Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I'll reiterate that if the writing is on the wall, it will be much better for Duke to jump ship before the conference collapses. If the SEC/BIG break up the ACC, we will lose any perceived leverage and won't find ourselves in a very comfortable position.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kdogg View Post
    It pains me to ask this but: Who wants us? The B1G and SEC are on track to be super conferences. When the next round of expansion starts, our best option is to try to bind ourselves to UNC as it goes to the B1G. The next option would be the A second tier conference that would be formed from the left over pieces of the ACC, PAC? and Big 12. We want to avoid the B conference made of the leftover's leftovers.
    Regardless of "who wants us" (and I believe Duke will have no problem finding a conference that fits us), the fact is that Duke can't "jump ship" any more than Clemson or FSU can right now. In Mtn.Devil's scenario, Duke should get out for different reasons than those two, but we are beholden to the GOR just as they are.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    I really don't understand why the SEC and BIG want to expand anymore. I feel like they have already (really the ACC too) hit the wall of diminishing returns. The idea of a super conference of 20 teams is a little silly. A) There are always going to be bottom feeders and the top teams will end up cannibalizing themselves, B) With a limit of 12-13 games, you lose the ability to have a balanced schedule and geographically you run into logistical issues and C) you water down natural rivalries and ruin the whole point of having a conference. When you add all three together I think you will lose some fan interest and engagement which will eventually screw up the revenue model.

    It will be very interesting to see how things shake out over the next decade but like a lot of things, I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum doesn't eventually swing back to smaller conferences. Bigger isn't always better.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by yancem View Post
    I really don't understand why the SEC and BIG want to expand anymore. I feel like they have already (really the ACC too) hit the wall of diminishing returns. The idea of a super conference of 20 teams is a little silly. A) There are always going to be bottom feeders and the top teams will end up cannibalizing themselves, B) With a limit of 12-13 games, you lose the ability to have a balanced schedule and geographically you run into logistical issues and C) you water down natural rivalries and ruin the whole point of having a conference. When you add all three together I think you will lose some fan interest and engagement which will eventually screw up the revenue model.

    It will be very interesting to see how things shake out over the next decade but like a lot of things, I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum doesn't eventually swing back to smaller conferences. Bigger isn't always better.
    You may be right that expansion will hit diminishing returns, I think there's a good chance of that. The status quo is great for the B1G and SEC with their massive payouts.
    But the other conferences really do have a problem...their ability to fund Big Football AND maintain all the non revenue sports is going to be challenged...some will be happier about it than others.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Franklin TN
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    You may be right that expansion will hit diminishing returns, I think there's a good chance of that. The status quo is great for the B1G and SEC with their massive payouts.
    But the other conferences really do have a problem...their ability to fund Big Football AND maintain all the non revenue sports is going to be challenged...some will be happier about it than others.
    The cross country conference such as the upcoming BIG is not going to work for any sport other that football as it only plays 12 games. The travel will be both exhausting and very expensive for other sports with more extended schedules. Los Angeles to the Eastern Time Zone is also very environmentally unfriendly. I can’t see this model succeeding long term. Football has its own problems, including the long term effects on its player’s health.

    If you think the ACC conference’s “way too long deal” with ESPN is stupid, can we really even imagine how the world is going to change over the next decade with VR and AI. None of my five grandchildren ages 7-16 watch any sports on television. My 9 year old grandson knows every stat, player and even strategy of football from watching You Tube on his IPad. He’s a huge Patrick Mahomes fan. But with the exception of the Super Bowl he never watches a game. He watches 20 year olds talk about the games or he plays video games. If VR ever gets going, not sure he will ever watch an actual television. The sixteen year old is a high school baseball player who loves the game, but only if he is playing it. Otherwise he’s all about video games. Maybe my experience with kids is too limited but I don’t see the youngsters interested in anything on television. As technology rapidly changes over the next few years where does that leave college sports which are so dependent on television broadcast rights.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMeDoIt View Post
    The cross country conference such as the upcoming BIG is not going to work for any sport other that football as it only plays 12 games. The travel will be both exhausting and very expensive for other sports with more extended schedules. Los Angeles to the Eastern Time Zone is also very environmentally unfriendly. I can’t see this model succeeding long term. Football has its own problems, including the long term effects on its player’s health.

    If you think the ACC conference’s “way too long deal” with ESPN is stupid, can we really even imagine how the world is going to change over the next decade with VR and AI. None of my five grandchildren ages 7-16 watch any sports on television. My 9 year old grandson knows every stat, player and even strategy of football from watching You Tube on his IPad. He’s a huge Patrick Mahomes fan. But with the exception of the Super Bowl he never watches a game. He watches 20 year olds talk about the games or he plays video games. If VR ever gets going, not sure he will ever watch an actual television. The sixteen year old is a high school baseball player who loves the game, but only if he is playing it. Otherwise he’s all about video games. Maybe my experience with kids is too limited but I don’t see the youngsters interested in anything on television. As technology rapidly changes over the next few years where does that leave college sports which are so dependent on television broadcast rights.
    yeah, I don't see how conferences are going to want to fly their non revenue teams all over the country...I imagine schedules will be curtailed, or there will be strong geographic divisions (still not easy with USC and UCLA)

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by yancem View Post
    I really don't understand why the SEC and BIG want to expand anymore. I feel like they have already (really the ACC too) hit the wall of diminishing returns. The idea of a super conference of 20 teams is a little silly. A) There are always going to be bottom feeders and the top teams will end up cannibalizing themselves, B) With a limit of 12-13 games, you lose the ability to have a balanced schedule and geographically you run into logistical issues and C) you water down natural rivalries and ruin the whole point of having a conference. When you add all three together I think you will lose some fan interest and engagement which will eventually screw up the revenue model.

    It will be very interesting to see how things shake out over the next decade but like a lot of things, I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum doesn't eventually swing back to smaller conferences. Bigger isn't always better.
    The only potential case I see for the SEC and BIG to continue expanding is if they have something up their sleeve regarding an expanded college football playoff. The NCAA basketball tourney generates a billion dollars per year. I can only imagine what a 24 or 32 team college football playoff might generate. If the SEC and BIG somehow see a path to keeping all of this revenue for themselves, then they may wish to add more teams in order to make sure all the relevant teams are in one of the two conferences.

    In other words would the SEC get more money from a 32 team tourney if they a) kept their current size, but shared the revenue with 4-5 other conferences or b) expanded but shared the revenue with only the BIG

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Regardless of "who wants us" (and I believe Duke will have no problem finding a conference that fits us), the fact is that Duke can't "jump ship" any more than Clemson or FSU can right now. In Mtn.Devil's scenario, Duke should get out for different reasons than those two, but we are beholden to the GOR just as they are.
    I have always felt that if the ACC folds, and Duke is left out in the cold, the leftover ACC schools will basically merge with the AAC schools and make a solid basketball/football East Coast conference. Whether that’s the new ACC or some other name. When the Big 12 looked in trouble, I thought Kansas might also be left out and be a part of it, but the Big 12 seems to be surviving at the moment. The other potential angle is if the PAC 12 collapses, if ACC leftovers and PAC 12 leftovers try to do something in some crazy non-sensical national conference, but as others have mentioned above, that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen geographically. Don’t get me wrong, whatever non-Power 5 conference that is will be a much lower revenue generating league, but that has always been my sense. I’m hoping the ACC can keep it together, but I don’t have much faith. I think the ACC has a few years to make this work, but eventually, the dam will start to leak.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Raleigh

    Podcast talking heads..

    Former Sports radio dudes and new podcasters Ovies and Giglio put out a notion I'm not quite sure I follow..

    I was listening to it as background and I may have missed some parts..
    Some of it touches on themes discussed here.

    A contracted ACC kicking out the deadweight or non-profitable members thus increasing he payout with fewer slices of the pie to divide.
    And then just making athletes paid employees of their respective University. I guess the thinking there was to make it dependent on the schools themselves to set the rate to attract talent by removing constraints. They posited doing that would allow schools to pay directly and acquire top talent comparable to the schools with the top Tier TV contracts.

    That is until the top tier payout schools did the same thing..
    I'm not sure that gets us ahead anywhere.

    Unless somehow intrinsically the other conferences deadweight created a choke point preventing them from ONLY offering so much per athlete that was less than the ACC model they are proposing.

    That's where it went off the rails for me.
    Anyone hear it differently that made more sense or what did I miss that made it viable?

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Re Duke's low rating. I perceive that noon kickoffs and ACCN affected the viewership. I may be delusional, of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    They didn't help things. But also, at that low viewership, it's hard to argue for better.
    Not delusional, but I think it’s one of those circular references/self-fulfilling prophecies. We are a small private school with low eyeballs, so we don’t get prime time slots, so we can’t garner more eyeballs, so we keep getting crummy slots.

    Despite all the investments and MASSIVE improvements to the program over the last 15 years since hiring Cut, we are still bottom of the barrel. It’s a shame. I was Class of ‘06, which was middle of the Franks/Roof low…13-90 under Franks/Roof. No Bowl games or winning seasons. Now Cut and Elko have gone 86-101 since. 7 bowl games and won 4 bowl games in the last 7 years. After a 17 year drought of not even making a bowl game or have a winning season that’s unbelievable progress.

    Yet we barely get a small stadium to 50-60% capacity and get 5% of the ratings of the top programs in our conference…and 50% less than the 2nd worse program in our conference.

    If that type of dramatic turnaround doesn’t do anything for us, I’m not sure what will. I’m at a loss for what will fix this…

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I'll reiterate that if the writing is on the wall, it will be much better for Duke to jump ship before the conference collapses. If the SEC/BIG break up the ACC, we will lose any perceived leverage and won't find ourselves in a very comfortable position.
    If there’s a run on the bank, you don’t want to be last in line

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by SilkyJ View Post
    Not delusional, but I think it’s one of those circular references/self-fulfilling prophecies. We are a small private school with low eyeballs, so we don’t get prime time slots, so we can’t garner more eyeballs, so we keep getting crummy slots.

    If that type of dramatic turnaround doesn’t do anything for us, I’m not sure what will. I’m at a loss for what will fix this…
    Duke has earned earn prime viewing spots when it plays a good opponent and is not 0-6. The problem is Miami has been atrocious, and VT returned to UNC/UVA levels of interest once Beamer retired. Clemson, ND, and FSU will all move the needle if Duke can beat Lafayette, NW, and Yukon.

  12. #52
    What’s more likely you think - Duke and Wake in the same conference in 15 years, or Duke and UNC in the same conference in 15 years?

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The People's Republic of Travis County
    Quote Originally Posted by RoseBowl1942 View Post
    What’s more likely you think - Duke and Wake in the same conference in 15 years, or Duke and UNC in the same conference in 15 years?
    Today, Duke and Wake. A whole lot of things need to go right for Duke basketball and football to switch that in the intervening years.

    I'd also say the chances of Wake and UNC in the same conference in 15 years are very close to zero.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by wilko View Post
    Sort of.. Mostly.
    Now that the league has adopted the incentivized model, I hope Duke wins more than ever to spit in the eye of those demanding a larger piece of the pie.
    For YEARS they demanded Duke try harder in FB.. well that's seemingly here! And the rest of the league will need to take a few lumps. Cause and effect of be careful what you wish for.

    If I'm being honest, other than some wistful nostalgia and familiarity... I'm a bit tired of the way the ACC is being run.
    Flip being hammered, bad calls, too much physicality being allowed to hide crappy teams, phantom PI calls that effectively end a game. Duke seems to be getting the short end of the stick, more than other programs.
    If this is the way the league wants it, I'm FINE to move on. They have a lot to atone for if you ask me.
    Interesting, you blame "those demanding a larger piece of the pie" even though they are putting in more pie. So it's OK for Clemson and FSU to essentially subsidize the football programs of other schools? Even though this will cause them to be less competitive with the SEC and B1G schools?

    Note, in general, I'm not a big fan of the 'fewer but larger' conference model and I don't like the traditional conferences losing their identity (which has basically already happened to the Big East).

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by elvis14 View Post
    Interesting, you blame "those demanding a larger piece of the pie" even though they are putting in more pie. So it's OK for Clemson and FSU to essentially subsidize the football programs of other schools? Even though this will cause them to be less competitive with the SEC and B1G schools?

    Note, in general, I'm not a big fan of the 'fewer but larger' conference model and I don't like the traditional conferences losing their identity (which has basically already happened to the Big East).
    Seems similar to the argument about football subsidizing non-revenue sports.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by elvis14 View Post
    Interesting, you blame "those demanding a larger piece of the pie" even though they are putting in more pie. So it's OK for Clemson and FSU to essentially subsidize the football programs of other schools? Even though this will cause them to be less competitive with the SEC and B1G schools?
    Yes, its OK for the top to subsidize the bottom.
    Why, you may say? Did they reject the extra money Duke and UNC paid out to them when they went to Elite 8's, FF's and were winning National Championships in Basketball on the regular? Where were those principles against against equitable distribution when they were cashing checks? Maybe you are are of something I'm not and they returned that money.

    I believe the ratings will shrink and contract and return to something approaching an equilibrium... we just have to hang as a conference until it does.
    And if the conference cant hang on... I wont shed any tears.

    It really just become a shill for propping up UNC.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Raleigh

    Buckle up!

    No matter how you think things may play out ... it seems its going to get worse before it gets better.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...y/70258000007/

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by wilko View Post
    No matter how you think things may play out ... it seems its going to get worse before it gets better.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...y/70258000007/
    Depends on your definition of "worse," I suppose. Certainly more chaos and insanity. Transition is often messy.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Depends on your definition of "worse," I suppose. Certainly more chaos and insanity. Transition is often messy.
    Yeah this doesn’t move the needle for me. Pandora’s Box is open and I assume schools are already finding every way possible to funnel money to athletes.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Depends on your definition of "worse," I suppose. Certainly more chaos and insanity. Transition is often messy.
    As far as I can tell the transition is into chaos and insanity as there is no blueprint (I know of) to a final destination. Not even an abstract description of a goal. To call it a proper transition, I think you need a target in mind.
    As I understand this (which is barely).. it looks like CA has decided that the NCAA is out of business there? Their appointed committee has seemingly replaced them as a governing body?
    Perhaps that's enough leverage to invalidate the notion of a conference, renegotiate a television contract and put each State in charge of the flow of distribution to schools in that State?

    I guess schools are going to pool/funnel/allocate their $ to athletes as they see fit or at least in proportion to alums on the committee.

    Who knows...

Similar Threads

  1. How to Pay NCAA Revenue Athletes
    By Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 03-03-2018, 03:55 PM
  2. Duke Basketball Revenue
    By cwiley in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-05-2011, 04:15 PM
  3. Potential new revenue for DBR?
    By dukemomLA in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 11:57 PM
  4. Non-Revenue Sports
    By Kewlswim in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-01-2007, 12:44 AM
  5. Increasing revenue for WBB at Duke...
    By Kewlswim in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-25-2007, 09:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •