd love it
4) CU, FSU, VT do need to mind their own house and win some effing big games. But the economic realities are crazy for us. Imagine if UMD had 5 Penn States in its recruiting footprint instead of one. That's our reality. We need big boy money. Clemson's books are infinitely better than FSUs but we still get our brown pushed in by UGA, SC, UF, Auburn, AL, Tennessee.
5) The 9 game conference schedule was so terrible an idea I can't really articulate it properly. Holy crap. Way to push GT, FSU, Clemson into a corner and say your guys' way of OOC scheduling doesn't mean that much to us. We'd really like to see Wake-Cuse every year. Totally stupid.
I think everything will stay the same this year. Maybe a 20% chance the meteor hits in June and some combiantion of CU-FSU-GT-VT-NCSU-Miami makes a move.
What will you do with your "big boy money" that you aren't already doing?
Maybe if you didn't fly everywhere you'd have more "big boy money". Especially if you're flying all your non-revenues which I'm guessing you're not.
Duh, cheat. And keep up with facilities arms race.
I don't get No. 5 at all. So you play South Carolina every year. Just because you're locked into a rivalry game we're supposed to feel bad about the "hardship" of an extra conference game? Just pretend the 'Cocks are still in the ACC and that you scheduled Duke as your out-of-conference cupcake instead of Furman. It'll be like you're already in a real football conference. Is this what we're dealing with?
Hasn't Clemson played 2 1-AA like two of the past 3 or 4 years? Last year's OOC scheduling was pretty good for Clemson but I don't have much sympathy for people complaining about a 9th conference game.
No that's not it. For us SC is gonna happen no matter what. It makes it nearly impossible for us to have the great home and homes like UGA, Auburn, etc.
If we didn't go to a 9-game schedule, you'd either have to eliminate the cross-division game or you'd only have 1 rotating game from the other division. That means you play a team every 6 years, or you travel there every 12 years. Georgia fans have complained a lot about getting Bama/LSU at home once every 12 years. I'd be mad about that. You can still have your rival, one other big non-conference game and a D-1AA school. Oh no, you might lose a game from the Sun Belt! I hate going to places like Clemson/FSU once every 5 years, 12 would be absurd.
This post was edited by goheels1117 23 months ago
I sorta get what you're saying, but in 4 or so years, with 16 team conferences, the once- per- solar- eclipse series are gonna happen anyway.
My mind is officially blown. Tigers would kill for an SEC invite, right? So keep doing the South Carolina, Auburn thing or whatever, play a 9-game ACC schedule and play Furman. How is this such a huge disadvantage? Didn't Georgia play Boise State and Georgia Tech out-of-conference last year? Seems like the CU fan base is just looking for something to bitch about if this is on the list. Sack up!
I understand what he's saying because some years they may only get to have 6 home games if they schedule 2 big non-conference games, but I just think 9 is best. TV people probably requested it too. Can't really afford having FSU/VT or Clemson/Miami once every 6 years, especially if they get good.
an 8 game schedule either guarantees us an extra home cupcake (and the accompanying $2M in revenue) or a huge profile-raising CU-Auburn/UGA type game. A 9 game schedule guarantees us a goose egg in the revenue column every other year, without the benefit of the huge national game. In a 9 game format, Clemson and FSU are not going to risk an ass whooping for that 3rd OOC game in the future, they're just not. CU surprisingly raised the buyout for the upcoming home and home with UGA, but that was short term b/c fans basically demanded it.
For 50 years when the schedule was stuck on 11 for everybody, how many home games did they get? Guessing it was 6 most years.
This post was edited by macterp 23 months ago
When your salary goes from 75k to 100k, how easy is it on your household if you have to go back to the lower salary?
what is the real return on the obsessive spending on "facilities"? is it that material a difference when it comes to winning or landing recruits?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports