ACC Defections

[uh_no]

Let's posit that to be competitive in a sport, the money spent on your program has to be comparable to the money spent on other top programs. In addition to the funds already spent by the schools, NIL money will be spent on top of that at all the major programs; in other words the total amount spent on each program will be a lot greater. Big state schools with an alumni base from a student population of 66,000 will presumably have a lot more NIL money contributed than small private schools with an alumni base from a student population of 6,600. To stay even, the small school would have to match the excess NIL money spent at other schools with the university's own money. Thus, the program will be a lot more expensive to run.



Obviously I don't know this for sure, but I believe Duke has had no issue because Duke's alumni are already contributing their money. Unless Duke's donors decide to double their contributions or something, there's a lot less potential NIL money out there for Duke than there is for, say, Ohio State.

I think that's a big assumption. I don't believe the big donors are going to say "well, now I can pay the players, I'm willing to spend 2 million instead of 1 million." I imagine there is SOME increase, but if those donors felt strongly enough to increase their expenditure so much, I somewhat believe they would have done so already.

The big change in money, I think, comes from the companies that can now use these kids for advertising. The fact that Moore can stump for bojangles now, for instance. Bojangls doesn't really care that duke has a small alumni base, just that he has a social media presence. There is a post somewhere that several of the players are doing a basketball camp. You can bet they're getting paid for their appearance, and who knows if the person running that camp is even an alumnus at all?

So while I think there might be some impact, I think you are overstating it. If Duke Basektball is able to compete financially today due to generous donors, it's hard to say that alumni base is a significant inhibitor, or that it is a predictor of failing to compete financially in the future, as far as basketball is concerned.

[Bluedog]

Let's posit that to be competitive in a sport, the money spent on your program has to be comparable to the money spent on other top programs. In addition to the funds already spent by the schools, NIL money will be spent on top of that at all the major programs; in other words the total amount spent on each program will be a lot greater. Big state schools with an alumni base from a student population of 66,000 will presumably have a lot more NIL money contributed than small private schools with an alumni base from a student population of 6,600. To stay even, the small school would have to match the excess NIL money spent at other schools with the university's own money. Thus, the program will be a lot more expensive to run.



Obviously I don't know this for sure, but I believe Duke has had no issue because Duke's alumni are already contributing their money. Unless Duke's donors decide to double their contributions or something, there's a lot less potential NIL money out there for Duke than there is for, say, Ohio State.

One of the key premises in your analysis (I think) is that NIL money is coming from alumni. Which is true to an extent, but isn't the only source and I have no idea what % it will turn out to be. At a school like Duke, I'd think corporate sponsors will be attracted (for basketball players at least). The Bojangles deal that Wendell Moore got isn't smaller than what they've giving the UNC guy I'd imagine just because Duke has a smaller alumni base. Duke Bball IG is the #1 most followed college sports team of ANY college in ANY sport (Alabama football is #2). So, Duke attracts eyeballs and that's what some sponsors care about. But, yes, Duke alumni will not be able to keep up with Ohio State alumni money given the HUGE disparity in numbers. Duke's high profile nature though, could counteract some of this imbalance, with it's appeal to other outside "vendors."

Edit: I see that uh_no beat me to it while I was typing with the exact same Moore/Bojangles example.

[Kedsy]

One of the key premises in your analysis (I think) is that NIL money is coming from alumni. Which is true to an extent, but isn't the only source and I have no idea what % it will turn out to be. At a school like Duke, I'd think corporate sponsors will be attracted (for basketball players at least). The Bojangles deal that Wendell Moore got isn't smaller than what they've giving the UNC guy I'd imagine just because Duke has a smaller alumni base. Duke Bball IG is the #1 most followed college sports team of ANY college in ANY sport (Alabama football is #2). So, Duke attracts eyeballs and that's what some sponsors care about. But, yes, Duke alumni will not be able to keep up with Ohio State alumni money given the HUGE disparity in numbers. Duke's high profile nature though, could counteract some of this imbalance, with it's appeal to other outside "vendors."

Edit: I see that uh_no beat me to it while I was typing with the exact same Moore/Bojangles example.

Maybe. To compete in the hypothetical "super-association," a school like Duke would have to basically match NIL money for all sports (including football). I don't think there's any way attempting to do something like that wouldn't bleed a great deal of cash from the university's coffers.

I don't anticipate a world in which some sports are in the new super-association and other sports are still under NCAA jurisdiction, so if Duke doesn't join the super-association, we'll become a lot less relevant in all sports. For a few years, Duke and Gonzaga and Villanova and a few others will remain competitive in basketball, but eventually (my guess is 5 or so years after the big schools break away) the top players will gravitate toward the bigger NIL money and the probably more attractive rules of the super-association. Without the top players, Duke et al will become significantly less competitive (as well as not eligible to win the super-association basketball championship), and both the donor money and the NIL corporate money will dry up. It won't happen instantly, but my guess is ten or twelve years from now, Duke won't have many if any top 100 players on its roster, nor will any other team not in the SuperAss. And at that point, the school will have to decide whether to go the low-major/Division II route or the no-scholarship Division III route.

[lotusland]

SEC boosters have not vastly outspent Duke or other ACC schools on their basketball programs. With the exception of UK, check their basketball message boards - their hearts and treasures lie elsewhere. There is also the value and attraction of playing for a basketball school. We need 7 guys who can play. Maybe they're not OADs, heaven forbid, but we can get 7 guys who can play.

[uh_no]

SEC boosters have not vastly outspent Duke or other ACC schools on their basketball programs. With the exception of UK, check their basketball message boards - their hearts and treasures lie elsewhere. There is also the value and attraction of playing for a basketball school. We need 7 guys who can play. Maybe they're not OADs, heaven forbid, but we can get 7 guys who can play.

hey, there is hope scheyer may play the bench more!

[dudog84]

Maybe. To compete in the hypothetical "super-association," a school like Duke would have to basically match NIL money for all sports (including football). I don't think there's any way attempting to do something like that wouldn't bleed a great deal of cash from the university's coffers.

I don't anticipate a world in which some sports are in the new super-association and other sports are still under NCAA jurisdiction, so if Duke doesn't join the super-association, we'll become a lot less relevant in all sports. For a few years, Duke and Gonzaga and Villanova and a few others will remain competitive in basketball, but eventually (my guess is 5 or so years after the big schools break away) the top players will gravitate toward the bigger NIL money and the probably more attractive rules of the super-association. Without the top players, Duke et al will become significantly less competitive (as well as not eligible to win the super-association basketball championship), and both the donor money and the NIL corporate money will dry up. It won't happen instantly, but my guess is ten or twelve years from now, Duke won't have many if any top 100 players on its roster, nor will any other team not in the SuperAss. And at that point, the school will have to decide whether to go the low-major/Division II route or the no-scholarship Division III route.

I think you're describing the Ivy League.

[Green Wave Dukie]

hey, there is hope scheyer may play the bench more!

When I first read this, I saw “Scheyer may come off the bench more”.

As long as we are coming up with new leagues, how about we enter a league where the coaching staff plays the opposing staff in three on three?

[Kedsy]

I think you're describing the Ivy League.

That's true. The Ivy/Patriot route is a potential third way it could go -- Low major, no scholarships.

[TKG]

That's true. The Ivy/Patriot route is a potential third way it could go -- Low major, no scholarships.

With complete snark intended, “oh, you mean schools where athletics don’t wag the dog?”

[dudog84]

Kinda sad how we (Americans) define a "major" college based upon its athletics, not its academics.

[Kedsy]

Kinda sad how we (Americans) define a "major" college based upon its athletics, not its academics.

I don't think that's actually true. High-major, mid-major, low-major happen to be designations commonly used for college basketball. But trust me, every kid (and their parents) trying to get into college knows exactly which schools are the best, and the lists of top schools are only about academics.

[uh_no]

Kinda sad how we (Americans) define a "major" college based upon its athletics, not its academics.

i believe the modifier is on basketball, not on the college.

Nobody would deny CMU and Chicago the title of "major universities." And in many cases, the quality of the athletics is because the university is large in size, or otherwise "major," not the other way around.

[dudog84]

I don't think that's actually true. High-major, mid-major, low-major happen to be designations commonly used for college basketball. But trust me, every kid (and their parents) trying to get into college knows exactly which schools are the best, and the lists of top schools are only about academics.

Sure, for us around here, that's why I added (Americans). For most of the people in this country, universities are a sports delivery system (and refuge for pointy-headed types). And don't forget the gambling angle.

[TheDevilMadeMeDoIt]

Several posters think SEC may kick out Vandy. I don’t see it happening. Nashville is one of the fastest growing, most vibrant cities in the south. Lots of SEC alums in town. The other schools love playing in Nashville, easy win plus great partying. On top of that what a bad look to kick out the best academic school in the conference. We can wish all we want, but I don’t see some of these projected alliances for the ACC coming together. Not sure where that leaves Duke. If Scheyer can keep the program going we will find a home somewhere. If basketball falters, all bets are off.

[uh_no]

Several posters think SEC may kick out Vandy. I don’t see it happening. Nashville is one of the fastest growing, most vibrant cities in the south. Lots of SEC alums in town. The other schools love playing in Nashville, easy win plus great partying. On top of that what a bad look to kick out the best academic school in the conference. We can wish all we want, but I don’t see some of these projected alliances for the ACC coming together. Not sure where that leaves Duke. If Scheyer can keep the program going we will find a home somewhere. If basketball falters, all bets are off.

1) the vibrancy of the city is irrelevant. only how many dollars the football team brings in
2) nobody gives to shakes about academics. they'd kick out Harvard as soon as vandy, were it in the SEC

In any case, I don't think anyone is saying the SEC will eject vanderbilt, only that if the options on the table were "with vandy" or "without vandy" and either were practical, the rest of the conference would almost surely go with the latter.

In reality, vandy is lucky they are the only school really dragging the coattails, so it is somewhat of a lesser issue.

[Rogue]

I dunno. I read this week that the ACC has it's members' grant of rights locked up until 2036. No idea of buyout language, but OU and UT only have to wait until 2025 (or buyout earlier departure). And why would you negotiate with any members who are leaving to lower the buyout? It's blowing up the conference.

Bottom line for me, it's just another reason to leave sports behind in my life.

I heard on the radio, the same year, 2036, and they said the cost was 25 million per year. $360 million today. They also said, that would be the reason Clemson and Fla State won't be leaving any time soon.

[duke79]

I think you're describing the Ivy League.

That's true. The Ivy/Patriot route is a potential third way it could go -- Low major, no scholarships.

With complete snark intended, “oh, you mean schools where athletics don’t wag the dog?”

Are we now back to my previous proposition on this thread that Duke should just throw in the towel and join the Ivy League? I swear I made that suggestion (mostly) in jest.

[duke79]

I don't think that's actually true. High-major, mid-major, low-major happen to be designations commonly used for college basketball. But trust me, every kid (and their parents) trying to get into college knows exactly which schools are the best, and the lists of top schools are only about academics.

Thanks, in large part, to US News and World Report.

[Steven43]

[/B]

Thanks, in large part, to US News and World Report.

After I read your post it motivated me to check out the US News rankings and was pleasantly surprised to see Duke University Medical School is currently ranked #3 in the nation — behind only NYU (#2) and Harvard (#1). That’s a WOW.

I realize these rankings are a bit subjective and probably shouldn’t be taken as gospel — though they definitely do influence perception among medical school students and applicants. This is the highest Duke Med has been ranked since the early 2000s (when, coincidentally, my wife was a student there).

As an aside, she had an amazing experience at Duke through four years of med school and one year of residency (internship in General Surgery). We’re hoping our daughter gets accepted in two years, but it’s one heck of a long shot — Duke’s acceptance rate is 3%. Most medical school applicants don’t even apply because they basically know they have no chance.

[burnspbesq]

I don't think that's actually true. High-major, mid-major, low-major happen to be designations commonly used for college basketball. But trust me, every kid (and their parents) trying to get into college knows exactly which schools are the best, and the lists of top schools are only about academics.

In purely academic terms, NESCAC is the power conference.