(10-27-2022 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 02:59 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm not a Phillips fan, and his name has been in the mix for a job in the NFL, but he keeps his mouth shut. Look at the most successful commissioners of our current times and find me a successful one who runs his yap? Delaney, Slive, Sankey, and only to a slightly lesser extent Warren don't say much until they strike. Scott, Bowlsby, Yormark, and Kliavkoff all run their mouths incessantly, like Aresco did.

In this business only the desperate talk, and the most desperate can't shut up.

"Never tell another man what you are thinking!" Michael Corleone

You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Desperate commissioners are loud because they pretty much have to be loud in order to make longshot attempts to save their conference. Teams don't leave conferences because the commissioners are loud.

If Oregon and Washington have basically received an invite from the Big 10, then Kliavkoff is actually smart to talk like this. It's his only hope at having even a 1% chance at getting them to turn down the invite.

Desperate equals mouthy. They are one in the same. Mouthy commissioners create confusion which leads to desperation on the part of members. Desperation on the part of members makes otherwise normal commissioners mouthy. They are two sides of the same coin and both signal desperation. While your nuance is noted the effect is the same.

My point was that Phillips for his faults, gets this right. If he was acting desperate about a bad situation what would be the relative reaction in the ACC today? They were skittish and deeply concerned with the Oklahoma and Texas moves. So too were the PAC 12 and obviously the Big 12. But the Big 10 was as well.

The PAC 12 jumped into an alliance which they didn't even understand. Phillips was a Big 10 guy and a newbie as commissioner, so he did as well. Warren orchestrated it but used it to his advantage to stalemate things until he had a plan to act upon. Phillips was okay only because the PAC 12 GOR was expiring soon enough. During all of it Kliavkoff ran his mouth. First, he insulted Sankey, then he apologized, and then the idiot accused the Big 12 of chicanery when the Big 10 took Los Angeles. Gee let's ignore the Bear at the front door and attack the Hiena on the back porch. Brilliant!

Meanwhile Bowlsby jumps to secure things in the Big 12 by taking BYU, UCF, Houston, and BYU. He leaves and Yormark comes in and realizes he's been somewhat perceptually hamstrung. How do you attract academically minded and somewhat snooty PAC schools when you've just added 3 G5's and BYU which can't get into the PAC because of academic freedom issues? The Big 12 is in the best position to merge with, or attract PAC 12 schools if Bowlsby does nothing and leaves and lets new leadership come in and create a new vision.

The 4 additions Bowlsby made were among the best 4 from the G5 and independent BYU. But those moves don't scream raise. They scream maybe status quo at best, and most likely a cut. Had the Big 12 waited it would have been much easier to lure the Arizona schools and Utah. I'm not sure about Colorado, but maybe. Then they would have been looking at status quo as the worst and likely a bump. The only thing they have going for them now is the big lowball estimate on the new PAC 12 media value. Maybe they do eventually snag some PAC schools, but dang it would have been easier if they had waited.

A more attractive Big 12 would have made the Big 10's raid easier, IMO.

Kliavkoff is trying to rally the troops now, but two of their top 4 values have defected. There is no recovery from that which will maintain status in athletic revenue, and find viable academic institutions to rebuild with. The Big 10 issued a kill shot and while the body is alive in the PAC, the brain is gone. They are on life support.

Phillips grade will now be determined. Does he help guide the ACC schools into a more profitable future for all, or does he collect his revenue, spout platitudes, and collect his check until 2034 when the stuff hits the fan in the East? My money is on him either leaving for a NFL job and letting some other Schmoes take the blame for the looming implosion, or he collects his check and bides time. Why? Who are they going to add which will raise their pay enough to compete with the Big 10 and SEC both of which would find attractive additions in the ACC? The two which would add are TCU and Baylor, two more privates which add marginally, but add. Is that their future? If Phillips was at least concerned he would be negotiating with the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 to figure out how to protect all of his schools and help most profit and the rest survive and maintain access to the upper tier and CFP. He should privately acknowledge the predicament of the ACC to the presidents and hold honest discussions on how to move forward in a radically altered world. At least that would be forthright and honest, and he would find dignity and kudos in the attempt.

Instead, we are likely to drag this out until 2034 (for 2036) before it blows and then a new college sports landscape will emerge without the support of its most supportive generation, the Boomers. Good luck with that! The time is now if any of these schools are going to maximize the last decade plus of their golden years of support.

By the way, I was supporting your position. You just didn't notice.

There's no need for Phillips to be loud because there's about a 99% certainty that the GOR will keep everybody locked in until 2036. Why would there be any need for him to act desperate right now? I really can't imagine that anybody in the ACC is having conversations with the Big 10 or ACC about leaving 14 years from now.

Phillips will get loud in 2032 or 2033, maybe 2034 at the latest. (Assuming he's still commissioner by then.) That'll be the period where he'll have to make desperate attempts to save his conference.

Whoosh! It just flew over your head. By waiting they renegotiate in the middle of negative demographics for college sports and they miss out on a half billion in revenue per school for likely a little over half their members. But hey, Pillips if he drags it out will be the only one to leave with more!

Actually, I think that time is the only hope the ACC has of staying together long term. Basically that the landscape changes over the next 14 years.

The only slim hope is that ACC football improves over the next 14 years so they can actually sign a decent TV contract that might prevent teams from leaving in 2036. Or alternately that the money in CFB decreases in the next 14 years, so the difference in conference payouts also decreases.

It's a longshot hope, but it's the only hope the ACC really has.

So if you're wondering why the ACC doesn't just cancel the GOR- there are not only short term reasons for that, but long term reasons as well.

(10-27-2022 12:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Maybe you guys should try to figure out how to beat Utah. USC has spent the past decade getting embarassed by the sub-par talent in the Pac-12. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 13 years. Do you want to blame that on the "sub-par programs" of the Pac-12? For the past decade, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Stanford have been carrying the conference in football. USC got swept by UCLA, Stanford and Cal last year and the games were not close.

The recruiting issues are the responsibility of USC and USC only. For years, USC was hiring AD's with no previous experience running an athletic department. The only qualification was being an ex-USC football star. Those individuals made mistakes with coaching hires and that affected the recruiting and development of players. USC finally hired a professional athletic director who hired a great football coach. It looked like USC football was back and then the Trojans decided to leave the conference. So there is a lot of anger at USC in the Pac-12.

The vast majority of UCLA fans were not thrilled with the decision to leave the conference. I have not talked to a UCLA fan that is happy with the move. But most are at the acceptance stage.
https://www.si.com/college/ucla/football...to-big-ten

Former UCLA men's basketball All-American Bill Walton was asked about UCLA's impending conference switch by The Post Game on Aug. 25, and his response was brief. "I love UCLA," Walton said, before hesitating, smiling and nodding at the camera for a few seconds.
Troy Aikman: "I'm just not a fan of what's happened."

"Walton and Aikman's hesitant acceptance of their alma mater leaving the Pac-12 was a sentiment apparently shared by many other alumni. Records obtained by 247Sports in August revealed that several donors, faculty and other members of the UCLA community replied to chancellor Gene Block and athletic director Martin Jarmond's internal announcement with disapproval back in late June."

To many UCLA alums it must feel as if the conference took one wrong turn with the construction of its network a decade ago and is now paying disproportionately for the mistake.

(10-27-2022 03:11 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 02:59 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Desperate commissioners are loud because they pretty much have to be loud in order to make longshot attempts to save their conference. Teams don't leave conferences because the commissioners are loud.

If Oregon and Washington have basically received an invite from the Big 10, then Kliavkoff is actually smart to talk like this. It's his only hope at having even a 1% chance at getting them to turn down the invite.

Desperate equals mouthy. They are one in the same. Mouthy commissioners create confusion which leads to desperation on the part of members. Desperation on the part of members makes otherwise normal commissioners mouthy. They are two sides of the same coin and both signal desperation. While your nuance is noted the effect is the same.

My point was that Phillips for his faults, gets this right. If he was acting desperate about a bad situation what would be the relative reaction in the ACC today? They were skittish and deeply concerned with the Oklahoma and Texas moves. So too were the PAC 12 and obviously the Big 12. But the Big 10 was as well.

The PAC 12 jumped into an alliance which they didn't even understand. Phillips was a Big 10 guy and a newbie as commissioner, so he did as well. Warren orchestrated it but used it to his advantage to stalemate things until he had a plan to act upon. Phillips was okay only because the PAC 12 GOR was expiring soon enough. During all of it Kliavkoff ran his mouth. First, he insulted Sankey, then he apologized, and then the idiot accused the Big 12 of chicanery when the Big 10 took Los Angeles. Gee let's ignore the Bear at the front door and attack the Hiena on the back porch. Brilliant!

Meanwhile Bowlsby jumps to secure things in the Big 12 by taking BYU, UCF, Houston, and BYU. He leaves and Yormark comes in and realizes he's been somewhat perceptually hamstrung. How do you attract academically minded and somewhat snooty PAC schools when you've just added 3 G5's and BYU which can't get into the PAC because of academic freedom issues? The Big 12 is in the best position to merge with, or attract PAC 12 schools if Bowlsby does nothing and leaves and lets new leadership come in and create a new vision.

The 4 additions Bowlsby made were among the best 4 from the G5 and independent BYU. But those moves don't scream raise. They scream maybe status quo at best, and most likely a cut. Had the Big 12 waited it would have been much easier to lure the Arizona schools and Utah. I'm not sure about Colorado, but maybe. Then they would have been looking at status quo as the worst and likely a bump. The only thing they have going for them now is the big lowball estimate on the new PAC 12 media value. Maybe they do eventually snag some PAC schools, but dang it would have been easier if they had waited.

A more attractive Big 12 would have made the Big 10's raid easier, IMO.

Kliavkoff is trying to rally the troops now, but two of their top 4 values have defected. There is no recovery from that which will maintain status in athletic revenue, and find viable academic institutions to rebuild with. The Big 10 issued a kill shot and while the body is alive in the PAC, the brain is gone. They are on life support.

Phillips grade will now be determined. Does he help guide the ACC schools into a more profitable future for all, or does he collect his revenue, spout platitudes, and collect his check until 2034 when the stuff hits the fan in the East? My money is on him either leaving for a NFL job and letting some other Schmoes take the blame for the looming implosion, or he collects his check and bides time. Why? Who are they going to add which will raise their pay enough to compete with the Big 10 and SEC both of which would find attractive additions in the ACC? The two which would add are TCU and Baylor, two more privates which add marginally, but add. Is that their future? If Phillips was at least concerned he would be negotiating with the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 to figure out how to protect all of his schools and help most profit and the rest survive and maintain access to the upper tier and CFP. He should privately acknowledge the predicament of the ACC to the presidents and hold honest discussions on how to move forward in a radically altered world. At least that would be forthright and honest, and he would find dignity and kudos in the attempt.

Instead, we are likely to drag this out until 2034 (for 2036) before it blows and then a new college sports landscape will emerge without the support of its most supportive generation, the Boomers. Good luck with that! The time is now if any of these schools are going to maximize the last decade plus of their golden years of support.

By the way, I was supporting your position. You just didn't notice.

There's no need for Phillips to be loud because there's about a 99% certainty that the GOR will keep everybody locked in until 2036. Why would there be any need for him to act desperate right now? I really can't imagine that anybody in the ACC is having conversations with the Big 10 or ACC about leaving 14 years from now.

Phillips will get loud in 2032 or 2033, maybe 2034 at the latest. (Assuming he's still commissioner by then.) That'll be the period where he'll have to make desperate attempts to save his conference.

Whoosh! It just flew over your head. By waiting they renegotiate in the middle of negative demographics for college sports and they miss out on a half billion in revenue per school for likely a little over half their members. But hey, Pillips if he drags it out will be the only one to leave with more!

Actually, I think that time is the only hope the ACC has of staying together long term. Basically that the landscape changes over the next 14 years.

The only slim hope is that ACC football improves over the next 14 years so they can actually sign a decent TV contract that might prevent teams from leaving in 2036. Or alternately that the money in CFB decreases in the next 14 years, so the difference in conference payouts also decreases.

It's a longshot hope, but it's the only hope the ACC really has.

So if you're wondering why the ACC doesn't just cancel the GOR- there are not only short term reasons for that, but long term reasons as well.

Okay, I can accept that perspective. The problem is the Boomer market will be essentially gone by 2036 and it has been the largest driver of interest in college sports history. I think all contracts will take a major hit if negotiated after 2030. And then I don't see much chance that they will stay intact. Clemson and FSU will look to move where revenue will linger, think SEC or Big 10. I say linger because the actual fan base participation via tickets, ticket donations and general donations for years have equaled media payouts in those conferences. The Southeast and Southwest are the only regions where the sport has not taken significant knocks in peewee, jr. high, and high school ball.

When that happens Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Syracuse and other major hoops programs will be running for cover, or they will acquiesce and just bring in other hoops brands and still take a pay cut. Basketball is not a growth sport either. It could however be much more effectively monetized independent of the NCAA.

Today, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, and likely Virginia Tech and N.C. State , and certainly Notre Dame all have options which could pay them 40 million more per year for 14 years, which is 560 million between now and then. The trick is in finding B.C., Pitt, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, and Louisville a home where they can earn a little more than they do now. And keep in mind Louisville is an interesting program in that they are competitive in all major sports and are 15th in the nation in revenue generation. I could see some justification for them over some of the more favored depending on who does the looking. Their drawback is academic ranking.

If your position is to keep the ACC together, I can appreciate your stance. If however, the objective is to maximize the future for each ACC school then sticking this out to the end is suicidal, IMO.

(10-27-2022 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  I'm not saying I blame Kliavkoff for anything.

What I am saying is that Kliavkoff's comments indicate that things are probably even worse in the PAC than we realize.

I'm not a Phillips fan, and his name has been in the mix for a job in the NFL, but he keeps his mouth shut. Look at the most successful commissioners of our current times and find me a successful one who runs his yap? Delaney, Slive, Sankey, and only to a slightly lesser extent Warren don't say much until they strike. Scott, Bowlsby, Yormark, and Kliavkoff all run their mouths incessantly, like Aresco did.

In this business only the desperate talk, and the most desperate can't shut up.

"Never tell another man what you are thinking!" Michael Corleone

You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Desperate commissioners are loud because they pretty much have to be loud in order to make longshot attempts to save their conference. Teams don't leave conferences because the commissioners are loud.

If Oregon and Washington have basically received an invite from the Big 10, then Kliavkoff is actually smart to talk like this. It's his only hope at having even a 1% chance at getting them to turn down the invite.

Desperate equals mouthy. They are one in the same. Mouthy commissioners create confusion which leads to desperation on the part of members. Desperation on the part of members makes otherwise normal commissioners mouthy. They are two sides of the same coin and both signal desperation. While your nuance is noted the effect is the same.

My point was that Phillips for his faults, gets this right. If he was acting desperate about a bad situation what would be the relative reaction in the ACC today? They were skittish and deeply concerned with the Oklahoma and Texas moves. So too were the PAC 12 and obviously the Big 12. But the Big 10 was as well.

The PAC 12 jumped into an alliance which they didn't even understand. Phillips was a Big 10 guy and a newbie as commissioner, so he did as well. Warren orchestrated it but used it to his advantage to stalemate things until he had a plan to act upon. Phillips was okay only because the PAC 12 GOR was expiring soon enough. During all of it Kliavkoff ran his mouth. First, he insulted Sankey, then he apologized, and then the idiot accused the Big 12 of chicanery when the Big 10 took Los Angeles. Gee let's ignore the Bear at the front door and attack the Hiena on the back porch. Brilliant!

Meanwhile Bowlsby jumps to secure things in the Big 12 by taking BYU, UCF, Houston, and BYU. He leaves and Yormark comes in and realizes he's been somewhat perceptually hamstrung. How do you attract academically minded and somewhat snooty PAC schools when you've just added 3 G5's and BYU which can't get into the PAC because of academic freedom issues? The Big 12 is in the best position to merge with, or attract PAC 12 schools if Bowlsby does nothing and leaves and lets new leadership come in and create a new vision.

The 4 additions Bowlsby made were among the best 4 from the G5 and independent BYU. But those moves don't scream raise. They scream maybe status quo at best, and most likely a cut. Had the Big 12 waited it would have been much easier to lure the Arizona schools and Utah. I'm not sure about Colorado, but maybe. Then they would have been looking at status quo as the worst and likely a bump. The only thing they have going for them now is the big lowball estimate on the new PAC 12 media value. Maybe they do eventually snag some PAC schools, but dang it would have been easier if they had waited.

A more attractive Big 12 would have made the Big 10's raid easier, IMO.

Kliavkoff is trying to rally the troops now, but two of their top 4 values have defected. There is no recovery from that which will maintain status in athletic revenue, and find viable academic institutions to rebuild with. The Big 10 issued a kill shot and while the body is alive in the PAC, the brain is gone. They are on life support.

Phillips grade will now be determined. Does he help guide the ACC schools into a more profitable future for all, or does he collect his revenue, spout platitudes, and collect his check until 2034 when the stuff hits the fan in the East? My money is on him either leaving for a NFL job and letting some other Schmoes take the blame for the looming implosion, or he collects his check and bides time. Why? Who are they going to add which will raise their pay enough to compete with the Big 10 and SEC both of which would find attractive additions in the ACC? The two which would add are TCU and Baylor, two more privates which add marginally, but add. Is that their future? If Phillips was at least concerned he would be negotiating with the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 to figure out how to protect all of his schools and help most profit and the rest survive and maintain access to the upper tier and CFP. He should privately acknowledge the predicament of the ACC to the presidents and hold honest discussions on how to move forward in a radically altered world. At least that would be forthright and honest, and he would find dignity and kudos in the attempt.

Instead, we are likely to drag this out until 2034 (for 2036) before it blows and then a new college sports landscape will emerge without the support of its most supportive generation, the Boomers. Good luck with that! The time is now if any of these schools are going to maximize the last decade plus of their golden years of support.

By the way, I was supporting your position. You just didn't notice.

I actually agree with pretty much everything that you've stated here at least in terms of the overall principles.

It goes back to my point elsewhere in what I've found in my career: there's often an inverse relationship between "aggressive talk" and real-life leverage.

When you actually have real life leverage, you don't need to talk much... and when you talk, you speak about specific facts in your favor (e.g. viewership numbers, high revenue, tangible accomplishments, etc.) as opposed to platitudes or buzzwords.

We have a bias in our American culture where being "proactive", "aggressive" and "assertive" are generally inherently looked at as positive and gives the perception of strength. Note that this isn't actually true in all cultures - it can be looked at as a sign of weakness elsewhere. (Recall the Sun Tzu quotes we've referred to here.)

Yes and no.

I agree when we're talking about moving merely for the sake of moving, or change for the sake of change - or those bureaucrats who do things just to justify their existence.

But sitting on your hands as the world is passing you buy, when you should be acting - not-so-much.

We respect people with vision.

People who can spot circumstances and act upon them.

And you can also find this in sun-tzu or other such philosophers.

Strike first.

Of course the other half of that - which isn't talked about as much - is to build/develop your resources, so that when circumstances are in your favour, and/or an opportunity arrives, you are in a position to take advantage of it.

(10-27-2022 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 03:11 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 02:59 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Desperate equals mouthy. They are one in the same. Mouthy commissioners create confusion which leads to desperation on the part of members. Desperation on the part of members makes otherwise normal commissioners mouthy. They are two sides of the same coin and both signal desperation. While your nuance is noted the effect is the same.

My point was that Phillips for his faults, gets this right. If he was acting desperate about a bad situation what would be the relative reaction in the ACC today? They were skittish and deeply concerned with the Oklahoma and Texas moves. So too were the PAC 12 and obviously the Big 12. But the Big 10 was as well.

The PAC 12 jumped into an alliance which they didn't even understand. Phillips was a Big 10 guy and a newbie as commissioner, so he did as well. Warren orchestrated it but used it to his advantage to stalemate things until he had a plan to act upon. Phillips was okay only because the PAC 12 GOR was expiring soon enough. During all of it Kliavkoff ran his mouth. First, he insulted Sankey, then he apologized, and then the idiot accused the Big 12 of chicanery when the Big 10 took Los Angeles. Gee let's ignore the Bear at the front door and attack the Hiena on the back porch. Brilliant!

Meanwhile Bowlsby jumps to secure things in the Big 12 by taking BYU, UCF, Houston, and BYU. He leaves and Yormark comes in and realizes he's been somewhat perceptually hamstrung. How do you attract academically minded and somewhat snooty PAC schools when you've just added 3 G5's and BYU which can't get into the PAC because of academic freedom issues? The Big 12 is in the best position to merge with, or attract PAC 12 schools if Bowlsby does nothing and leaves and lets new leadership come in and create a new vision.

The 4 additions Bowlsby made were among the best 4 from the G5 and independent BYU. But those moves don't scream raise. They scream maybe status quo at best, and most likely a cut. Had the Big 12 waited it would have been much easier to lure the Arizona schools and Utah. I'm not sure about Colorado, but maybe. Then they would have been looking at status quo as the worst and likely a bump. The only thing they have going for them now is the big lowball estimate on the new PAC 12 media value. Maybe they do eventually snag some PAC schools, but dang it would have been easier if they had waited.

A more attractive Big 12 would have made the Big 10's raid easier, IMO.

Kliavkoff is trying to rally the troops now, but two of their top 4 values have defected. There is no recovery from that which will maintain status in athletic revenue, and find viable academic institutions to rebuild with. The Big 10 issued a kill shot and while the body is alive in the PAC, the brain is gone. They are on life support.

Phillips grade will now be determined. Does he help guide the ACC schools into a more profitable future for all, or does he collect his revenue, spout platitudes, and collect his check until 2034 when the stuff hits the fan in the East? My money is on him either leaving for a NFL job and letting some other Schmoes take the blame for the looming implosion, or he collects his check and bides time. Why? Who are they going to add which will raise their pay enough to compete with the Big 10 and SEC both of which would find attractive additions in the ACC? The two which would add are TCU and Baylor, two more privates which add marginally, but add. Is that their future? If Phillips was at least concerned he would be negotiating with the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 to figure out how to protect all of his schools and help most profit and the rest survive and maintain access to the upper tier and CFP. He should privately acknowledge the predicament of the ACC to the presidents and hold honest discussions on how to move forward in a radically altered world. At least that would be forthright and honest, and he would find dignity and kudos in the attempt.

Instead, we are likely to drag this out until 2034 (for 2036) before it blows and then a new college sports landscape will emerge without the support of its most supportive generation, the Boomers. Good luck with that! The time is now if any of these schools are going to maximize the last decade plus of their golden years of support.

By the way, I was supporting your position. You just didn't notice.

There's no need for Phillips to be loud because there's about a 99% certainty that the GOR will keep everybody locked in until 2036. Why would there be any need for him to act desperate right now? I really can't imagine that anybody in the ACC is having conversations with the Big 10 or ACC about leaving 14 years from now.

Phillips will get loud in 2032 or 2033, maybe 2034 at the latest. (Assuming he's still commissioner by then.) That'll be the period where he'll have to make desperate attempts to save his conference.

Whoosh! It just flew over your head. By waiting they renegotiate in the middle of negative demographics for college sports and they miss out on a half billion in revenue per school for likely a little over half their members. But hey, Pillips if he drags it out will be the only one to leave with more!

Actually, I think that time is the only hope the ACC has of staying together long term. Basically that the landscape changes over the next 14 years.

The only slim hope is that ACC football improves over the next 14 years so they can actually sign a decent TV contract that might prevent teams from leaving in 2036. Or alternately that the money in CFB decreases in the next 14 years, so the difference in conference payouts also decreases.

It's a longshot hope, but it's the only hope the ACC really has.

So if you're wondering why the ACC doesn't just cancel the GOR- there are not only short term reasons for that, but long term reasons as well.

Okay, I can accept that perspective. The problem is the Boomer market will be essentially gone by 2036 and it has been the largest driver of interest in college sports history. I think all contracts will take a major hit if negotiated after 2030. And then I don't see much chance that they will stay intact. Clemson and FSU will look to move where revenue will linger, think SEC or Big 10. I say linger because the actual fan base participation via tickets, ticket donations and general donations for years have equaled media payouts in those conferences. The Southeast and Southwest are the only regions where the sport has not taken significant knocks in peewee, jr. high, and high school ball.

When that happens Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Syracuse and other major hoops programs will be running for cover, or they will acquiesce and just bring in other hoops brands and still take a pay cut. Basketball is not a growth sport either. It could however be much more effectively monetized independent of the NCAA.

Today, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, and likely Virginia Tech and N.C. State , and certainly Notre Dame all have options which could pay them 40 million more per year for 14 years, which is 560 million between now and then. The trick is in finding B.C., Pitt, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, and Louisville a home where they can earn a little more than they do now. And keep in mind Louisville is an interesting program in that they are competitive in all major sports and are 15th in the nation in revenue generation. I could see some justification for them over some of the more favored depending on who does the looking. Their drawback is academic ranking.

If your position is to keep the ACC together, I can appreciate your stance. If however, the objective is to maximize the future for each ACC school then sticking this out to the end is suicidal, IMO.

One of the benefits of the ACC's GoRs is control

I don't mean control of the schools as in to force people to do things.

But rather, it curtails freedom of choice of the individual, and allows the group to have input.

A loose analogy might be water.

pour it, and it goes everywhere.

build channels and the water moves where you might prefer.

But the GoRs are time limited. (Though in ACC's case 14 years is definitely long.)

So the longer that the ACC waits to exercise that control, the less control benefit - the less leverage - that they have.

There's a wall around the henhouse that keeps external predators at bay. But it's disintegrating every year.

Eventually a new wall will be built, but in the interim, predators may take chickens who might wish to wander to greener pastures..

So it's better to find preferred new homes for chickens now, than wait.

This of course presumes that the runners of the henhouse care.

If no one in the ACC cares if FSU joins the SEC or not, then it's a moot point.

But if they do, moving them sooner - maximizing the leverage the GoR provides, to "encourage" them to make a "preferred" move - is better, than waiting until later, when leverage is reduced.

So use the GoR - and the vote thereof - to control whether certain members may be allowed to move to the SEC, rather than them joining the B10.

Or wait, and the wolf will be there at the door, saying thank you : )

(10-27-2022 12:28 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Was this in the Onion??

(10-27-2022 03:12 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Maybe you guys should try to figure out how to beat Utah. USC has spent the past decade getting embarassed by the sub-par talent in the Pac-12. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 13 years. Do you want to blame that on the "sub-par programs" of the Pac-12? For the past decade, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Stanford have been carrying the conference in football. USC got swept by UCLA, Stanford and Cal last year and the games were not close.

The recruiting issues are the responsibility of USC and USC only. For years, USC was hiring AD's with no previous experience running an athletic department. The only qualification was being an ex-USC football star. Those individuals made mistakes with coaching hires and that affected the recruiting and development of players. USC finally hired a professional athletic director who hired a great football coach. It looked like USC football was back and then the Trojans decided to leave the conference. So there is a lot of anger at USC in the Pac-12.

The vast majority of UCLA fans were not thrilled with the decision to leave the conference. I have not talked to a UCLA fan that is happy with the move. But most are at the acceptance stage.
https://www.si.com/college/ucla/football...to-big-ten

Former UCLA men's basketball All-American Bill Walton was asked about UCLA's impending conference switch by The Post Game on Aug. 25, and his response was brief. "I love UCLA," Walton said, before hesitating, smiling and nodding at the camera for a few seconds.
Troy Aikman: "I'm just not a fan of what's happened."

"Walton and Aikman's hesitant acceptance of their alma mater leaving the Pac-12 was a sentiment apparently shared by many other alumni. Records obtained by 247Sports in August revealed that several donors, faculty and other members of the UCLA community replied to chancellor Gene Block and athletic director Martin Jarmond's internal announcement with disapproval back in late June."

To many UCLA alums it must feel as if the conference took one wrong turn with the construction of its network a decade ago and is now paying disproportionately for the mistake.

The Pac took a whole lot of wrong turns, several of which involved missed opportunities to poach big 12 teams.

Fans lives matter

(10-28-2022 05:29 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  Fans lives matter

Fanville commercial that would get Dr. Pepper sued.

(10-27-2022 03:11 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 02:59 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Desperate commissioners are loud because they pretty much have to be loud in order to make longshot attempts to save their conference. Teams don't leave conferences because the commissioners are loud.

If Oregon and Washington have basically received an invite from the Big 10, then Kliavkoff is actually smart to talk like this. It's his only hope at having even a 1% chance at getting them to turn down the invite.

Desperate equals mouthy. They are one in the same. Mouthy commissioners create confusion which leads to desperation on the part of members. Desperation on the part of members makes otherwise normal commissioners mouthy. They are two sides of the same coin and both signal desperation. While your nuance is noted the effect is the same.

My point was that Phillips for his faults, gets this right. If he was acting desperate about a bad situation what would be the relative reaction in the ACC today? They were skittish and deeply concerned with the Oklahoma and Texas moves. So too were the PAC 12 and obviously the Big 12. But the Big 10 was as well.

The PAC 12 jumped into an alliance which they didn't even understand. Phillips was a Big 10 guy and a newbie as commissioner, so he did as well. Warren orchestrated it but used it to his advantage to stalemate things until he had a plan to act upon. Phillips was okay only because the PAC 12 GOR was expiring soon enough. During all of it Kliavkoff ran his mouth. First, he insulted Sankey, then he apologized, and then the idiot accused the Big 12 of chicanery when the Big 10 took Los Angeles. Gee let's ignore the Bear at the front door and attack the Hiena on the back porch. Brilliant!

Meanwhile Bowlsby jumps to secure things in the Big 12 by taking BYU, UCF, Houston, and BYU. He leaves and Yormark comes in and realizes he's been somewhat perceptually hamstrung. How do you attract academically minded and somewhat snooty PAC schools when you've just added 3 G5's and BYU which can't get into the PAC because of academic freedom issues? The Big 12 is in the best position to merge with, or attract PAC 12 schools if Bowlsby does nothing and leaves and lets new leadership come in and create a new vision.

The 4 additions Bowlsby made were among the best 4 from the G5 and independent BYU. But those moves don't scream raise. They scream maybe status quo at best, and most likely a cut. Had the Big 12 waited it would have been much easier to lure the Arizona schools and Utah. I'm not sure about Colorado, but maybe. Then they would have been looking at status quo as the worst and likely a bump. The only thing they have going for them now is the big lowball estimate on the new PAC 12 media value. Maybe they do eventually snag some PAC schools, but dang it would have been easier if they had waited.

A more attractive Big 12 would have made the Big 10's raid easier, IMO.

Kliavkoff is trying to rally the troops now, but two of their top 4 values have defected. There is no recovery from that which will maintain status in athletic revenue, and find viable academic institutions to rebuild with. The Big 10 issued a kill shot and while the body is alive in the PAC, the brain is gone. They are on life support.

Phillips grade will now be determined. Does he help guide the ACC schools into a more profitable future for all, or does he collect his revenue, spout platitudes, and collect his check until 2034 when the stuff hits the fan in the East? My money is on him either leaving for a NFL job and letting some other Schmoes take the blame for the looming implosion, or he collects his check and bides time. Why? Who are they going to add which will raise their pay enough to compete with the Big 10 and SEC both of which would find attractive additions in the ACC? The two which would add are TCU and Baylor, two more privates which add marginally, but add. Is that their future? If Phillips was at least concerned he would be negotiating with the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 to figure out how to protect all of his schools and help most profit and the rest survive and maintain access to the upper tier and CFP. He should privately acknowledge the predicament of the ACC to the presidents and hold honest discussions on how to move forward in a radically altered world. At least that would be forthright and honest, and he would find dignity and kudos in the attempt.

Instead, we are likely to drag this out until 2034 (for 2036) before it blows and then a new college sports landscape will emerge without the support of its most supportive generation, the Boomers. Good luck with that! The time is now if any of these schools are going to maximize the last decade plus of their golden years of support.

By the way, I was supporting your position. You just didn't notice.

There's no need for Phillips to be loud because there's about a 99% certainty that the GOR will keep everybody locked in until 2036. Why would there be any need for him to act desperate right now? I really can't imagine that anybody in the ACC is having conversations with the Big 10 or ACC about leaving 14 years from now.

Phillips will get loud in 2032 or 2033, maybe 2034 at the latest. (Assuming he's still commissioner by then.) That'll be the period where he'll have to make desperate attempts to save his conference.

Whoosh! It just flew over your head. By waiting they renegotiate in the middle of negative demographics for college sports and they miss out on a half billion in revenue per school for likely a little over half their members. But hey, Pillips if he drags it out will be the only one to leave with more!

Actually, I think that time is the only hope the ACC has of staying together long term. Basically that the landscape changes over the next 14 years.

The only slim hope is that ACC football improves over the next 14 years so they can actually sign a decent TV contract that might prevent teams from leaving in 2036. Or alternately that the money in CFB decreases in the next 14 years, so the difference in conference payouts also decreases.

It's a longshot hope, but it's the only hope the ACC really has.

So if you're wondering why the ACC doesn't just cancel the GOR- there are not only short term reasons for that, but long term reasons as well.

IMO, there is no "ACC" interest in the GOR, as in this case there is no common pan-conference interests. There are the schools that have better options in other conferences and thus view the GOR as a shackle holding them back, and the schools for whom making $40m a year in the ACC is the best they can do, and so view the GOR as a life-preserver holding their heads above water.

The only entity that IMO has an interest in the "ACC" here is the corporate office, where the staffers, from the commissioner on down, have an employment interest in seeing the conference stay strong and together, so IMO their interests lie with those schools who see the GOR as a life-preserver.

(10-27-2022 11:24 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:28 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Was this in the Onion??

This proves Frank's point. Hat vs cattle.

Yormark's bravado is not in the same ballpark as Kliakov's.

(10-27-2022 12:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I have full faith that UCLA counsel reviewed the law and authority and came to what they sincerely believed to be the correct conclusion that they could move without telling the UC Regents (much less get their approval). I've worked with enough of these types of organizations to know that they would have checked that authority question up, down, and all around with what they believed to be 100% certainty.

What the UC Regents seem to be trying to do is assert authority retroactively by arguing the intent of their regulations as opposed to what the regulations actually state. Essentially, the Regents want to say UCLA didn't follow the "spirit" of the regulations even though they actually followed the text of the regulations. This seems to be more about making a political argument than a legitimate legal argument at the end of the day.

I'm sure many states and universities, including Kansas as you've noted here, are reevaluating what exactly schools need to do (if anything) regarding who has to approve a conference move. That's really what the California situation has driven here.

What gives you the impression that the UC Regents are overly concerned one way or the other?

(10-26-2022 05:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-ucla-move

Dozens of people have told him.

I have seen the empty stands at UCLA football games, I'd say the fans aren't interested in what the PAC are selling. Minus USC, what is in the PAC for UCLA fans to care about? The PAC destroyed itself long ago, George needs to let it go, it is embarrassing.

(10-28-2022 11:06 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I have full faith that UCLA counsel reviewed the law and authority and came to what they sincerely believed to be the correct conclusion that they could move without telling the UC Regents (much less get their approval). I've worked with enough of these types of organizations to know that they would have checked that authority question up, down, and all around with what they believed to be 100% certainty.

What the UC Regents seem to be trying to do is assert authority retroactively by arguing the intent of their regulations as opposed to what the regulations actually state. Essentially, the Regents want to say UCLA didn't follow the "spirit" of the regulations even though they actually followed the text of the regulations. This seems to be more about making a political argument than a legitimate legal argument at the end of the day.

I'm sure many states and universities, including Kansas as you've noted here, are reevaluating what exactly schools need to do (if anything) regarding who has to approve a conference move. That's really what the California situation has driven here.

What gives you the impression that the UC Regents are overly concerned one way or the other?

The regents do not care at all, expect perhaps the Cal alums, they're just wisely responding to political pressure from their Governor.

I wonder what will happen if they end up blocking the move? Likely the B1G could just take UW in their place, with perhaps UO and Stanford to pour salt in the wound. Let the state of California make up the shortfall for UCLA I guess.

(10-28-2022 12:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-28-2022 11:06 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I have full faith that UCLA counsel reviewed the law and authority and came to what they sincerely believed to be the correct conclusion that they could move without telling the UC Regents (much less get their approval). I've worked with enough of these types of organizations to know that they would have checked that authority question up, down, and all around with what they believed to be 100% certainty.

What the UC Regents seem to be trying to do is assert authority retroactively by arguing the intent of their regulations as opposed to what the regulations actually state. Essentially, the Regents want to say UCLA didn't follow the "spirit" of the regulations even though they actually followed the text of the regulations. This seems to be more about making a political argument than a legitimate legal argument at the end of the day.

I'm sure many states and universities, including Kansas as you've noted here, are reevaluating what exactly schools need to do (if anything) regarding who has to approve a conference move. That's really what the California situation has driven here.

What gives you the impression that the UC Regents are overly concerned one way or the other?

The regents do not care at all, expect perhaps the Cal alums, they're just wisely responding to political pressure from their Governor.

I wonder what will happen if they end up blocking the move? Likely the B1G could just take UW in their place, with perhaps UO and Stanford to pour salt in the wound. Let the state of California make up the shortfall for UCLA I guess.

Regents are appointed to 12-year terms. Most were appointed by Jerry Brown. Not only is the governor an ex-officio member of the board, so is the Lieutenant Governor. "In my 11 years as a member of the Board of Regents, I assure you that an intern filed all the communication I received." A week or so later, his staff will issue a press release that some of the files were inadvertently misplaced when a portion of his office was converted to a spa.

He had spent a vacation at a ranch owned by his in-laws in Montana. When some in the press noted that Montana was on the list of proscribed spending for state officials, he had to defend it as a private trip (plus note the exception for his security detail). The story about the trip broke at the same time as USC and UCLA going to the B1G, and Newsom was likely making a fuss to distract attention from him.

The regents had the President of the UC System (who reports to the BOR, the chancellors of the individual campuses report to him) prepare a report on the move, focusing on financial aspects, and impact on student-athletic health and education. The counsel for UC is preparing a change in policy, but does not appear to be in any hurry, and it would not have retroactive effect.

(10-27-2022 02:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These Networks and offering way too much money for the Big 10 and SEC to pay lousy teams more money than what they are worth are hurting college sports overall. There needs a balance that all 10 conferences gets about the same amount of money.

If Texas Tech versus Kansas State drew 10 million viewers and 100,000 fans, then by all means cry.

They don't.

Well Bill Walton will back Kilavkoff up...

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-bi...-not-happy