UCF is going to get in a P5 conference
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
In talking about Big 10 expansion, remember they have the “contiguous” rule for membership: a school must have a border with at least one school already in the conference. If PSU hadn’t been a member, Rutgers and Maryland couldn’t have joined. Nebraska has a border with Iowa.
I imagine they would rescind that rule for Texas. For UCF? No way.
I imagine they would rescind that rule for Texas. For UCF? No way.
There isn't a contiguous state rule -- the Big 10 debunked that rumor years ago. They might have a preference for that, but it's not a rule that needs to be lifted. They do care about media market and AAU (Association of American University) membership. And research dollars.
So I can't imagine the Big 10 looking at UCF, it's a weird fit. Big 12 makes more sense to me. The old Big East of course would have been the best fit but that was not to be.
So I can't imagine the Big 10 looking at UCF, it's a weird fit. Big 12 makes more sense to me. The old Big East of course would have been the best fit but that was not to be.
The Big XII already could have done that. It passed. UCF and USF won't be the expansion choices, unless it's a grab to replace the Big XII teams that were taken in the latest round of realignment. But if that happens, the Big XII is already dead.
Do you see the problem for UCF? They can't really go anywhere except the Big XII. The Big Ten isn't interested. But the Big XII already passed on them, so they aren't interested either. The only point the Big XII comes calling is if it has been the victim of realignment. But if that happens again, there will be no Big XII has a P5 conference. So UCF's station won't change any.
Exactly. The problem for the Big XII and Pac 10 is not "long term." That might be a problem. But in the short term, one of those conferences is going to end, with one consuming the other.
Everything you have to do as a conference right now, has to be geared towards living to see tomorrow. Not 10 or 15 years from now. One the war of the moment.
UCF or USF don't do a single thing to help that. The Big XII understood that. Which is why it passed on both teams.
People think the B10 cares about research and AAU memberships, but they spent years pursuing Notre Dame, which has neither substantial research dollars nor AAU membership, and no chance to ever become an AAU member. They invited Nebraska knowing full well they were going to be expelled from the AAU, with multiple Big10 members leading the charge to push them out. The most powerful and prestigious member of their academic consortium, the University of Chicago, was recently pushed out and they failed to convince or pursue lacrosse affiliate member Johns Hopkins, by many counts the nation's leading research university, to join their consortium.
These talking points work well in the bloggersphere. No one had even heard of the AAU before some self-anointed conference realignment expert noticed the homogeneity of Big10 research profiles among its members. These academic footnotes have even been parroted by officials in the Big Ten because it masks the pursuit of money in a veneer of academics. All things being equal athletically and financially, academic profiles certainly can make a difference in deciding between otherwise relatively equal athletic candidates, and it makes it easier to sell a new member to college presidents since there is a comfort level in partnering with institutions with similar missions, issues, and mechanics, but the reality is that the actual importance of these things has been demonstrated to be much different than purported.
I think you overstate your case more than some Big 10 presidents do regarding their preference for AAU, land grant/ag research, and flag ship state institutions:
https://journalstar.com/news/local/...cle_19188dda-afe7-57c8-aa2c-c1939ec5acb4.html
It was probably only a small number of schools who both voted to accept Nebraska to join the Big 10 (during a generalized Big 12 break down), and also to eject them from the AAU. Possibly only two? To the extent a "university" is really voting on it.
https://journalstar.com/news/local/...cle_19188dda-afe7-57c8-aa2c-c1939ec5acb4.html
It was probably only a small number of schools who both voted to accept Nebraska to join the Big 10 (during a generalized Big 12 break down), and also to eject them from the AAU. Possibly only two? To the extent a "university" is really voting on it.
AAU membership and athletic conference membership are completely separate issues for the schools that are in the B10. The point is, everyone in the B10 knew UNL was gone from the AAU well before all these votes. UNL tried to lobby hard to stay, but it had no chance and everyone knew it. Syracuse, also on the chopping block, saw that and just gave up and withdrew without protest, because frankly, Nebraska sort of embarrassed themselves. It's not a make or break criteria for B10 membership or evaluation of membership. Statements that "universities don't vote" are disingenuous. Of course they do, that's what presidents are for, as they represent their institutions. Such statements are just cover to not seem at odds with colleagues. Even if they cite R&D totals comparable to other AAU members (on the low end at least), it isn't usefully comparable.
The AAU is largely about sharing of internal institutional data and practices between similarly situated institutions; things like faculty and staff salaries, procurement, grants administration processes, etc. When you aren't comparing yourself to like institutions, the utility of those datasets breaks down. UNL was no longer a peer, but an outlier. The issue isn't so much about not having an "on-campus med school," as the article tries to apply a public salve to the situation of UNL. Plenty of AAU schools do not have on-campus med schools. It's about USDA grants, which is the bulk of the government research money that UNL receives, aren't peer reviewed, but earmarked. That's a completely different process of obtaining research money than the remaining members, and not nearly as well regarded.
Nebraska was invited to the B10 because it was a traditional football power. Same with Notre Dame. Maryland and Rutgers were invited because they were the only traditional major football playing schools that it could get in major northeastern markets where the B10 Network wanted to expand. If the locations of Maryland and West Virginia were switched, they probably would have taken West Virginia. Well, maybe not, I'm not going to pretend there is no academic snobbery at play, but let's pretend WVU is at least as academically regarded as Temple. Then they would have likely taken WVU if they were located inside the beltway, and Maryland, even with a better football program, if located in such a poor demographic area that WVU currently resides, would be scrambling. $ almost always wins out; other factors aren't nonexistent, just secondary, and sometimes very secondary. When you have choices, and the B10 always will, you can be choosier. When you don't have choices, you take Louisville.
Last edited:
That's not what they are saying man. It has to do with things more than "getting beat." Miami and Florida State are the ACC programs with reach in Orlando. Both on the recruiting trail and in regards to corporate and individual donors. You are acting like they would say, "nope we don't want to get beat by them." your logic is flawed because the majority of schools would not have approved Louisville at the time because they were "in danger of losing." If LSU wanted to leave the SEC and come to the ACC, schools would welcome it. It would make the schools more money and they do not infringe on anyone's geographic location for recruiting and fundraising. They wouldn't say no because they are scared to lose. An AD is responsible for all athletic programs. Decisions aren't made because of one potential loss on a football schedule.
Actually, the Big 12's consultant recommended adding UCF and Cincinnati. There was a positive move on the needle for TV. The Big 12 is arrogant, however, and when they started their expansion process, the B12 university presidents had convinced themselves that ACC and PAC schools would apply. Obviously, that's nuts, so they decided to cut a deal with the network partners to take an increased payout for existing teams in lieu of expanding.
This is a very troubling scenario. I am curious where you think Pitt fits in when the money tree finally drys up. Especially when the established brands ala tOSU, Alabama, Clemson et al. are told that they (ESPN) aren't paying absurd media right deals for the next contract. And a trimming of the fat is going to be needed in order to keep the fat paychecks coming.
Last edited:
You seem to be pretty arrogant for a Pitt fan which is quite shocking since your appear to have a rationale thought process.
In the world of "what have you done for me lately?" and the round robin that is coming up is going to most likely displace a lot of teams; do you think Pitt is so far superior to the likes of UCF that you'll be fine?
Also, if FSU and Clemson leave to join the other perennial powers, do you think the ACC maintain's it's power status?
Yes. Pitt will be fine. TV ratings, facilities, academics = Pitt is a very good fit for the ACC. The football team is mediocre but probably not worse than a Wake Forest or Virginia typically is.
There will be a shake up in 2021 or 2022 with the new TV contracts and I hope it works out well for UCF. But come on, Pitt is in no trouble.
They are not leaving so your question is a pointless one.
Personally, I think the P5 teams need to form their own division (maybe add a few more teams like UCF and Cincinnati) then realign everything into regional divisions.
Personally, I think the P5 teams need to form their own division (maybe add a few more teams like UCF and Cincinnati) then realign everything into regional divisions.
Are you saying that Clemson and FSU will never leave the ACC even it means they would be taking a massive paycut by staying? The ESPN model is dying, subscribers are jumping ship in droves, football games are getting increasingly bloated by advertisers which is a huge turn off for the younger generation that in turn feeds into more people unsubscribing.
These large media contracts are not sustainable especially with a recession that is bound to come at some point, sooner rather than later. The gravy train is almost assuredly going to end. So I don't see how the question isn't valid. So again, I ask - is Pitt a big enough draw without FSU and Clemson? Or will they suffer the same fate as UCF?
It is very unlikely that they will leave in the near or even moderately far-term. Certainly they aren't going anywhere before 2036.
ESPN's model is evolving. They, and Disney for that matter, are on the forefront of technology, content delivery, and consumer preferences changes. They haven't created the SEC and ACC Networks as favors to those conferences. They know the trends and they're in it to make $. The speculation of the demise these networks, and thus associated conferences, is mostly misplaced hope on the part of individuals wishing for massive collegiate conference realignments and is driven by nothing but amateur speculation. If that is your hope for UCF getting into a Power 5 type of situation, good luck with that.
UCF's best hope is still for the B12 to decide it makes sense to enter Florida.
I don't think it is troubling for the sport, but it certainly could be troubling for Pitt. The B12 schools are absolutely the first on the chopping block. KSU, ISU, WVU, KU, OkSU, TTU, and TCU are clear candidates to be cuts. Then it is about numbers. If 56 is the right number, Pitt is probably ok. If it is more like 40, Pitt is probably screwed. Of course, I wouldn't be shocked if they went to something more like 32 for football.
I'm not "arrogant."
Pitt is somewhat helped out by the Pittsburgh media market and the area. But even that is only going to take us so far. We will survive the next round of expansion, because we're in the "club." The problem will be when Bama and company break away from the NCAA. I, like the fans of a bunch of other teams, will be very nervous and hope it works out.
But all of that is irrelevant to the point at hand. When UCF fans come on this board, and pretend like the Big XII actually thought they were going to get ACC members to jump, and that's why they didn't go after the G5 schools, all one can do is just laugh. It's so far removed from reality.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
The thought that a group of schools is going to break away is pretty far down the road. The NCAA is really a group of university presidents. Although these guys see cash money everywhere they look, they have always maintained the "student athlete" rallying cry. You can already see that they understand the need to preserve the institution as they backed away from sanctions on PSU and have "whistled past the graveyard" on everything as bad or worse since. Even when there is evidence that schools have broken rules that should bring the death penalty (see Louisville).
pittdan77
Athletic Director
The Big 12 has to get it's own house in order first. We will know in a year or two if Texas can keep the conference together or not.
The most immediate and somewhat plausible scenario where UCF can be a winner is if the Big 12 "disintegrates" rather than renew the GOR "as is" in a few years and the AAC can absorb enough of the leftovers to "elevate" the conference. Then it's a matter of perception and whether or not the remaining P5 conferences and bowl partners see a benefit. Of course that all depends on what Texas and/or Oklahoma (and to some extent WVU) want to do and whether there is enough TV money there to continue that arrangement.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If numbers go down for one league, don't you think they will also go down across the board.
First, I really don't think the B12 is going anywhere. They make good money and Texas is happy running the show. If the Longhorn Network goes away, then they may start looking, it it could eventually morph into a B12 network. Who probably isn't that happy? OU, but they've no place to go currently, and they've got an OSU problem.
If the B12 disintegrates, meaning Texas and Oklahoma end up in other conferences, then the B12 will likely be heading the way of the Big East. It would be every school for itself. Likely Texas and OU would likely be taking other schools with them to a new conference, so the B12 would like have, at most, only 6 or 7 schools left. It will be difficult to retain true power conference status, over the long term, with some combination of these left overs: Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor, OSU, and WVU. This was true for the Big East post the 2003 raid. It cobbled together enough to maintain BCS membership, but the separation between it and the other BCS conferences was beginning to widen and the writing was on the wall (not unimportantly, it didn't have a major bowl tie in that would have left it out of the New Years Day 6/CFP organization). The fear of that scenario is likely why the B12 was looking at expansion in the first place. These non-UT/OU schools want to boost their numbers so they don't have as arduous a time rebuilding if something catastrophic happens, like OU or UT leaving. Regardless, if something were to happen, likely the B12 remnants would be picking schools out of the American, not the other way around. One or both of UCF or USF probably gets taken, absolutely. If I had to guess in a scenario where the B12 loses UT and OU and at least one other, the B12 backfills with more than 3, probably 5 or 7 to get to 12 or 14: UCF, USF, Cincy, Houston, ECU, Memphis, UConn, or SMU, depending on who leaves with the other schools and if anyone else finds a life raft. They then try to make a case to be a Power 5 conference, but my guess they'll face the same problem as the post-2003 Big East and eventually fizzle into the best of the G5. Major bowls just aren't going to want to pair with that group and it will have a hard time getting a CFP slot and equivalent network deals to what they have now.
No matter, what WVU wants to do couldn't be more irrelevant. They would definitely like to be in the ACC though, and I think Pitt would like to have them there. The rest of the conference, not so much.
It was pretty well covered on the Flyover Country podcast among others. Among other things, the Big 12 TV contract required that the networks pay the same share for any new teams. So there is no way to lose money. The Big 12 thought they were in a better position because their per team amount was better than the ACC at the time and the P12 Network has been mediocre.
Going through the whole dog and pony show only to not expand happened because they thought they'd have better applicants; no other reason to do that if you know that UCF, Cincy, and BYU are the best applicants you'll have and you're not going to take them. They truly thought FSU, GT, and Clemson were willing to leave the ACC because of the additions of Pitt, Cuse, and Louisville messing up the football and geographic balance in the conference.
But regardless, have you considered that maybe I have better information than you?
Man, not only has it been a tough OOC season on the field with us likely getting whacked three times, but I can't imagine many worse and dumber internet fanbases than UPS, ND and UCF.
The Pure Prairie League would have been more balanced for those three schools?
It’s crazy. They think the Big XII planned on the ACC teams surrendering their grant of rights to join the BIg XII. That was the the horse the Big XII was betting on. And when it didn’t come through, they were shocked and just cancelled the whole thing.
The level of delusion it takes to believe that.
UCF and USF may be the next most likely schools to perhaps, maybe get an invite to a P5 conference.
Its a bit more likely that the AAC media contracts will improve in a fairly significant way, than either school would receive a P5 invite.
USF and UCF are Florida market schools, regional followings, primarily commuter schools, with limited national following. Florida is covered by SEC and ACC media contracts involving schools with both regional and national followings.
Adding those schools to the ACC, or the SEC for that matter, no remote chance of a way.
Distant chance with the Big 12, down the road.
UCF and USF
They get to renegotiate in a year, as opposed to 5-6 years down the road like the bigger conferences. They are also allowed to opt out of the ESPN deal if someone else gives them a bigger offer (Fox Sports or CBS sports?), so they have at least some leverage. They're not going to get up to P5 money but it should be a pretty big jump for those schools in the short term. Their deal is considered undervalued because they were negotiating from a weak position in 2013 during conference shake-ups.
They may go from like 6 million a school to 12 million a school -- literally doubling their revenue while remaining still at half that of the payouts for P5 schools. Just a pretty rough guess.
It certainly may go up a lot, but the TV revenue is less than $2M per school right now. They will probably get a significant (maybe even more than double) increase, but nothing even remotely close to the P5 leagues. UConn is the school in a very interesting position. They make way, way less in the AAC than they would in the BE, even though the BE doesn't have football. The AAC HAS to get over the $5M per school that the BE gets just for basketball or UConn has really made a bad decision.
I love when people continue to assert that UCF is a commuter school despite every fact to the contrary. UCF has the 2nd most on campus housing in the state and we have a demand for 5,000 additional beds that they're working on right now.
The majority of kids going to UCF do not come from Orange or Seminole county.
UCF just received a record 45,000 freshman applicants, of which more than 20% were from out of state.
I agree they may double their revenue. The problem is that their current revenue is no where near $6 million per school. The total value of their television and radio deals is $20 million, and that's split among 12 schools. So not $6 million per school, $1.6 million per school. They could double their media rights money and that would still be no where close to a "fairly significant" raise. They could triple their media rights money and that would still be no where close to a "fairly significant" raise. To put it into perspective, the estimates for how much money the ACC is going to get per school from the ACC network is between $10 and $15 million. That's in addition to what the schools already get. That's "fairly significant". Two or three million per year, not so much.
I swore I read 6 million but maybe that was the total athletic revenue of a school, not their paltry TV deal. I don't disagree with your point.
UConn didn’t have a decision to make.
The hoops only schools split off by dissolving the big east by a 2/3rd vote.
UConn and USF voted to keep the big east together.
The Catholics dissolved it, so they could retain their the big east branding and form their own league.
They did have a choice to make. They could have been in the BE and football only elsewhere. None of their options were great, but they are making less money in the AAC.
