Concentration of talent

[McKee Place]

I don't feel Pitt is treated unfairly at all actually. We are given seriously nice cuts from the ACC pie given what we bring, imo.

The system provides opp for programs to up their game if they want to throw enough resources at it. Right now that would have to be done mostly illegally of course, through boosters. Even if our admins had the stomach for that I don't think we could sustain the payola; it would easily and quickly be eclipsed by the blue bloods. It would look a bit like the recruiting spurt Arkansas (or was it Ole Miss?) had the past decade; they obviously amped up payouts there for a few years. Seems played out now; the big boys likely called up the reserve boosters and laid down a withering field of fire. And that's talking about an SEC pgm with relatively huge resources. So at best we could make an interesting initial splash, but simply not enough.

We could also help our cause by not being so church-lady about players and pot. Funny, booze doesn't seem as big a no no with our suits; elicits far less reactionary discipline ... pot seems scarier to us. m
Maybe it's a 'burgh thing.

Either way, under the table unilateral stimulus isn't our style, not for long anyway. You also need complicit local media, which we definitely dont have.

It would be more productive and feasible to approach it mutually with detente, as mentioned.

Despite what some write here, the majority schools do have a measure of leverage. The blue bloods picking up and leaving would be a nuclear option. Pitt likely wouldn't care as much, might even be relieved, but many other schools in many states would be left out besides us, and their constituents would hate, hate, hate it. They would bleat loudly to the government seeking "intervention" and threatening legal challenges etc. Select media would scald the bible bloods. Blowhards in Congress would get involved. There would be posturing and ugly hearings. Maybe some interesting tweets too. Nobody wants more warts exposed in college sports.

There's room to improve this for everyone.

 

[cashisking884]

You could! IF enough people voted for a 3rd parties or other parties besides either D or R could take the majority, then it would not be a 2 party system. If they could go further and change the constitution to a parliamentary system or a proportional representation system, then that could defeat the 2 party system, all that is highly unlikely, probably 0.000000000000001% chance of something like that ever happening, but yes, you could get rid of the two party system. It wasn't always that way, there was the Whigs, the Federalists, it could change again. probably not but theoretically it's possible.

The point is you can’t exit the system, which is why thr two party nature of it offends many.
Pitt can exit the system that is apparently so unfair to it.
Which is why your comparison was so odd.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

All this Blue Blood talk in annoying. Guys not that long ago Bama and Clemson was average and USC/Miami/LSU were the toast of the town. Yes it is always Blue Bloods at the top, but they do rotate between blue bloods. Occasionally you get a team that makes a run. Once Saban retires, Bama will come back to earth unless they hit another HR with a coach. Chances are they will get a good one but not a Saban type again and they will not be what they are now. It is what it is.

But never for long. Alabama was a power in the 60's. In the 70's. In the 80's they slid a bit. In the 90's they rebounded. In the 2000's hey slid back a bit. In the Ought 10's? They have been as strong as any program pretty much in history. Same can be said of tOSU. Oklahoma. USC. Even Penn State going back to the 60's. You don't see a blueblood just disappear for 20 years or so.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I don't feel Pitt is treated unfairly at all actually. We are given seriously nice cuts from the ACC pie given what we bring, imo.

The system provides opp for programs to up their game if they want to throw enough resources at it. Right now that would have to be done mostly illegally of course, through boosters. Even if our admins had the stomach for that I don't think we could sustain the payola; it would easily and quickly be eclipsed by the blue bloods. It would look a bit like the recruiting spurt Arkansas (or was it Ole Miss?) had the past decade; they obviously amped up payouts there for a few years. Seems played out now; the big boys likely called up the reserve boosters and laid down a withering field of fire. And that's talking about an SEC pgm with relatively huge resources. So at best we could make an interesting initial splash, but simply not enough.

We could also help our cause by not being so church-lady about players and pot. Funny, booze doesn't seem as big a no no with our suits; elicits far less reactionary discipline ... pot seems scarier to us. m
Maybe it's a 'burgh thing.

Either way, under the table unilateral stimulus isn't our style, not for long anyway. You also need complicit local media, which we definitely dont have.

It would be more productive and feasible to approach it mutually with detente, as mentioned.

Despite what some write here, the majority schools do have a measure of leverage. The blue bloods picking up and leaving would be a nuclear option. Pitt likely wouldn't care as much, might even be relieved, but many other schools in many states would be left out besides us, and their constituents would hate, hate, hate it. They would bleat loudly to the government seeking "intervention" and threatening legal challenges etc. Select media would scald the bible bloods. Blowhards in Congress would get involved. There would be posturing and ugly hearings. Maybe some interesting tweets too. Nobody wants more warts exposed in college sports.

There's room to improve this for everyone.

Ole Miss and you are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters to read.

 

[Mikefln]

But never for long. Alabama was a power in the 60's. In the 70's. In the 80's they slid a bit. In the 90's they rebounded. In the 2000's hey slid back a bit. In the Ought 10's? They have been as strong as any program pretty much in history. Same can be said of tOSU. Oklahoma. USC. Even Penn State going back to the 60's. You don't see a blueblood just disappear for 20 years or so.

Not what I was saying, these teams are blue blods because they do win for decades. I was saying you get a team like Miami was during their run or USC with theirs, Texas/OK/ETC. This Alabama run is actually unusual with how long it is going. The most teams go 5-6 years being top 3 then they settle and have bad seasons for them which is top 25 probably even top 20 still. That was my point.