Author
Topic: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.
(Read 274976 times)

utee94 · « **Reply #2716 on:** **Today** at 10:22:32 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on Today at 10:15:59 AM

Cal doesn't need much to fund football. Plenty of Div 2/3 programs exist, granted many make a payday playing some SEC team. The ACC teams obviously all get a much smaller chunk from that conference than the two big ones, but that doesn't mean they can't survive reasonably well. One thing about NIL is it makes those programs even less competitive for recruiting.

I'm a UNC alum who never attended a football game there in 4 seasons.

Sure I guess Berkley could drop to D2 or D3 football. I wonder if they would, though?

At that point they'd be dropped completely from the ACC payouts and every sport including football would be running in the red. Even a cheap football team costs more to run than a nonexistent one.

FearlessF · « **Reply #2717 on:** **Today** at 10:27:18 AM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on Today at 10:03:31 AM

Need @Drew4UTk needs to let him in.

I have it on the Grumpy thread for Drew
thought maybe KSBears and I were missing something y'all could help with
thanks

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2718 on:** **Today** at 10:28:24 AM »

My point is they can continue to have an ACC team with ACC payouts based on TV revenue for the conference. They wouldn't declassify, that would be harmful.

utee94 · « **Reply #2719 on:** **Today** at 10:33:44 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on Today at 10:28:24 AM

My point is they can continue to have an ACC team with ACC payouts based on TV revenue for the conference. They wouldn't declassify, that would be harmful.

My point is that at a payout of $12M from the ACC, even the football team is certainly running in the red all by itself. That $12M is inclusive of all revenues from the conference. It includes their TV deals, their conference network, their postseason payouts in all sports. It's all-in. They're not getting some new, extra money from the ACC TV contracts. $12M is the money from the ACC TV contract.

In 2024 their athletic department spent $180M and only brought in $100M. They ran an $80M deficit for that one year alone.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2720 on:** **Today** at 10:37:32 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on Today at 10:33:44 AM

In 2024 their athletic department spent $180M and only brought in $100M. They ran an $80M deficit for that one year alone.

That would be bad, they need to cut spending and nonrevenue sports, but support football.

FearlessF · « **Reply #2721 on:** **Today** at 10:42:04 AM »

send DOGE over, get rid or the athletic department

utee94 · « **Reply #2722 on:** **Today** at 11:01:36 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on Today at 10:37:32 AM

That would be bad, they need to cut spending and nonrevenue sports, but support football.

They might could do this at the D2 or D3 level. But only getting $12M from the ACC, they can't even support football alone at the D1-A/FBS level, without running a deficit.

Their biggest problem is that stadium renovation from a couple of years ago. They're currently servicing debt at $18M/year and it's expected to rise to over $35M/year.

They never should have done that.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2723 on:** **Today** at 11:02:43 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on Today at 10:11:11 AM

As for Clemson and FSU alums becoming locals? You see a lot of their gear out there? I don't ever see any of it in Austin which is similar in many ways to the Bay Area.

I haven't noticed much. I see a lot of Purdue and UM, but I think a good portion of that may be due to the West Coast offering a lot of opportunities in engineering. Purdue IMHO is WAY overrepresented... And I don't think it's just confirmation bias from me being a Boilermaker and noticing.

Of course UM, Texas, Georgia, OSU, ND, all of which I see often, might be bandwagon football fans as well, but I don't see much in the way of Clemson/FSU. Maybe it's because despite football success over several decades now, they're still probably "Johnnie come lately" in the national/demographic sense. Or it could be simply Midwestern out-migration in general, whereas there's I think less out-migration for SC/FL.

For Purdue specifically, I think it's largely due to it being a massive engineering school being based in a state that couldn't possibly support anywhere near the number of annual engineering grads with jobs.

utee94 · « **Reply #2724 on:** **Today** at 11:06:54 AM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on Today at 11:02:43 AM

I haven't noticed much. I see a lot of Purdue and UM, but I think a good portion of that may be due to the West Coast offering a lot of opportunities in engineering. Purdue IMHO is WAY overrepresented... And I don't think it's just confirmation bias from me being a Boilermaker and noticing.

...

For Purdue specifically, I think it's largely due to it being a massive engineering school being based in a state that couldn't possibly support anywhere near the number of annual engineering grads with jobs.

Yeah that's why I'd expect a decent representation of UNC, Duke, UVA-- even if not engineering or high tech specific, they produce a lot of graduates that go into the higher-end white collar jobs, which are relatively abundant in the Bay Area, and California in general.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2725 on:** **Today** at 11:20:46 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on Today at 11:06:54 AM

Yeah that's why I'd expect a decent representation of UNC, Duke, UVA-- even if not engineering or high tech specific, they produce a lot of graduates that go into the higher-end white collar jobs, which are relatively abundant in the Bay Area, and California in general.

Yeah, and admittedly I don't really know that world very well. But I would think fields like law or medicine wouldn't have an inherent "pull" of people away from where they grew up if they didn't want to go. Whereas high tech is a very clustered field when it comes to jobs.

As I've said before, pretty much the only places I'd be looking are Silicon Valley, SoCal, Colorado, Texas, Seattle, or RTP. Possibly Boise, but there's really only one big company that's in my field there, so it's work for them or don't go. There's certainly engineering in other places, but I'm now probably domain-specific enough that I'd be limited by that...

I would think if someone were a lawyer, they'd just go straight to DC

utee94 · « **Reply #2726 on:** **Today** at 11:27:07 AM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on Today at 11:20:46 AM

Yeah, and admittedly I don't really know that world very well. But I would think fields like law or medicine wouldn't have an inherent "pull" of people away from where they grew up if they didn't want to go. Whereas high tech is a very clustered field when it comes to jobs.

As I've said before, pretty much the only places I'd be looking are Silicon Valley, SoCal, Colorado, Texas, Seattle, or RTP. Possibly Boise, but there's really only one big company that's in my field there, so it's work for them or don't go. There's certainly engineering in other places, but I'm now probably domain-specific enough that I'd be limited by that...

I would think if someone were a lawyer, they'd just go straight to DC

True, but I guess I was actually thinking more specifically about grads from Duke/UNC/UVA, versus FSU and Clemson. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd expect more mobility to high-end white collar jobs in just about any locale from the former, versus the latter.

The point being that even if FSU and Clemson fans are more likely to attend football games, there are fewer of them, in the Bay Area.

This is of course entirely speculation with zero research to support it, and could be entirely wrong. But what are message boards even for, if not taking an uninformed stand on an unimportant topic?

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2727 on:** **Today** at 11:59:41 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on Today at 11:27:07 AM

True, but I guess I was actually thinking more specifically about grads from Duke/UNC/UVA, versus FSU and Clemson. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd expect more mobility to high-end white collar jobs in just about any locale from the former, versus the latter.

The point being that even if FSU and Clemson fans are more likely to attend football games, there are fewer of them, in the Bay Area.

This is of course entirely speculation with zero research to support it, and could be entirely wrong. But what are message boards even for, if not taking an uninformed stand on an unimportant topic?

Well, we all know that anecdotes are the best source of data.

I can say in SoCal, I see more Duke/UNC/UVA than I see FSU and Clemson.

So your wild-assed-guess aligns with my anecdata. I think we're good now

utee94 · « **Reply #2728 on:** **Today** at 12:02:55 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on Today at 11:59:41 AM

Well, we all know that anecdotes are the best source of data.

I can say in SoCal, I see more Duke/UNC/UVA than I see FSU and Clemson.

So your wild-assed-guess aligns with my anecdata. I think we're good now

Sounds like the matter is settled.

Berkley should either disband football altogether, or join a conference with closer affiliates. I'm thinking maybe a couple of schools in LA, a couple of schools in Oregon, a couple of schools in Washington. Maybe even a couple of schools in Arizona?

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #2729 on:** **Today** at 12:08:45 PM »

DC is alternatively hot and humid or cold and dreary, in the middle of a swamp, addicted to politics and little else, and full of crazy of all kinds. Who would want to go there!?!

I like my weather mild, plenty of natural beauty, my politics left, my wine red and robust, and nearly every kind of entertainment and activity within a 3-hour driving distance.

DC can suck it.

Y'all have already addressed the many transplants, including from plenty of ACC schools, that live in this area.

Also, while it doesn't have Big Ten or SEC levels of fandom, there is a strong Cal fan base. I think the bigger problem is convincing the University's administration to really invest in football. Also, I'm pretty sure Stanford and Cal both assume that college football will realign again--and soon--and that they will go back to playing in a geographically rational conference. I think that may be wishful thinking, but I suspect it is where they are at.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

utee94

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

FearlessF

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

Cincydawg

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

utee94

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

Cincydawg

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

FearlessF

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

utee94

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

betarhoalphadelta

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

utee94

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

betarhoalphadelta

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

utee94

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

betarhoalphadelta

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

utee94

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.

SFBadger96

Re: The Death of College Football - Realignment, NIL, Portal, Etc.