Conference Realignment

Also to get back on the path of solutions, the best idea I’ve heard for saving our future (outside of the BIG) is a reforming of the conference. Would admittedly be cold-blooded by leaving members of the conference for dead. But idea would be to (1) get 10 schools to vote to dissolve the league with some sort of contract tying them together post-vote, (2) reform the ACC with just those top 10 schools, then (3) poach the best B12 programs when their contract is up. The 10 that make the boat would be FSU, Clem, Miami, UNC, NCSU, VA, VT, GT, UofL and (hopefully) us. Now it burns Wake (only original member booted), BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Cal, Stanford, and SMU (and kind of ND). But you might be able to be economically viable for a while with that group
 
I don’t see why it matters if we were always D3. The landscape of college football has changed dramatically, and to me it seems it is no longer compatible with the mission of Duke as a premier academic institution. Which is exactly what the University of Chicago decided after over 40 years of playing in the Big 10.

I admit that my fondness for MBB takes away from my moral argument. I can’t help myself.
So our undergrad already has a reputation as being a more male-dominated environment than most of our peers (save Dartmouth). And we have a $12bn+ endowment. Do you really think any university president would be willing to go out and downgrade all the women’s teams while leaving MBB? Best case would be leaving WBB too. But even then, do you really think there is a path politically where you could downgrade everything except 1-2 teams when there’s that much money around? Plus you still have costs as a D3 school (and now lower revenue).

You can only do the downgrade path if you want to say you don’t care about sports. But if you don’t care about sports, then that means MBB too.

Play it out in practice, and I think it’s all or nothing
 
Do you really think any university president would be willing to go out and downgrade all the women’s teams while leaving MBB? Best case would be leaving WBB too. But even then, do you really think there is a path politically where you could downgrade everything except 1-2 teams when there’s that much money around? Plus you still have costs as a D3 school (and now lower revenue).

You can only do the downgrade path if you want to say you don’t care about sports. But if you don’t care about sports, then that means MBB too.

Play it out in practice, and I think it’s all or nothing
Don't thinks so. First, this whole NIL is because of the revenues being produced need to be shared. But that means only sharing with those who produce positive revenue. At Duke that's MBB - for obvious reasons....and FB.....thanks to Clemson and FSU primarily and the TV package. Thus by common sense extension, the non rev sports may go away. Nina King hinted at just that a few months ago. Have not heard any more from her on this...and one comment third hand....does not a policy make necessarily. But it does follow logic.
 
Don't thinks so. First, this whole NIL is because of the revenues being produced need to be shared. But that means only sharing with those who produce positive revenue. At Duke that's MBB - for obvious reasons....and FB.....thanks to Clemson and FSU primarily and the TV package. Thus by common sense extension, the non rev sports may go away. Nina King hinted at just that a few months ago. Have not heard any more from her on this...and one comment third hand....does not a policy make necessarily. But it does follow logic.
The non rev sports may go away? Seriously?? Sounds like an empty threat from an AD to solicit more booster contributions...
 
Also to get back on the path of solutions, the best idea I’ve heard for saving our future (outside of the BIG) is a reforming of the conference. Would admittedly be cold-blooded by leaving members of the conference for dead. But idea would be to (1) get 10 schools to vote to dissolve the league with some sort of contract tying them together post-vote, (2) reform the ACC with just those top 10 schools, then (3) poach the best B12 programs when their contract is up. The 10 that make the boat would be FSU, Clem, Miami, UNC, NCSU, VA, VT, GT, UofL and (hopefully) us. Now it burns Wake (only original member booted), BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Cal, Stanford, and SMU (and kind of ND). But you might be able to be economically viable for a while with that group
That’s the best idea you’ve heard? The chances that FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC would be interested in that are less than zero. Two of them are spending gobs of money as we speak in lawsuits to try to get out of here. The last thing they would do would be to sign on for longer ties.
 
The non rev sports may go away? Seriously?? Sounds like an empty threat from an AD to solicit more booster contributions...
The story was told on DBR a few months ago...that a women's swim team member asked Nina King if Duke would have women's swimming in a few years...and Nina reportedly said "no one will in five years." Now this is hearsay, but it was heard on DBR - where Nina is very well thought of. And it was in context of NIL spending for FB and BB.

Now as far as being an empty threat, I didn't reach that conclusion. My conclusion, which I predicted several years ago, is that under a system of splitting the revenues with the athletes in the revenue sports, then the natural extension of that, from a financial and logical stand point, is that the non revs would probably go away. At least a lot of those sports at a lot of schools. Not fair for the FB and BB teams to support those sports, right? (that's the logic behind NIL / pay the players / etc.).
 
The story was told on DBR a few months ago...that a women's swim team member asked Nina King if Duke would have women's swimming in a few years...and Nina reportedly said "no one will in five years." Now this is hearsay, but it was heard on DBR - where Nina is very well thought of. And it was in context of NIL spending for FB and BB.

Now as far as being an empty threat, I didn't reach that conclusion. My conclusion, which I predicted several years ago, is that under a system of splitting the revenues with the athletes in the revenue sports, then the natural extension of that, from a financial and logical stand point, is that the non revs would probably go away. At least a lot of those sports at a lot of schools. Not fair for the FB and BB teams to support those sports, right? (that's the logic behind NIL / pay the players / etc.).

While I think some of your points on this topic are slightly overstated (sometimes by design, which I can understand), I mostly agree with what you are saying. It won't all happen, obviously. And it won't all happen on timelines that we can predict. But directionally, a lot of it will happen with the open question (IMO) being to what degree.

- Chillin
 
While I think some of your points on this topic are slightly overstated (sometimes by design, which I can understand), I mostly agree with what you are saying. It won't all happen, obviously. And it won't all happen on timelines that we can predict. But directionally, a lot of it will happen with the open question (IMO) being to what degree.

- Chillin
It's more for brevity sake and generalization - or maybe simplification - than intentional overstatement. The fact is, there are so many moving parts, including foundational parts like conference alignment and lawsuits and lawsuits not brought about yet - Title IX / unionization of players potentially / and then the great unknowns - that to encompass all of those in any one post would be cumbersome.

Then there is the fan GAF factor, which I think is being largely ignored as a potential ice berg. I've stated before, and believe with some level of moderate confidence, that this will come back to bite us hard - but that it will be delayed and hidden by some other short term viewership factors.

So in short, I totally agree with this statement of yours: And it won't all happen on timelines that we can predict. But directionally, a lot of it will happen with the open question (IMO) being to what degree.
 
Look I’m not saying it’s going to work, but it’s objectively an interesting idea (I didn’t come up with it; floated by Stuart Mandell). If FSU and Clemson can’t get out of the GoR, and you get the 8 other teams to agree to a new GoR with the same expiry (2036), you’re in the same position with higher money after jettisoning the low value programs. And if the B12 teams that can be siphoned add some value, then you’re in a better position if the BIG or SEC don’t come calling
 
That’s the best idea you’ve heard? The chances that FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC would be interested in that are less than zero. Two of them are spending gobs of money as we speak in lawsuits to try to get out of here. The last thing they would do would be to sign on for longer ties.
Yeah. The "Group of Seven" want more money and are dissatisfied with the current contact. That's the entire point.
 
Look I’m not saying it’s going to work, but it’s objectively an interesting idea (I didn’t come up with it; floated by Stuart Mandell). If FSU and Clemson can’t get out of the GoR, and you get the 8 other teams to agree to a new GoR with the same expiry (2036), you’re in the same position with higher money after jettisoning the low value programs. And if the B12 teams that can be siphoned add some value, then you’re in a better position if the BIG or SEC don’t come calling
That's interesting concept, and I'd not heard that one. FTR, I don't think anyone is signing anything with that kind of expiry date....visibility is simply not that good. Heck, it's not even 90 days...let alone 12 years.
 
The story was told on DBR a few months ago...that a women's swim team member asked Nina King if Duke would have women's swimming in a few years...and Nina reportedly said "no one will in five years." Now this is hearsay, but it was heard on DBR - where Nina is very well thought of. And it was in context of NIL spending for FB and BB.

Now as far as being an empty threat, I didn't reach that conclusion. My conclusion, which I predicted several years ago, is that under a system of splitting the revenues with the athletes in the revenue sports, then the natural extension of that, from a financial and logical stand point, is that the non revs would probably go away. At least a lot of those sports at a lot of schools. Not fair for the FB and BB teams to support those sports, right? (that's the logic behind NIL / pay the players / etc.).
Yeah, I guess I just don't follow the logic. Duke had all these non-rev sports when I was there 35 years ago - long before a $45M a year TV contract existed. Was football subsidizing women's swimming back then? I mean probably some, right?

I could be very wrong, but this "kill the non-rev sports" talk just feels like people who are frustrated with the NIL arms race which revolves around football and who decide to express this frustration by suggesting NIL will somehow kill non-rev sports.

I don't think the issue for Duke is the cost of maintaining non-rev sports. I think the issue is that we are a smallish private university without a big football fanbase, yet we are trying to maneuver to keep pace with much larger schools that have much more robust football programs.

If one of our moves in this maneuvering is to start killing off non-rev sports, I will be very disappointed in my university.
 
Look I’m not saying it’s going to work, but it’s objectively an interesting idea (I didn’t come up with it; floated by Stuart Mandell). If FSU and Clemson can’t get out of the GoR, and you get the 8 other teams to agree to a new GoR with the same expiry (2036), you’re in the same position with higher money after jettisoning the low value programs. And if the B12 teams that can be siphoned add some value, then you’re in a better position if the BIG or SEC don’t come calling
I don't think this sounds like "high-principled" actions, which most college president's and board insist on. A conference expects its school reps to treat each other like colleagues. I don't see eight ACC members agreeing to abandon the rest. Yeah, I know about SWC -- after all, I am a Rice alum as well.
 
It feels like there is a whole lot of FUD being spread, about the future of the ACC, the future of football, and the future of other sports. I expect change, but I don't think I have the same level of fears about what that change will look like.

That said, some of the "remedies" I am hearing remind me of Brexit. They might have good sound bites, but I think the impact would be felt for decades in ways we wouldn't foresee.

I do think that Stanford follows a model that might give a better way forward, in case we hit one of those "break glass" moments. They have a athletics specific endowment, I believe. Maybe Duke should work towards creating their equivalent.
 
Veteran reporter Brett McMurphy has a pretty well sourced (albeit anonymously) story from the SEC and BIG media days that pours a good deal of water on FSU's hopes for getting into either the BIG or SEC, at least anytime soon (since the notion it would require a full-on jailbreak/implosion of the ACC seems unlikely to happen in the near term). https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf...&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=BrettMcMurphy

Not surprisingly the main reason is that the SEC and BIG don't see FSU as financially beneficial on net, but it is also interesting to see that they don't seem too happy with FSU's scorched earth approach of not only litigating against their "partners," but also doing so by seeking to expose the confidential details of the ESPN contracts and by personally attacking (member of the club) Swofford:

Florida State likely will not have a spot in the Big Ten or SEC if it’s successful in leaving the ACC and the ACC stays intact, sources told Action Network. …

[Despite FSU wanting to go BIG or SEC], there are multiple concerns about adding Florida State, sources said. Those reasons include the fact that it doesn’t make financial sense for either league, “there’s no appetite for more expansion” and FSU has shown “it’s not a good partner.”…

Action Network contacted more than a dozen individuals, including university presidents, conference personnel, athletic directors, network executives and consultants. …

Three SEC presidents recently told Action Network they had “no interest” in adding Florida State. It takes 12 of the 16 SEC presidents to favor adding another school.

The Big Ten also is not interested in the Seminoles, sources said. Added another: “Why would anyone want to expedite more chaos by adding Florida State?” One source, however, cautioned “never say never” about FSU going to the Big Ten because there could be a path if the ACC disintegrates. “There is no appetite among the presidents unless there is some catastrophic development with the ACC and it forces [the BIG] into a decision,” the source said.

“If the ACC blows up, who picks first [between the BIG and SEC]? Who picks second? If there is a need and desire to expand, you take inventory so your competitors don’t get it. But the presidents and chancellors are looking for stability. Despite what the social media geniuses are suggesting, no one — the leagues, the networks — is driving expansion.” That could change if the ACC no longer exists.

But if the price to get out of the ACC is too prohibitive that Florida State and Clemson are the only schools to exit, what happens? “If the ACC doesn’t implode, Florida State could be in a dangerous spot,” another source said. “I don’t know if they have a home. Unless there’s a doomsday scenario and the ACC implodes, FSU is in a bad spot.”

Another source stressed the Big Ten is “happy where we’re at.” “What’s the upside of Florida State?” the source said. “We got what we needed by adding USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington — and Oregon and Washington were added at 50 cents on the dollar to help USC and UCLA. Who would Florida State help? And at what cost? And, most importantly, who’s going to pay for it?

If the ACC no longer exists and the floodgates open, allowing a mass exodus from the ACC, North Carolina and Virginia would be highly sought after by the SEC and Big Ten, sources said.

Several sources added they weren’t convinced they could “trust” Florida State as a new member. “Look what they did: getting the attorney general involved, accusing [former ACC commissioner] John Swofford of rigging the television rights to help his son, filing a suit to expose ESPN’s TV deals — something the other three power leagues are against, by the way,” the source said. “They’re not a good partner. There’s no congeniality. No one wants that."

“It’s not about FSU getting out of the ACC’s Grant of Rights. They’re not a fit.”

Added another Big Ten source: “There are too many negatives; they’ve proven to be a disruptive partner. Even if you got them in a similar discounted rate as the Oregon and Washington deal, do you trust them as a partner?”…

“Never say never,” a Big Ten source said. “But the current sentiment is no for Florida State.”
 
Veteran reporter Brett McMurphy has a pretty well sourced (albeit anonymously) story from the SEC and BIG media days that pours a good deal of water on FSU's hopes for getting into either the BIG or SEC, at least anytime soon (since the notion it would require a full-on jailbreak/implosion of the ACC seems unlikely to happen in the near term). https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf...&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=BrettMcMurphy

Not surprisingly the main reason is that the SEC and BIG don't see FSU as financially beneficial on net, but it is also interesting to see that they don't seem too happy with FSU's scorched earth approach of not only litigating against their "partners," but also doing so by seeking to expose the confidential details of the ESPN contracts and by personally attacking (member of the club) Swofford:

Florida State likely will not have a spot in the Big Ten or SEC if it’s successful in leaving the ACC and the ACC stays intact, sources told Action Network. …

[Despite FSU wanting to go BIG or SEC], there are multiple concerns about adding Florida State, sources said. Those reasons include the fact that it doesn’t make financial sense for either league, “there’s no appetite for more expansion” and FSU has shown “it’s not a good partner.”…

Action Network contacted more than a dozen individuals, including university presidents, conference personnel, athletic directors, network executives and consultants. …

Three SEC presidents recently told Action Network they had “no interest” in adding Florida State. It takes 12 of the 16 SEC presidents to favor adding another school.

The Big Ten also is not interested in the Seminoles, sources said. Added another: “Why would anyone want to expedite more chaos by adding Florida State?” One source, however, cautioned “never say never” about FSU going to the Big Ten because there could be a path if the ACC disintegrates. “There is no appetite among the presidents unless there is some catastrophic development with the ACC and it forces [the BIG] into a decision,” the source said.

“If the ACC blows up, who picks first [between the BIG and SEC]? Who picks second? If there is a need and desire to expand, you take inventory so your competitors don’t get it. But the presidents and chancellors are looking for stability. Despite what the social media geniuses are suggesting, no one — the leagues, the networks — is driving expansion.” That could change if the ACC no longer exists.

But if the price to get out of the ACC is too prohibitive that Florida State and Clemson are the only schools to exit, what happens? “If the ACC doesn’t implode, Florida State could be in a dangerous spot,” another source said. “I don’t know if they have a home. Unless there’s a doomsday scenario and the ACC implodes, FSU is in a bad spot.”

Another source stressed the Big Ten is “happy where we’re at.” “What’s the upside of Florida State?” the source said. “We got what we needed by adding USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington — and Oregon and Washington were added at 50 cents on the dollar to help USC and UCLA. Who would Florida State help? And at what cost? And, most importantly, who’s going to pay for it?

If the ACC no longer exists and the floodgates open, allowing a mass exodus from the ACC, North Carolina and Virginia would be highly sought after by the SEC and Big Ten, sources said.

Several sources added they weren’t convinced they could “trust” Florida State as a new member. “Look what they did: getting the attorney general involved, accusing [former ACC commissioner] John Swofford of rigging the television rights to help his son, filing a suit to expose ESPN’s TV deals — something the other three power leagues are against, by the way,” the source said. “They’re not a good partner. There’s no congeniality. No one wants that."

“It’s not about FSU getting out of the ACC’s Grant of Rights. They’re not a fit.”

Added another Big Ten source: “There are too many negatives; they’ve proven to be a disruptive partner. Even if you got them in a similar discounted rate as the Oregon and Washington deal, do you trust them as a partner?”…

“Never say never,” a Big Ten source said. “But the current sentiment is no for Florida State.”
Schadenfreude ☺️
 
Veteran reporter Brett McMurphy has a pretty well sourced (albeit anonymously) story from the SEC and BIG media days that pours a good deal of water on FSU's hopes for getting into either the BIG or SEC, at least anytime soon (since the notion it would require a full-on jailbreak/implosion of the ACC seems unlikely to happen in the near term). https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf...&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=BrettMcMurphy

Not surprisingly the main reason is that the SEC and BIG don't see FSU as financially beneficial on net, but it is also interesting to see that they don't seem too happy with FSU's scorched earth approach of not only litigating against their "partners," but also doing so by seeking to expose the confidential details of the ESPN contracts and by personally attacking (member of the club) Swofford:

Florida State likely will not have a spot in the Big Ten or SEC if it’s successful in leaving the ACC and the ACC stays intact, sources told Action Network. …

[Despite FSU wanting to go BIG or SEC], there are multiple concerns about adding Florida State, sources said. Those reasons include the fact that it doesn’t make financial sense for either league, “there’s no appetite for more expansion” and FSU has shown “it’s not a good partner.”…

Action Network contacted more than a dozen individuals, including university presidents, conference personnel, athletic directors, network executives and consultants. …

Three SEC presidents recently told Action Network they had “no interest” in adding Florida State. It takes 12 of the 16 SEC presidents to favor adding another school.

The Big Ten also is not interested in the Seminoles, sources said. Added another: “Why would anyone want to expedite more chaos by adding Florida State?” One source, however, cautioned “never say never” about FSU going to the Big Ten because there could be a path if the ACC disintegrates. “There is no appetite among the presidents unless there is some catastrophic development with the ACC and it forces [the BIG] into a decision,” the source said.

“If the ACC blows up, who picks first [between the BIG and SEC]? Who picks second? If there is a need and desire to expand, you take inventory so your competitors don’t get it. But the presidents and chancellors are looking for stability. Despite what the social media geniuses are suggesting, no one — the leagues, the networks — is driving expansion.” That could change if the ACC no longer exists.

But if the price to get out of the ACC is too prohibitive that Florida State and Clemson are the only schools to exit, what happens? “If the ACC doesn’t implode, Florida State could be in a dangerous spot,” another source said. “I don’t know if they have a home. Unless there’s a doomsday scenario and the ACC implodes, FSU is in a bad spot.”

Another source stressed the Big Ten is “happy where we’re at.” “What’s the upside of Florida State?” the source said. “We got what we needed by adding USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington — and Oregon and Washington were added at 50 cents on the dollar to help USC and UCLA. Who would Florida State help? And at what cost? And, most importantly, who’s going to pay for it?

If the ACC no longer exists and the floodgates open, allowing a mass exodus from the ACC, North Carolina and Virginia would be highly sought after by the SEC and Big Ten, sources said.

Several sources added they weren’t convinced they could “trust” Florida State as a new member. “Look what they did: getting the attorney general involved, accusing [former ACC commissioner] John Swofford of rigging the television rights to help his son, filing a suit to expose ESPN’s TV deals — something the other three power leagues are against, by the way,” the source said. “They’re not a good partner. There’s no congeniality. No one wants that."

“It’s not about FSU getting out of the ACC’s Grant of Rights. They’re not a fit.”

Added another Big Ten source: “There are too many negatives; they’ve proven to be a disruptive partner. Even if you got them in a similar discounted rate as the Oregon and Washington deal, do you trust them as a partner?”…

“Never say never,” a Big Ten source said. “But the current sentiment is no for Florida State.”
This is consistent with the scuttle I've heard from Big10 sources. Not only are they happy with where they are, but the consensus among conference decision makers (for now anyway) is that there is real value to having the ACC and Big 12 as viable if somewhat lesser partners in the expanded CFB playoff environment. And there is real wariness to proceeding down a path that eventually leads to 2 superleagues with the Big10 and SEC effectively in the roles of AFC and NFC in a mini-NFL. Notre Dame could change that in a hurry, of course. But Florida State won't.

Would also note that Greg Sankey went out of his way at SEC Media Day yesterday to downplay talk of any more expansion near term, and sometimes forcefully with reporters who persisted with that line of inquiry. He claims they are very happy with their current footprint and membership with Texas and OU in the fold. I think his biggest issue at the moment is trying to get consensus from members on a 9-game conference schedule, which would increase the inventory of conference matchups by ~12% from 65 to 73 (including the championship game) and likely expand their pot further as a result. A 9-game slate is also easier for members to swallow with a 12-team playoff than 4.

All of the above reinforces just how delusional FSU's whole strategy has been.
 
It's more for brevity sake and generalization - or maybe simplification - than intentional overstatement. The fact is, there are so many moving parts, including foundational parts like conference alignment and lawsuits and lawsuits not brought about yet - Title IX / unionization of players potentially / and then the great unknowns - that to encompass all of those in any one post would be cumbersome.

Then there is the fan GAF factor, which I think is being largely ignored as a potential ice berg. I've stated before, and believe with some level of moderate confidence, that this will come back to bite us hard - but that it will be delayed and hidden by some other short term viewership factors.

So in short, I totally agree with this statement of yours: And it won't all happen on timelines that we can predict. But directionally, a lot of it will happen with the open question (IMO) being to what degree.

Once revenue sport revenue is being shared with the revenue sport athletes, something will be squeezed out. I don't think non-revenue sports will go away completely, but I can see how there might be fewer of them and less funded. Of course, we could ask the revenue athletes nicely to share the revenue with their fellow athletes. Good luck. If this all comes to pass, I will be in the GAF camp, a camp that I already visit from time to time.
 
Florida State likely will not have a spot in the Big Ten or SEC if it’s successful in leaving the ACC and the ACC stays intact

it doesn’t make financial sense for either league, “there’s no appetite for more expansion” and FSU has shown “it’s not a good partner
.”…

Three SEC presidents recently told Action Network they had “no interest” in adding Florida State.

The Big Ten also is not interested in the Seminoles, sources said.

Another source stressed the Big Ten is “happy where we’re at.” “What’s the upside of Florida State?”


“It’s not about FSU getting out of the ACC’s Grant of Rights. They’re not a fit.”
Works for me. Perfect time to kick 'em out. 😁
 
Once revenue sport revenue is being shared with the revenue sport athletes, something will be squeezed out. I don't think non-revenue sports will go away completely, but I can see how there might be fewer of them and less funded. Of course, we could ask the revenue athletes nicely to share the revenue with their fellow athletes. Good luck. If this all comes to pass, I will be in the GAF camp, a camp that I already visit from time to time.
I don't understand this point of view. The Duke athletic department is not even directly funding NIL. The collectives are.

All women's swimming needs to exist is for the Duke athletic department to continue paying for coaches' salaries, uniforms, travel, etc like it has not many decades. What do NIL payments to football players have to do with this?

I guess if the powers that be want to use football and basketball NIL as an excuse to start axing non-rev sports, they can. But the reasoning seems very disingenuous. Am I missing something?
 
Back
Top