A couple of comments from Zeise on realignment

[pittmeister]

He’s saying the same things I have been sharing in regards to realignment.

Marty: As a Pitt fan, I am very worried about this latest round of conference realignment. Do you think the ACC will survive? And even if it does, will the Big Ten and SEC have a monopoly on the talent?

Zeise: I hear a lot of Pitt fans with these concerns, and I think they are hitting the panic button for no reason at all. Pitt will land in a good spot and it may even be the ACC. The ACC might even survive intact. There are all kinds of rumors about Clemson, Miami and Florida State, and I just would hold off. Those teams know they are in a good spot and, quite frankly, I just don’t see this mega-conference stuff working. It will be something where the teams that are not in the two “power conferences” will be aligned enough with other good teams to still have really good contracts. And the two mega-conferences will need someone to play against. The playoff will include more than two just conferences. In short, I think Pitt and WVU fans should calm down and let the process play out.

The NCAA basketball tournament is another reason why this whole thing is not going to get blown up. It just isn’t. All of the schools in the Big Ten and most of the schools in the SEC see enough value in the NCAA tournament that they will not completely shut everyone else out of the playoffs in football. If they break away from the NCAA, are they going to then be OK with not being a part of NCAA basketball? I don’t see it. Football drives the bus, but there is still a lot of value in men’s and women’s basketball.

I also see these outrages getting much worse before they get better. What’s going to happen to the traditionally Black colleges when the power conferences eliminate them from the NCAA tournament? After all, why should the SEC or ACC share any of the funds from the tournament with the SWAC? Many of the SWAC schools stay open because of buy games and tournament proceeds. That doesn’t have to continue, and given the hypocrisy of college presidents, why would it continue?

Riley M: How much money do these college conferences realistically think they are going to make? TV ratings for college football have declined every year for almost a decade, how unrealistic is it to believe if you put these monster conferences together that they will make more than they are now per team?

Zeise: At some point you would think the golden goose will stop laying eggs. You are right — attendance and ratings are down the last seven years, and that’s not a good trend. There is still a lot of money to be made. If there wasn’t, this nonsense wouldn’t be going on. Clearly the Big Ten offers more than the Pac-12 to USC and UCLA, but I do think there will be a point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

the basketball side of things does seem to be overlooked or forgotten. Not a terrible point by Zeise bringing it up. i know football is #1 but that whole march madness thingy makes a few bucks as well.

 

[cruzer]

He’s saying the same things I have been sharing in regards to realignment.

Marty: As a Pitt fan, I am very worried about this latest round of conference realignment. Do you think the ACC will survive? And even if it does, will the Big Ten and SEC have a monopoly on the talent?

Zeise: I hear a lot of Pitt fans with these concerns, and I think they are hitting the panic button for no reason at all. Pitt will land in a good spot and it may even be the ACC. The ACC might even survive intact. There are all kinds of rumors about Clemson, Miami and Florida State, and I just would hold off. Those teams know they are in a good spot and, quite frankly, I just don’t see this mega-conference stuff working. It will be something where the teams that are not in the two “power conferences” will be aligned enough with other good teams to still have really good contracts. And the two mega-conferences will need someone to play against. The playoff will include more than two just conferences. In short, I think Pitt and WVU fans should calm down and let the process play out.

The NCAA basketball tournament is another reason why this whole thing is not going to get blown up. It just isn’t. All of the schools in the Big Ten and most of the schools in the SEC see enough value in the NCAA tournament that they will not completely shut everyone else out of the playoffs in football. If they break away from the NCAA, are they going to then be OK with not being a part of NCAA basketball? I don’t see it. Football drives the bus, but there is still a lot of value in men’s and women’s basketball.

I also see these outrages getting much worse before they get better. What’s going to happen to the traditionally Black colleges when the power conferences eliminate them from the NCAA tournament? After all, why should the SEC or ACC share any of the funds from the tournament with the SWAC? Many of the SWAC schools stay open because of buy games and tournament proceeds. That doesn’t have to continue, and given the hypocrisy of college presidents, why would it continue?

Riley M: How much money do these college conferences realistically think they are going to make? TV ratings for college football have declined every year for almost a decade, how unrealistic is it to believe if you put these monster conferences together that they will make more than they are now per team?

Zeise: At some point you would think the golden goose will stop laying eggs. You are right — attendance and ratings are down the last seven years, and that’s not a good trend. There is still a lot of money to be made. If there wasn’t, this nonsense wouldn’t be going on. Clearly the Big Ten offers more than the Pac-12 to USC and UCLA, but I do think there will be a point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

I certainly will sleep better tonight now that Zeise has told us that there's nothing to worry about.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

the basketball side of things does seem to be overlooked or forgotten. Not a terrible point by Zeise bringing it up. i know football is #1 but that whole march madness thingy makes a few bucks as well.

You're right. Basketball tends to be shoved under the rug, but March Madness is a major event and a money maker for everyone. I've been thinking of that through this whole debacle and I don't think any of this re-alignment is going to be as earth shattering as some try and make it out to be. Basketball will be involved in the process. The ACC may come out of this totally intact.

But it's all speculation at this point. No one, including the sports pundits and any of us, knows a thing about this.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

His point is relative satiation sets in and he is right! The question with his example is WHEN does it set in?

 

[pittmeister]

I certainly will sleep better tonight now that Zeise has told us that there's nothing to worry about.

No offense to you cruzer, but you’re disregarding the message because of the messenger… He makes some valid points…

Of course TheWerewolfFromTwilight agrees with you so that should disrupt your sleep pattern…

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

I think these are rational takes. But as I said in another post, I would be interested in the ACC taking on some of the PAC and B12 schools, honestly because most of our ACC opponents pretty much bore me, and always have. I hoped that a decade or so of exposure would make me more interested, but it hasn’t, it’s quite the opposite, really. To blend in Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Wash, maybe Houston and even Cousin Eddie on our schedules the occasional basis would hopefully make it a little more interesting.

 

[ratking17]

How can zeise find time to talk sports when he spends most of his day researching covid research that the government hides from us sheeple.???

 

[pittmeister]

How can zeise find time to talk sports when he spends most of his day researching covid research that the government hides from us sheeple.???

Ask him:

Paul Zeise: pzeise@post-gazette.com

 

[pittdan77]

Guessing some of his opinion is rooted in, what is Pitt going to be able to do about any of it and that's where I'm sitting, too. I'm also still looking back at when the GOR was signed and all of the hindsight that it is "so bad" when it's not even clear where the endpoint is at. Nobody really knows outside of the people who make decisions but most of it is based in assumptions that the people at Florida State and Clemson were really stupid to go along with it.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

No offense to you cruzer, but you’re disregarding the message because of the messenger… He makes some valid points…

Of course TheWerewolfFromTwilight agrees with you so that should disrupt your sleep pattern…

My God, dude. You are softer than a cotton ball. His point was that Paul Zeise has no idea how this is going to play out. I agree, so I liked the post.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

Guessing some of his opinion is rooted in, what is Pitt going to be able to do about any of it and that's where I'm sitting, too. I'm also still looking back at when the GOR was signed and all of the hindsight that it is "so bad" when it's not even clear where the endpoint is at. Nobody really knows outside of the people who make decisions but most of it is based in assumptions that the people at Florida State and Clemson were really stupid to go along with it.

I’ve always shared the standpoint that the teams in the two elite conferences are going to want to have enough subpar opponents to play so that they aren’t beating up on themselves and having their champions finish 8-4. Their fans have colossal egos and not only want to be champions but also to have the 14-0 record along with it.

 

[pittmeister]

My God, dude. You are softer than a cotton ball.

Not at all, dude… You have a one sided negative take on the whole thing. Others like myself, are looking at it from a rational point of view. Pitt may be on the outside looking in when it’s all over, but I:

A. Don’t believe what I see on Twitter

B. Nobody knows what’s going to happen.

C. I’m willing to be positive and let it play out.

That’s not being soft. In fact it’s a sign of strength. Panic and negativity is for the weak…

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Not at all, dude… You have a one sided negative take on the whole thing. Others like myself, are looking at it from a rational point of view. Pitt may be on the outside looking in when it’s all over, but I:

A. Don’t believe what I see on Twitter

B. Nobody knows what’s going to happen.

C. I’m willing to be positive and let it play out.

That’s not being soft. In fact it’s a sign of strength. Panic and negativity is for the weak…

And I happen to think you're a pom pom-waving Pollyanna with the sensitivity of an exposed nerve. Agree to disagree. Good day.

 

[pittmeister]

I’ve always shared the standpoint that the teams in the two elite conferences are going to want to have enough subpar opponents to play so that they aren’t beating up on themselves and having their champions finish 8-4. Their fans have colossal egos and not only want to be champions but also to have the 14-0 record along with it.

Bingo!

 

[pittmeister]

And I happen to think you're a pom pom-waving Pollyanna with the sensitivity of an exposed nerve. Agree to disagree. Good day.

Obviously, I hit a nerve! Good-Bye…..😊

 

[pittdan77]

I’ve always shared the standpoint that the teams in the two elite conferences are going to want to have enough subpar opponents to play so that they aren’t beating up on themselves and having their champions finish 8-4. Their fans have colossal egos and not only want to be champions but also to have the 14-0 record along with it.

Seems like there is an underlying assumption that CFB will attain a level of parity that the NFL enjoys but with limits on who gets to enjoy it. Like, nobody thinks Rutgers or Vandy are going to suddenly rise up and compete but they are expected to stay in their lane, or something.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

I’ve always shared the standpoint that the teams in the two elite conferences are going to want to have enough subpar opponents to play so that they aren’t beating up on themselves and having their champions finish 8-4. Their fans have colossal egos and not only want to be champions but also to have the 14-0 record along with it.

I think that'll be balanced out by the fact that you have a way better chance of postseason relevancy. Take Wisconsin, for example. If I look at 2005 - 2019, they won 10 games per year over that 15-year stretch. However, they've gotten to play for a championship zero times. Under a new format, maybe they only win 7.5 games per year or something, but maybe they make the 16-team playoff six or seven (random guess) years out of 15. And there's more possibility for an upset in a playoff tournament that has more rounds (beyond the obvious, there's more chances for an off day or an emotional letdown).

Definitely going to be some give and take. The fans will have to adjust, I guess.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

I think these are rational takes. But as I said in another post, I would be interested in the ACC taking on some of the PAC and B12 schools, honestly because most of our ACC opponents pretty much bore me, and always have. I hoped that a decade or so of exposure would make me more interested, but it hasn’t, it’s quite the opposite, really. To blend in Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Wash, maybe Houston and even Cousin Eddie on our schedules the occasional basis would hopefully make it a little more interesting.

Yeah, ACC. The ole 65er is bored. Blow up the conference and add these teams so I'll be interested.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

the basketball side of things does seem to be overlooked or forgotten. Not a terrible point by Zeise bringing it up. i know football is #1 but that whole march madness thingy makes a few bucks as well.

Doesn’t Louisville make more money from basketball than football? It’s not just the small conference schools who make their living from basketball.

I couldn’t find a link (didn’t look long enough) but they are #1 in basketball money.

 

[h2p_5150]

I think these are rational takes. But as I said in another post, I would be interested in the ACC taking on some of the PAC and B12 schools, honestly because most of our ACC opponents pretty much bore me, and always have. I hoped that a decade or so of exposure would make me more interested, but it hasn’t, it’s quite the opposite, really. To blend in Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Wash, maybe Houston and even Cousin Eddie on our schedules the occasional basis would hopefully make it a little more interesting.

Those teams would be boring too. Most of the Big Ten opponents will be boring for UCLA and USC fans, too. College sports are great when you are playing regional teams where your neighbors might root for the rival. Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC makes enough sense- Arkansas, LSU and Missouri (if they ever stop sucking) could develop into regional games that are fun for both fanbases. How is USC vs Iowa ever going to matter to anyone?

 

[pittdan77]

I think that'll be balanced out by the fact that you have a way better chance of postseason relevancy. Take Wisconsin, for example. If I look at 2005 - 2019, they won 10 games per year over that 15-year stretch. However, they've gotten to play for a championship zero times

They've been a legitimate threat to make the playoff twice in that span and have lost their own conference championship quite a few times. Access to the playoff hasn't been their problem.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

Seems like there is an underlying assumption that CFB will attain a level of parity that the NFL enjoys but with limits on who gets to enjoy it. Like, nobody thinks Rutgers or Vandy are going to suddenly rise up and compete but they are expected to stay in their lane, or somethiThat’s how Lyke should be trying to sell us: “Don’t be scared by our one season of competence last year; look at our overall history. We usually stink! We can assure you, we’re really only in this so we can fund our chick sports that are hemorrhaging money. We’ll be glad to be one of the Washington Generals of your conference.”

Those teams would be boring too. Most of the Big Ten opponents will be boring for UCLA and USC fans, too. College sports are great when you are playing regional teams where your neighbors might root for the rival. Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC makes enough sense- Arkansas, LSU and Missouri (if they ever stop sucking) could develop into regional games that are fun for both fanbases. How is USC vs Iowa ever going to matter to anyone?

No doubt the new additions likely would get boring as well. But one thing I’m certain of is that the conference as it is is boring NOW. We belong in the Big Ten, it was true in the 1930s and is true today. Thanks, Pitt leadership 😡

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

They've been a legitimate threat to make the playoff twice in that span and have lost their own conference championship quite a few times. Access to the playoff hasn't been their problem.

Pitt has "access" to the playoff. It's still difficult as hell to get into it. But Pitt would have been in a 16-team playoff last year. I think that creates much more excitement than losing two games by week five and knowing the best you can do is the Mainstays Candle Bowl.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

Doesn’t Louisville make more money from basketball than football? It’s not just the small conference schools who make their living from basketball.

I couldn’t find a link (didn’t look long enough) but they are #1 in basketball money.

maybe, wouldnt surprise me at all. that arena they have seats like 18k and well hoops in kentucky is pretty big..

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

No doubt the new additions likely would get boring as well. But one thing I’m certain of is that the conference as it is is boring NOW. We belong in the Big Ten, it was true in the 1930s and is true today. Thanks, Pitt leadership 😡

I think it would be okay if VT and Miami would be what they were in the early 2000s. There really haven't been any major dragons to slay in our division, and winning or losing mostly just depends on how many times we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot that day. So that, in conjunction with opposing atmospheres that have less fans and us not having any legit rivals in the conference, definitely makes the Big Ten more appealing. Can't argue that.

 

[Las Panteras]

Seems like there is an underlying assumption that CFB will attain a level of parity that the NFL enjoys but with limits on who gets to enjoy it. Like, nobody thinks Rutgers or Vandy are going to suddenly rise up and compete but they are expected to stay in their lane, or something.

I think this assumption by CFB will ultimately reflect MLB and not the NFL. Fans of college teams are similar to baseball fans. I mean....Ive been a Pirate fan all of my life and dont really care what the Mets or Dodgers are doing....and will only care about them IF my Pirates are relevant.

it seems to me that will be the plight (if not already) of the Rutgers and Vandy fans. I dont see the parity at all, and I think these superconferences are wrong if they believe this will happen.

 

[303vND]

HBCU's will be jus fine. Try and alienate them and see the campaign to have black athletes attend HBCUs rather than PWIs that are actively eliminating them HBCUs from the tourney.

 

[PittPharm2002]

Ya lost me on Zeise

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

the basketball side of things does seem to be overlooked or forgotten. Not a terrible point by Zeise bringing it up. i know football is #1 but that whole march madness thingy makes a few bucks as well.

Teams make peanuts from the NCAA Tournament. That money goes to fund all other NCAA Championships. A Big Ten/SEC Basketball Tournament would probably make those teams just as much since they don't have to share

 

[pittdan77]

Pitt has "access" to the playoff. It's still difficult as hell to get into it. But Pitt would have been in a 16-team playoff last year. I think that creates much more excitement than losing two games by week five and knowing the best you can do is the Mainstays Candle Bowl.

Yeah, teams that are 2-3 regularly compete for the playoff.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Yeah, teams that are 2-3 regularly compete for the playoff.

You can't start 2-3, finish 8-4, and qualify for a playoff tournament that accepts 16 teams out of 40? Lol, okay. I definitely never watched a 3-4 Steelers teams make the Super Bowl in 1995. Cause that ain't possible.

 

[pittdan77]

You can't start 2-3, finish 8-4, and qualify for a playoff tournament that accepts 16 teams out of 40? Lol, okay. I definitely never watched a 3-4 Steelers teams make the Super Bowl in 1995. Cause that ain't possible.

Oh yeah, lots of schools finish in the top 16 with 8-4 records. Happens every season.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Oh yeah, lots of schools finish in the top 16 with 8-4 records. Happens every season.

Again, your concept of what a "good record" is would be completely different when teams aren't playing two G5 games and one FCS game every year. Additionally, there wouldn't be any G5 teams that had a "magical season" jumping up to fill those spots simply because they beat one decent team all year. If the 2018 UCF team had to play a real schedule, they might have been 8-4, not 12-0.

That 2016 Penn State team is another example. Started 2-2. Finished 11-2 and did not make the playoff.

The Bengals made the Super Bowl last year with a .588 winning percentage. That would be the equivalent of winning 7 games in a 12-game season. I don't see why this model would be much different from the NFL model, record-wise. 9-3 or 8-4 could absolutely allow for a team to get in a playoff that includes 40% of the league.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

We’ll just have to see if the elite teams , their boosters most specifically, are happy with the idea that the “champion” might have 4 or 5 losses in a reorganized conference with little room for non-con warm up games. I think it will make some of them sour. These are Type A personalities. If it weren’t already this way you wouldn’t see so many schools play rotting garbage for most of the first month of each season. These dbags not only want to see wins but they get off on the 81-0 demolitions.

 

[JS School]

I’ve always shared the standpoint that the teams in the two elite conferences are going to want to have enough subpar opponents to play so that they aren’t beating up on themselves and having their champions finish 8-4. Their fans have colossal egos and not only want to be champions but also to have the 14-0 record along with it.

They can go 14-0 in a 24 team conference. They will just let Alabama and Ohio St load up on all the Vanderbilts and Missouris, Rutgers and Indianas.

 

[happjack]

We’ll just have to see if the elite teams , their boosters most specifically, are happy with the idea that the “champion” might have 4 or 5 losses in a reorganized conference with little room for non-con warm up games. I think it will make some of them sour. These are Type A personalities. If it weren’t already this way you wouldn’t see so many schools play rotting garbage for most of the first month of each season. These dbags not only want to see wins but they get off on the 81-0 demolitions.

This! Also, if you're a school like Michigan State why would you want to kick out the likes of Purdue? With the Boilermakers gone Sparty will basically be the new Purdue.

 

[MJG-90]

Zeus’s: The NCAA basketball tournament is another reason why this whole thing is not going to get blown up. It just isn’t. All of the schools in the Big Ten and most of the schools in the SEC see enough value in the NCAA tournament that they will not completely shut everyone else out of the playoffs in football. If they break away from the NCAA, are they going to then be OK with not being a part of NCAA basketball? I don’t see it. Football drives the bus, but there is still a lot of value in men’s and women’s basketball.

I’m pretty certain nobody is leaving the NCAA in any sport other than football. At least not yet. Too many other sports wouldn’t survive with just the 40 or so schools. Hockey for example would only have 7 or 8 schools playing out of the 40.

 

[pittdan77]

That 2016 Penn State team is another example. Started 2-2. Finished 11-2 and did not make the playoff.

I mean, so what? Two embarrassing losses were held against them and the team that got put in over them got throttled. Besides, that doesn't support an argument that an 8-4 team is making the playoff. You're using pro football as some kind of gold standard but that's only 32 teams. College football has quite a few more teams that than that. Also wouldn't hold my breath that two conferences are going to shut out everyone else and the college football media (or TV) is going to be cool with that. Especially in a world where that means the goliaths are still losing pre-conference games to the likes of Pitt. Leaves you with a pretty underwhelming playoff that totally devalues what the networks are paying for the other conferences.

 

[pittmeister]

We’ll just have to see if the elite teams , their boosters most specifically, are happy with the idea that the “champion” might have 4 or 5 losses in a reorganized conference with little room for non-con warm up games. I think it will make some of them sour. These are Type A personalities. If it weren’t already this way you wouldn’t see so many schools play rotting garbage for most of the first month of each season. These dbags not only want to see wins but they get off on the 81-0 demolitions.

You are a wise & insightful man. If most posters knew some of these guys, they would come to the same conclusion. They want championships, but in addition to that, they want to beat the hell out of their opponents, especially rivals…