Conference Realignment

I don't really want to get in the middle of a back-and-forth between Sky and HBCK, but of course I will.

Let's play out a simple but presumably real-time scenario using some assumptions. Let's assume Duke Basketball pays its players (through NIL) $10mm per year, roughly $1mm per player on average. Just an assumption.

Let's also assume Arkansas pays its players $20mm per year, double what Duke does.

Now, let's assume, as seems to inarguably be the case, that there is an increasing trend where players are asking for and/or holding out for larger and larger NIL deals. Let's assume Arkansas continues to meet those asks and its budget for players continues to $25mm or $30mm or more.

How will this impact Duke Basketball, in your opinion?

Do you believe that the size of Duke's "NIL Pie" will grow via increased donations from boosters (it will not grow meaningfully from TV revenue in a contract that has already been signed)? Or do you believe the NIL Pie will just be sliced differently such that Duke Basketball will get a larger slice and other allocations will have a smaller slice of the same sized pie?

I believe that is the crux of this back-and-forth.

I, for one, do not believe the NIL Pie will get meaningfully larger. I work in finance and often hear non-finance people talk about "endless money" and that "someone will pay for it". Generalizations that are simply not true. Everything has a limit. The NIL Pie cannot and won't grow endlessly. Whether the NIL Pie can grow incrementally to keep pace in an arm's race of increasing player costs while still keeping other stakeholders' (women's swim team, e.g.) slices the same is an open question. The market for players will eventually peak and we should level out from there. But how high is anyone's guess and will Duke be able to get to that level when our TV revenues are notably smaller to begin with versus a large chunk of other schools in the SEC and B1G.

Trying to referee a bit here to keep this constructive...

- Chillin

Will Arky fans pony up $20M for hoops if their football team is 6-6? I know they’ve got the chicken king but I don’t know. Money spent on hoops is withheld from football which is making the money. I don’t know the answer for sure and every schools donors will react different. I guess we’ll find out.
 
I still hope Duke ends up in the Big 12. I'd love to play home and homes with Kansas and I personally enjoy watching Big 12 basketball more than any other conference (Big 10 is unwatchable IMO).

Anyone who doesn't see the benefits to big time football for Duke wasn't as excited for the Clemson and ND games last season as I was. It appeared to me that those were the most exciting events at Duke since the 2015 national championship almost a decade ago. And that was for a borderline top 25 team. I want Duke to continue to compete and hope it improves its status in the football arena.

I’m glad you enjoyed the last college football season before the NIL dam completely collapsed. There are no limits on NIL payments now and the NCAA has given up even trying to regulate it. We just saw almost the whole remaining basketball team transfer and Coach Scheyer said they were all contacted by other schools during the season. If Duke’s football players are good, they are gone.
 
I’m glad you enjoyed the last college football season before the NIL dam completely collapsed. There are no limits on NIL payments now and the NCAA has given up even trying to regulate it. We just saw almost the whole remaining basketball team transfer and Coach Scheyer said they were all contacted by other schools during the season. If Duke’s football players are good, they are gone.
Honestly, the expansion of the playoff (coupled with NIL) is the big killer for me. The thing that really made CFB unique was the high-stakes nature of every single week. It made you tune in for any game where a top 10 is on the ropes or two major programs are playing. Each loss was absolutely massive. Now that the regular season is basically the equivalent of MBB (where you can lose a bunch of games and still be totally in it for the national championship, especially if you’re a name brand like OSU), the value of the regular season is basically moot
 
Honestly, the expansion of the playoff (coupled with NIL) is the big killer for me. The thing that really made CFB unique was the high-stakes nature of every single week. It made you tune in for any game where a top 10 is on the ropes or two major programs are playing. Each loss was absolutely massive. Now that the regular season is basically the equivalent of MBB (where you can lose a bunch of games and still be totally in it for the national championship, especially if you’re a name brand like OSU), the value of the regular season is basically moot
Except, for me, football is really a thrilling spectacle. No doubt, a guilty pleasure.
 
I appreciate you jumping in!

Where is Option C, shift the football dollars to basketball and non-rev sports? 😎

I am in the camp that 1) our basketball team has tremendous market value and can leverage that to remain competitive, 2) our university has funded non-rev men's and women's sports for many decades and will continue to do so, 3) it may eventually become an impossible task to field a P5 competitive football team given the size/limitations of our fanbase.
SB, Many good points by you and others. This is a complex topic, lots of variables, and well argued here.

I want to repost a point that I believe should be a part of the mix: NIL payouts in non-revenue sports are likely to increase significantly, and they are not going to be equitably and rationally dispersed. I don't see that this has been sufficiently factored into this conversation.

Suppose that even just one or two of our ACC competitors in a non-revenue sport, such as tennis, finds a collective who will pay essentially unlimited amounts of NIL to the best recruits from all over the world. Whatever it takes...kinda like LIV Golf. Easy to imagine that an alumnus or proud parent wants to fund their progeny's program and/or that a commercial sponsor adopts a team...kinda like FedEx. Will Duke try to match it? Can it? And suppose that this original round of exorbitant funding of athletes at one or two of our ACC competitors results in a significant ratcheting up of funding throughout the conference, so that a number of our league opponents try to at least keep several of their best athletes. Will Duke try to match that? Can they? To what extent? Will Duke athletics use their own funds? Will they ask the revenue sport collectives to pitch in?

I have already heard about one of our top baseball players who was lured away for a sizable NIL deal. Could that have been thwarted? Should it have been? What if two, three or four of our best baseball players are also lured away? And that further increases?

My point is that I don't see any basis for arguing that NIL won't soon have the same impact on our non-revenue sports as it does and will have on football and basketball. And it won't be equitable, coming in rational increments. It will be subject to the whims of boosters aka collectives.
 
Yeah I just think a little bit of the drama is removed. It will still be entertaining (it’s football of course), but it won’t be as “must watch” as it used to be for the big games like OSU-Michigan (where the loser’s season is basically toast; now the winner and loser probably still make the playoff)
 
SB, Many good points by you and others. This is a complex topic, lots of variables, and well argued here.

I want to repost a point that I believe should be a part of the mix: NIL payouts in non-revenue sports are likely to increase significantly, and they are not going to be equitably and rationally dispersed. I don't see that this has been sufficiently factored into this conversation.

Suppose that even just one or two of our ACC competitors in a non-revenue sport, such as tennis, finds a collective who will pay essentially unlimited amounts of NIL to the best recruits from all over the world. Whatever it takes...kinda like LIV Golf. Easy to imagine that an alumnus or proud parent wants to fund their progeny's program and/or that a commercial sponsor adopts a team...kinda like FedEx. Will Duke try to match it? Can it? And suppose that this original round of exorbitant funding of athletes at one or two of our ACC competitors results in a significant ratcheting up of funding throughout the conference, so that a number of our league opponents try to at least keep several of their best athletes. Will Duke try to match that? Can they? To what extent? Will Duke athletics use their own funds? Will they ask the revenue sport collectives to pitch in?

I have already heard about one of our top baseball players who was lured away for a sizable NIL deal. Could that have been thwarted? Should it have been? What if two, three or four of our best baseball players are also lured away? And that further increases?

My point is that I don't see any basis for arguing that NIL won't soon have the same impact on our non-revenue sports as it does and will have on football and basketball. And it won't be equitable, coming in rational increments. It will be subject to the whims of boosters aka collectives.
This is really good smart stuff. As tough as Jon's job is, at the end of the day, Jon is managing one big pot of money across the basketball program (not directly, of course). Nina is managing her pot of money across football, basketball, and all the non-rev sports. Imagine all these coaches coming in and lobbying for more dollars just to get that top recruit.

So she's having to manage all those requests while she fundraises and coordinates with the broader university academic community and tries to position us for a future conference and TV contract. The toughest job in sports?
 
SkyB, I know, I've been sympathetically and empathetically thinking about her. [And praying for her, I hope that's okay!]

With all of this unrelenting, daily volatile, enterprise-risk level of challenges, I'm pretty sure that none of her pre-NIL challenges have diminished. Five coaches' contracts are expiring, what to do? Each decision requiring major analysis and work with stakeholders, including donors, fans, the athletes and media. Should the baseball and softball fields be upgraded? The faculty is not pleased by all of this attention and money going to sports -- how to respond? At last count, 7 lawsuits pending against the Athletics Dept [I may be woefully underestimating] and others against the ACC which she needs to participate in. Plus, she has a family.

The rub is that some jobs become more than one person can handle, yet it is extremely difficult, often impossible, to delegate authority when all of the claimants insist on dealing with the top person.

Nina, Bless you! I wish you strength, wisdom and equanimity. Thank you for what you do for us. Go Duke!
 
SkyB, I know, I've been sympathetically and empathetically thinking about her. [And praying for her, I hope that's okay!]

With all of this unrelenting, daily volatile, enterprise-risk level of challenges, I'm pretty sure that none of her pre-NIL challenges have diminished. Five coaches' contracts are expiring, what to do? Each decision requiring major analysis and work with stakeholders, including donors, fans, the athletes and media. Should the baseball and softball fields be upgraded? The faculty is not pleased by all of this attention and money going to sports -- how to respond? At last count, 7 lawsuits pending against the Athletics Dept [I may be woefully underestimating] and others against the ACC which she needs to participate in. Plus, she has a family.

The rub is that some jobs become more than one person can handle, yet it is extremely difficult, often impossible, to delegate authority when all of the claimants insist on dealing with the top person.

Nina, Bless you! I wish you strength, wisdom and equanimity. Thank you for what you do for us. Go Duke!

HP, it's so true. I've sat in a similar seat in the business world. It's hard. But what seems uniquely challenging for her is that it's chaos and instability across the board. I'm not sure who her direct reports are, but for her sake, I hope she has some people overseeing most of the non-rev sports for her. Most people cap out at maybe 6-8 direct reports.

God bless Nina King for sure. She has a very tough job. I hope she has great support from the President and those around her.
 
I’m glad you enjoyed the last college football season before the NIL dam completely collapsed. There are no limits on NIL payments now and the NCAA has given up even trying to regulate it. We just saw almost the whole remaining basketball team transfer and Coach Scheyer said they were all contacted by other schools during the season. If Duke’s football players are good, they are gone.
I hope you are wrong fear you are right. As I've said before I have no problem with college athletes getting paid, even big dollars, but this development introduces new tensions into the very concept of student-athlete, such that I'm not sure the concept will be sustainable in some sports. As the concept diminishes, so does my interest. But maybe that is just me.
 
I hope you are wrong fear you are right. As I've said before I have no problem with college athletes getting paid, even big dollars, but this development introduces new tensions into the very concept of student-athlete, such that I'm not sure the concept will be sustainable in some sports. As the concept diminishes, so does my interest. But maybe that is just me.
It's definitely not just you.

The irony of the situation is that the concept of the "student-athlete" is actually alive and well at most colleges including Duke. The non-revenue Olympic sports still have actual college students who mostly have to squeeze in studying between practices.

It's these programs with dedicated academic pursuing athletes that are in the most danger as their football and basketball counterparts get paid six and seven figures.
 
SB, Many good points by you and others. This is a complex topic, lots of variables, and well argued here.

I want to repost a point that I believe should be a part of the mix: NIL payouts in non-revenue sports are likely to increase significantly, and they are not going to be equitably and rationally dispersed. I don't see that this has been sufficiently factored into this conversation.

Suppose that even just one or two of our ACC competitors in a non-revenue sport, such as tennis, finds a collective who will pay essentially unlimited amounts of NIL to the best recruits from all over the world. Whatever it takes...kinda like LIV Golf. Easy to imagine that an alumnus or proud parent wants to fund their progeny's program and/or that a commercial sponsor adopts a team...kinda like FedEx. Will Duke try to match it? Can it? And suppose that this original round of exorbitant funding of athletes at one or two of our ACC competitors results in a significant ratcheting up of funding throughout the conference, so that a number of our league opponents try to at least keep several of their best athletes. Will Duke try to match that? Can they? To what extent? Will Duke athletics use their own funds? Will they ask the revenue sport collectives to pitch in?

I have already heard about one of our top baseball players who was lured away for a sizable NIL deal. Could that have been thwarted? Should it have been? What if two, three or four of our best baseball players are also lured away? And that further increases?

My point is that I don't see any basis for arguing that NIL won't soon have the same impact on our non-revenue sports as it does and will have on football and basketball. And it won't be equitable, coming in rational increments. It will be subject to the whims of boosters aka collectives.

Absolutely. No question.

My semi-real theoretical about Duke Basketball upthread was meant to serve as a microcosm of every sport. In tennis it might be $1-2mm instead of $10-20mm. But this dynamic will likely happen in every single sport, revenue or non-revenue. And again, if the NIL Pie (meaning the amount of dollars available to allocate to players) does not grow meaningfully, how do you jostle all this money to keep everyone happy in a world of increasing NIL demands by players?

I'm not sure there is a win-win scenario, in the short- to medium-term. And potentially a lose-lose.

- Chillin
 
My eldest boy told me about this program at lunch today.. https://law.asu.edu/degree-programs/mslb
He's a Rising Sr in Marketing at SC, Columbia. He wants to work in sports, but this seemingly gives him a path to being an agent.
And I assume negotiating/navigating NIL and collectives are part of that..

Everybody wants a piece of the pie.
 
NIL money isn’t the university’s money. It’s not going to be distributed equitably. School administrators can ask donors for money for anything but non revenue sports aren’t filling stadiums nor are they must watch TV on game day. So football collectives will generate the vast majority of money from the collectives. If a wealthy booster has a fondness for particular non-rev sport, he/she might single-handedly make the program a contender, but that still leaves out the rest of the non-revs. Local businesses may sponsor non-rev programs as a legit NIL investment but collectives that raise money from non-alumni fans are not going to support non-revenue sports. Trying to buy top non-rev athletes with NIL money is an unnecessary strain. The point should be to offer a scholarship opportunity to worthy applicants. If they can get better NIL elsewhere and the school can give a scholarship to another worthy applicant, what is there to complain about?
 
I hope you are wrong fear you are right. As I've said before I have no problem with college athletes getting paid, even big dollars, but this development introduces new tensions into the very concept of student-athlete, such that I'm not sure the concept will be sustainable in some sports. As the concept diminishes, so does my interest. But maybe that is just me.
Been away a few days and just binge read to catch up, and quite a fascinating exchange. I will say that lost in the majority of the discussion (nationwide and in the media) is what Mike and Mountain and others have said...they are losing interest. I am too, and ironically, after many decades as being such a Duke fan that it was part of my identity - my only interest now is watching this train wreck and the implications of it. Now I don't pretend to speak for "fandom" writ large, but I cannot believe that the loss of interest expressed here, is unique. Or even small.

The foundation of this money machine is not merely tickets and eyeballs....it's the passion and the caring (dare I call it the GAF) that is or has been unique to college sports - that motivates those ticket sales and eyeballs. It is apart from the passion/interest in any other form of entertainment. To me, there is a feel, an essence, a "smell" almost to college sports that is simply different. Yes, it was on a foundation that was sure to unravel. It's cool because it's amateur - but because that attracted so much money - it cannot remain amateur. A doom loop of sorts?

I'll throw a few more dots out there, connect as you will: (paraphrasing below best of my memory)
Jim Boeheim warned often during the last few years that despite all the big revs, the vast majority of athletic departments are in the red.
Nick Saban said that while he likes the opportunities football players are getting, he fears there will be fewer athletes getting those opportunities as a result.
Saban also said that while this was great for Bama and him personally, it would not be great for the sport over all.
And of course Nina 's comment about swimming going away within a few years everywhere...as a college team sport.

I think all four of those comments are connecting the dots the way I am....my opinion of course, but I think I'm right on that. - with as I've said, 60% confidence. I also think that the very fabric of the singular nature of the college fan/ college athlete has been altered forever, and I do think that is going to drain the GAF. And at the end of the day, all of the massive money is tied to the GAF factor. So Golden Goose or Titanic ice berg or whatever analogy you prefer....I would not be surprised if the whole thing doesn't suffer some "shrinkage" (apologies Costanza) a couple years down the road.
 
Last edited:
We never finalized our pie bet. Do you still feel comfortable with the deciding factor being "FSU has public plans to leave the ACC before the kickoff of the 2024 football season?"
Yup, I am good with that. And to be clear, as I believe we said earlier, FSU screaming and threatening does not count as "public plans." They need to have an announced place they are going and the "place" needs to be on board with taking FSU.
Sounds right to me.

*Virtual handshake*
Tomorrow we will be exactly one month from me winning this bet (ACC football kicks off on Aug 24th).

I'm thinking I will probably go for the Blueberry Peach, but the Blackberry Peach crumb is also talking to me. I do love me a crumb crust.
 
Been away a few days and just binge read to catch up, and quite a fascinating exchange. I will say that lost in the majority of the discussion (nationwide and in the media) is what Mike and Mountain and others have said...they are losing interest. I am too, and ironically, after many decades as being such a Duke fan that it was part of my identity - my only interest now is watching this train wreck and the implications of it. Now I don't pretend to speak for "fandom" writ large, but I cannot believe that the loss of interest expressed here, is unique. Or even small.

The foundation of this money machine is not merely tickets and eyeballs....it's the passion and the caring (dare I call it the GAF) that is or has been unique to college sports - that motivates those ticket sales and eyeballs. It is apart from the passion/interest in any other form of entertainment. To me, there is a feel, an essence, a "smell" almost to college sports that is simply different. Yes, it was on a foundation that was sure to unravel. It's cool because it's amateur - but because that attracted so much money - it cannot remain amateur. A doom loop of sorts?

I'll throw a few more dots out there, connect as you will: (paraphrasing below best of my memory)
Jim Boeheim warned often during the last few years that despite all the big revs, the vast majority of athletic departments are in the red.
Nick Saban said that while he likes the opportunities football players are getting, he fears there will be fewer athletes getting those opportunities as a result.
Saban also said that while this was great for Bama and him personally, it would not be great for the sport over all.
And of course Nina 's comment about swimming going away within a few years everywhere...as a college team sport.

I think all four of those comments are connecting the dots the way I am....my opinion of course, but I think I'm right on that. - with as I've said, 60% confidence. I also think that the very fabric of the singular nature of the college fan/ college athlete has been altered forever, and I do think that is going to drain the GAF. And at the end of the day, all of the massive money is tied to the GAF factor. So Golden Goose or Titanic ice berg or whatever analogy you prefer....I would not be surprised if the whole thing doesn't suffer some "shrinkage" (apologies Costanza) a couple years down the road.
Would you please not state the bolded part as if it's a quote that our AD gave to the New York Times. It was originally reported here as a second-hand comment that someone heard Nina King had made to an unnamed member of the swim team. That's ... not nearly enough for it now to be repeated as gospel. And frankly, it would be utterly incautious and self-defeating for Nina to just decide to announce to a single student-athlete at some random event that that student-athlete's sport would be terminated in the near future. It is entirely inconsistent with everything I think I know about her. So let's stop with pretending this is some certainty.
 
Would you please not state the bolded part as if it's a quote that our AD gave to the New York Times. It was originally reported here as a second-hand comment that someone heard Nina King had made to an unnamed member of the swim team. That's ... not nearly enough for it now to be repeated as gospel. And frankly, it would be utterly incautious and self-defeating for Nina to just decide to announce to a single student-athlete at some random event that that student-athlete's sport would be terminated in the near future. It is entirely inconsistent with everything I think I know about her. So let's stop with pretending this is some certainty.
It was part of an interview with David Glenn on his radio show where she was retelling the story. Start at 18:15. Here's the quote (direct from Nina): "and I told him I said in all honesty you should be worried about swimming everywhere. I'm really worried about our Olympic sports." She goes on to say that broad decisions in the collegiate landscape focusing on a couple sports could come at the expense of the Olympic sports which are very important at Duke where 10% of the student body are athletes and is part of the Duke experience. She says that decisions should be made keeping in mind the best interest of all student athletes. So I agree with you that she didn't say swimming is going away in a few years -- in fact, she said that Duke specifically wants to take efforts to stem that. But she brought up the anecdote to mention that broader market forces are putting those types of sports at greater likelihood of removal down the road across the country. It's not a secondhand quote, though, you can listen for yourself:

 
Back
Top