Where Pitt fits into conference realignment, an analysis

[TheSpecialSauce]

The writing is on the wall that college football players are going to get a piece of the revenue they generate in the not to distant future and when that happens it will be almost impossible for any team outside the Big Ten, SEC, and ND to compete.

If there’s a 12-team playoff and the winner of the 3rd conference gets an automatic bid then that provides an opportunity to compete. There has always been a limitation on how many schools have a legitimate chance to win the national title.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Yes. Many will indeed stop, more than you likely realize… eventually if not immediately. For most are really just playing football now to get the conference paycheck. Hello? Sound familiar? It should. It should sound a lot like the Pitt alma mater, in fact. But those of many others too.
Then there are those that have no such stadium on campus at all to worry about not utilizing; a program that will have it even easier to stop playing football. I wonder which programs fall into that category…🤔

Do you wake up looking for a black cloud or does it follow you around?

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

Do you wake up looking for a black cloud or does it follow you around?

We just have different opinions on it, that’s all. We’ll each see what happens. I have lived in this region 50+ years and I know Pitt’s football place in it (tenuous, even in the best situations) and how it treats minor league sports (indifferent to hostile). I don’t see it ending well if Pitt gets left out of the Big Show. You may be right and it is great. Somebody will be right, somebody not. I just hope it doesn’t get to that.

 

[pittchagg]

What Pitt needs to do, and what they have been doing, is to continue to improve the athletic department up and down the roster. That’s Victory Heights, the indoor track, whatever football and basketball need from a facilities standpoint (not necessarily a stadium, the South Side is just as important if not moreso). It’s athlete housing and dining facilities, and continuing to invest in top notch operating and personnel budgets.

If the ACC is a viable home past the mid-2030’s, then all of that will benefit Pitt. But if it isn’t, the important thing is to have Pitt ready to go as a plug and play addition for another conference to be able to come in and be an immediate contributor to their success. Academically and institutionally, that box is already checked.

 

[pittmeister]

What Pitt needs to do, and what they have been doing, is to continue to improve the athletic department up and down the roster. That’s Victory Heights, the indoor track, whatever football and basketball need from a facilities standpoint (not necessarily a stadium, the South Side is just as important if not moreso). It’s athlete housing and dining facilities, and continuing to invest in top notch operating and personnel budgets.

If the ACC is a viable home past the mid-2030’s, then all of that will benefit Pitt. But if it isn’t, the important thing is to have Pitt ready to go as a plug and play addition for another conference to be able to come in and be an immediate contributor to their success. Academically and institutionally, that box is already checked.

THIS!

Well done!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Winning isn’t going to change anybody’s realignment stars.

Most fans can’t tell you how many games Pitt won, if they finished in the Top 25, whom they played in a bowl game and what happened in that bowl game.

“Keep winning 8 or 9 games a year and win the bowl game” isn’t going to result in some “come on in” moment when it comes to realignment.

Fans follow their teams and then games that have playoff implications. That’s the entire reason why we expanded the playoffs. Because winning 8 games and going to a bowl game became so meaningless to so many people.
Hell, winning your conference and going to the Rose Bowl became meaningless to the rest of the country.

To the extent it does mean something, the ACC needs to get really good. This is the problem the PAC 12 had, when they had that playoff drought. The national fan doesn’t perceive you as a real conference if you don’t have actual legit national title contenders. So your nice seasons go unnoticed, because it’s like you were playing Division II. There’s a few years there where most people on this board probably couldn’t tell you if a single PAC 12 team finished in the Top 25 and who even won the conference.

The worst thing that happened to the ACC is both Miami and VT did not deliver. Especially Miami. At the time, Miami was a lock down top5 program. VT was solid top 15. The ACC dreamed of Miami/FSU Championship games. Or VT. And Clemson. There is nothing else that has killed the ACC football brand than their failure to maintain the level of program coming from the Big East.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Yes. Many will indeed stop, more than you likely realize… eventually if not immediately. For most are really just playing football now to get the conference paycheck. Hello? Sound familiar? It should. It should sound a lot like the Pitt alma mater, in fact. But those of many others too.
Then there are those that have no such stadium on campus at all to worry about not utilizing; a program that will have it even easier to stop playing football. I wonder which programs fall into that category…🤔

Greed does this right? Look how many companies and brands destroyed themselves by over extending. Westinghouse for example, they get into broadcasting and financial services. WTF? What does have to do with College Football. The power/money grabbing programs will not want to share with others shutting them out, many of these schools will say "Bleep It, it is not worth it". And drop football altogether. Now all of these kids who had scholarships and pro aspirations are scrambling to find competitive outlets to show their wares. The NFL starts getting less and less ready talent. They won't be pleased.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

Greed does this right? Look how many companies and brands destroyed themselves by over extending. Westinghouse for example, they get into broadcasting and financial services. WTF? What does have to do with College Football. The power/money grabbing programs will not want to share with others shutting them out, many of these schools will say "Bleep It, it is not worth it". And drop football altogether. Now all of these kids who had scholarships and pro aspirations are scrambling to find competitive outlets to show their wares. The NFL starts getting less and less ready talent. They won't be pleased.

Very true. Major college football seems pretty dam lucrative right now as it exists, and while it is already well too top-heavy in which programs are dominant, it at least makes it feasible for a significant number of programs in several conferences to play without an abject sense of total hopelessness. It makes for very wide reaching and (finally a worthwhile use of the word) diverse spread of top level competition, from coast to coast, from 12noon ET spanning to well past 12 midnight ET, for those inclined to watch so much football on a Saturday. But this largess is not enough for the top 16 schools (or such), and, apparently, the top couple sports networks. They are actively going to chop the beanstalk down for the rest. The NFL may indeed be the only hope, because the worthless Feds are apparently also in the pockets of the football factories schools, or they’d already be warning of massive antitrust penalties if it’s even attempted.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Winning isn’t going to change anybody’s realignment stars.

Most fans can’t tell you how many games Pitt won, if they finished in the Top 25, whom they played in a bowl game and what happened in that bowl game.

“Keep winning 8 or 9 games a year and win the bowl game” isn’t going to result in some “come on in” moment when it comes to realignment.

Fans follow their teams and then games that have playoff implications. That’s the entire reason why we expanded the playoffs. Because winning 8 games and going to a bowl game became so meaningless to so many people.
Hell, winning your conference and going to the Rose Bowl became meaningless to the rest of the country.

To the extent it does mean something, the ACC needs to get really good. This is the problem the PAC 12 had, when they had that playoff drought. The national fan doesn’t perceive you as a real conference if you don’t have actual legit national title contenders. So your nice seasons go unnoticed, because it’s like you were playing Division II. There’s a few years there where most people on this board probably couldn’t tell you if a single PAC 12 team finished in the Top 25 and who even won the conference.

No winning won't guarantee anything. But, it is all Pitt and its financial supporters can attempt to control, because it can't control anything else like location or what anyone else is doing inside or outside the conference.

But with sustained success over years, you can move a program into a more regular national discussion, build more national perception, build the fanbase, and get in more media discussions. I agree, it can't be just a few one-off seasons that no one remembers. Beating Wake and losing to MSU is remembered by no one outside the fanbase. Many schools have similar one-off seasons and they blend into the noise. But even if Pitt had historical success over the next decade, it just may not be enough time to make a difference.

 

[Dan1911]

I think the bigger question is where does REALITY fit in conference expansion. What does college football look like in ten years and will anyone be interested in football if it's really just two or three dozen teams?

 

[TD_6082]

Yes.

And if relegated to a B League conference, that conference will either be locked completely out of the new Super League (no entry at all for the Super NC. Or (after threats of antitrust suits) will be given 1 token slot (in a playoff of 16).

Pitt football will not survive in either scenario.

What is going to happen to it?

Are you saying they will dissolve the program?

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

I think the bigger question is where does REALITY fit in conference expansion. What does college football look like in ten years and will anyone be interested in football if it's really just two or three dozen teams?

They (the B1G and SEC, and ESPN, Fox, CBS) don’t care about “College football” will look like. They are banking (literally) that the mega league will make more money for them than they are making now. It might, it might not. It might make millions more, or even billions more, or maybe .01 more…but whatever collateral damage there is to other leagues, programs, and broadcasting entities is inconsequential. It is going to have significant fallout, too. Some schools will continue playing, at least for a while. Many others may also try, but will struggle mightily, given that their interest hinged on being in the hunt (even if dubious and largely in theory) for a playoff berth. These same schools also rely on having at least one or two “big” games with the top programs. These criteria no longer will be possible to meet. Plus, bottom line, the big conference checks will also be gone. It would likely just be a matter of time for such programs to pull the plug.

I would despair to see this happen and fervently hope Pitt can pull off another Nordy Miracle, and get us into one of the Mega Conferences. Would we find it tough sledding to compete in either of them? Heck yes. But we’d be on the mountain.

 

[303vND]

Born and raised for 30 years in Pittsburgh. I’ve lived outside of Pittsburgh (St. Louis, Vegas, DC, Alabama, Texas) for the past 13. The Pitt brand is perceived better outside of Pittsburgh than it is in Pittsburgh.

To borrow a phrase, “Pitt will be fine without the ACC.”

Totally agree!

 

[pittmeister]

Born and raised for 30 years in Pittsburgh. I’ve lived outside of Pittsburgh (St. Louis, Vegas, DC, Alabama, Texas) for the past 13. The Pitt brand is perceived better outside of Pittsburgh than it is in Pittsburgh.

To borrow a phrase, “Pitt will be fine without the ACC.”

Absolutely correct. I haven’t lived in PA in years and years and the brand is preceived much more favorably outside of Pittsburgh. I keep telling people they sell Pitt a little short.

 

[lilspainishflea]

No winning won't guarantee anything. But, it is all Pitt and its financial supporters can attempt to control, because it can't control anything else like location or what anyone else is doing inside or outside the conference.

But with sustained success over years, you can move a program into a more regular national discussion, build more national perception, build the fanbase, and get in more media discussions. I agree, it can't be just a few one-off seasons that no one remembers. Beating Wake and losing to MSU is remembered by no one outside the fanbase. Many schools have similar one-off seasons and they blend into the noise. But even if Pitt had historical success over the next decade, it just may not be enough time to make a difference.

Winning might not be sufficient to get Pitt an invite to the BIG, SEC, or even Big-12, but it is necessary.

 

[lilspainishflea]

Something that might help Pitt out a lot is that regional/historic rivalries tend to be way more watched than non-rivalries. And Pitt has a lot of regional/historic rivalries with other schools who are already in a surviving conference or certainly will be: i.e., PSU, Notre Dame, WVU, Miami, and Virginia Tech.

If the ACC survives about 10 more years and the new additions to the BIG/SEC fail to bring the anticipated viewership, we may end up the beneficiary of a future package deal invite because of one of those rivalry programs. "Riding the coattails" to some extent.

We have Cincinnati (x2); WVU (x3), and Notre Dame (x3) in the next 6 years with chances to prove good attendance and viewership with some of those traditional rivals.

 

[HailToPitt725]

I'm looking to update this dataset over the weekend given the latest round of realignment speculation. What other statistical measures should I include to assess a school's perceived value? Perhaps operating expenses in addition to operating revenue, to show whether they invest heavily into football?

 

[pittdan77]

I'm looking to update this dataset over the weekend given the latest round of realignment speculation. What other statistical measures should I include to assess a school's perceived value? Perhaps operating expenses in addition to operating revenue, to show whether they invest heavily into football?

Inflated sense of self-worth?

 

[HailToPitt725]

Inflated sense of self-worth?

I'm sure there's a way to quantify that using a combination AP votes and W/L's.

 

[cruzer]

(Long post) With all of conference realignment posts on here lately, I tried experimenting to see if any of the speculation/rumors could be quantified in an objective way. It'd also give us a better idea of how Pitt would fit into all of it moving forward.

Most fans agree that any future conference realignment will come down to two things: money, specifically revenue generated from football, and television viewers. Both of these help make up a school's overall perceived value. I was able to find all 69 (as of July 1) Power 5 school's football revenues and tv viewers from the 2021-22 school year using the following resources:

- U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics Data Analysis (link)
- Zach Miller's Which college football programs were the most-watched in 2021? (link)

However, those data points alone don't make up the entire story. For instance, UCLA and USC seem like very sub-par candidates for Big Ten expansion using just football revenues and tv viewers from the 2021 season. There's also a few revenue figures that are a little wonky due to lingering effects from the Covid-19 pandemic on universities. To give a more accurate depiction of a school's value, I added two "weights": a program's all-time ranking based off the AP Poll and U.S. media market rankings. This would give programs like USC a bump based off their blueblood status while increasing the value of programs like Georgia Tech due to the Atlanta market. For this, I used the following resources:

- Yahoo! Sports' AP College Football Poll, Rankings: Greatest Programs Of All-Time (link)
- Wikipedia's List of television station in North America by media market (link)

Two things to note on these so-called weights: I filtered out non-P5 programs for the AP all-time rankings. This means that a program like Virginia was ranked 64th instead of 76th because it excluded schools such as Navy and Tulane. I also didn't include a program's media market if it decreased their total value (e.g., Ohio State and the Columbus market) and also added media markets to a few programs that, although they don't reside in those markets, they carry them for their conference (e.g., Georgia provides the Atlanta market for the SEC). This was the most subjective part of the formula, as I used this category to factor in the Big Ten or SEC expanding into untapped markets; this is why I gave Virginia the DMV media market, for instance.

Once I had the above data, each school received a 1-69 ranking based off where they finished for a particular category. I then took the average of these to create a cumulative 'total value' rating, with 1 being the highest. The result is the following spreadsheet that can be viewed by clicking on the attached link here.

The Big Ten, including UCLA and USC, has a total value rating of 22.0. Meanwhile, the SEC + Oklahoma and Texas has a total value rating of 23.0. The idea behind this spreadsheet is to see whether an individual football program would match or increase the total value of the Big Ten or SEC in the hopes of receiving an invite. Using the compiled ratings, there are six programs that match the criteria: Notre Dame (5.7); Florida State (18.0); Oregon (19.7); Clemson (21.3); Washington (21.5); and Miami (22.5). There are also four programs that wouldn't match/exceed the conferences' total value but still exceeds the median total value rating: Oklahoma State (32.0); Arizona State (32.3); North Carolina (33.5); and Stanford (33.5). These programs could be potential "package deals" with prime expansion candidates if conferences were looking to expand to or past 20, similar to how UCLA was a package deal with USC despite having a lower total value rating than the Big Ten's cumulative value. This more-or-less adds up with the most talked-about expansion rumors, with Arizona State being a notable surprise.

-

So, where does Pitt fit into this? According to these ratings, Pitt has a total value rating of 38.8, or 40th overall. The three schools immediately ahead of us are Illinois, Baylor, and Colorado, and the three schools immediately behind us are Georgia Tech, Duke, and Indiana. I think most here agree that we shouldn't expect to get invited to the Big Ten and SEC, and these rankings appear to justify that. However, it shows that we're in a good place for a few reasons:

- Pitt is 14th among all non-Big Ten and SEC schools. So, in the event that they decide to expand to 24 schools each, we'd have a decent shot at receiving an invite.
- These ratings also show that we would have a strong chance at receiving a Big 12 invite should the ACC break apart leading up to the Grant of Rights expiring in 2036.

I understand that the formulas and ratings are not perfect. Schools such as NC State and Virginia Tech are likely too low in comparison to how they're actually valued, and it doesn't include other considerations such as academics or men's basketball programs. But, the point wasn't to create an exact science, but rather provide a fun thought experiment and show that, although we aren't the most valuable program available, we're in a good position moving forward regardless of what happens in the world of college football.

I'm shocked that your analysis apparently excluded where a school ranks in the Directors Cup.

 

[HailToPitt725]

I'm shocked that your analysis apparently excluded where a school ranks in the Directors Cup.

I didn’t include other athletic metrics such as basketball rankings or Director’s Cup points because I honestly don’t think that plays a factor in realignment. It’s all about football, more specifically the tv ratings and revenue generated from it.

As an anonymous ACC athletic director said, Stanford would not be excluded from realignment if academics and Olympic sports mattered. Unfortunately, that’s just way this works.

 

[cruzer]

I didn’t include other athletic metrics such as basketball rankings or Director’s Cup points because I honestly don’t think that plays a factor in realignment. It’s all about football, more specifically the tv ratings and revenue generated from it.

As an anonymous ACC athletic director said, Stanford would not be excluded from realignment if academics and Olympic sports mattered. Unfortunately, that’s just way this works.

I was joking. Aside from the AD's who win this award and get to put another plaque on their wall, I suspect that very few people could even tell you what the Directors Cup is. It will have zero impact on conference realignment.

 

[HailToPitt725]

I was joking. Aside from the AD's who win this award and get to put another plaque on their wall, I suspect that very few people could even tell you what the Directors Cup is. It will have zero impact on conference realignment.

Sorry… hard to read sarcasm over text sometimes!

 

[Panther Parrothead]

This could be over-symplifying things, but yeah, when it comes to the future of collegiate sports, probably football IS the only thing that matters. Some schools might decide to jettison some of their other men’s sports and put their main focus - and their dollars - toward D-1 football. Just like some schools have (already) done something similar, but with basketball.

Think about how many schools currently playing D-1 basketball do not play D-1 football.

 

[ChiefJusticeMarshall]

It's a rather simple equation. It's a) who the networks want and b) who would bring enough value as to not dilute the per team share that they will currently get. Pretty much means that only Notre Dame is left who could move the needle. I don't even think FSU and UNC can move that needle. Sure North Carolina is a growing state, but there are 3 other ACC teams that divide the eyeballs and Charlotte is on the border of SC, so many of those suburbs like Rock Hill are South Carolina or Clemson fans.

Unless the math is changed by dumping some of the lesser properties like NW, Miss State, etc...

 

[WillyDavis33]

Remember that the only NCAA sanctioned sport that they do not control the winner is the BCS. This will be hand to hand combat driven school by school ( using this word loosely since many of these "schools" are football teams with a diploma mill.

 

[cruzer]

Sorry… hard to read sarcasm over text sometimes!

Not to worry. Even my wife fails to see the intended humor in my posts. 😂

 

[HailtoPitt]

Pitt has a perception problem. It needs to win and win consistently, and build back its both local and Pittsburgh diaspora fan base by not shitting the bed every time it gets any buzz. That's all it can do, and while it sounds easy, it isn't because that's what every school is trying to do. It needs to string together winning seasons where it stays inside the rankings most of the year and win its bowl games. That will lead to increases in attendance and TV interest. It's as simple as that. TV interest mostly follows those little numbers next to the school name.

Boosters have to be prepared to give a little more, fans have to be prepared to become boosters. No school is going to consistently win in the environment of today's college athletics without people willing to supplement what any university is able to put into the programs itself and it has to happen now.

It's too late.

 

[pittdan77]

I'm sure there's a way to quantify that using a combination AP votes and W/L's.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of schools in the haves that rarely have great records but have throngs of people who schedule vacation to spend gobs of cash to watch the football team scrimmage itself.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Not necessarily. There are a lot of schools in the haves that rarely have great records but have throngs of people who schedule vacation to spend gobs of cash to watch the football team scrimmage itself.

That’s what I was trying to get at. I’d imagine there are a lot of programs who regularly get AP votes and are even ranked in August only to lost 4-7 games each season… I’m looking at Auburn, Miami, Texas A&M, etc. Definitely some self-worth inflation going on there.

 

[pittdan77]

That’s what I was trying to get at. I’d imagine there are a lot of programs who regularly get AP votes and are even ranked in August only to lost 4-7 games each season… I’m looking at Auburn, Miami, Texas A&M, etc. Definitely some self-worth inflation going on there.

My apologies. And Miami is such a weird outlier. Just good PR, I guess.

 

[HailToPitt725]

My apologies. And Miami is such a weird outlier. Just good PR, I guess.

No worries. I have a theory that in addition to “The U” brand, the fact that they intentionally scheduled a lot of northeast schools for decades might’ve led to some unconscious biases amongst the voters from the east coast media.

 

[pittdan77]

No worries. I have a theory that in addition to “The U” brand, the fact that they intentionally scheduled a lot of northeast schools for decades might’ve led to some unconscious biases amongst the voters from the east coast media.

I blame the recruiting services for some of it. Clearly there are a ton of talented kids from Florida and South Florida in particular. I think some guys get bigger ratings down there because of their speed or because of how they test out in artificial drills, only to get to college and you find out they can't really play the game at a high level. Miami seems to land a lot of these guys.

 

[ChiefJusticeMarshall]

I blame the recruiting services for some of it. Clearly there are a ton of talented kids from Florida and South Florida in particular. I think some guys get bigger ratings down there because of their speed or because of how they test out in artificial drills, only to get to college and you find out they can't really play the game at a high level. Miami seems to land a lot of these guys.

Miami Rivals rankings.

2024 #5
2023 #8
2022 #34
2021 #12
2020 #13
2019 #35
2018 #6
2017 #11
2016 #23
2015 #26
2014: #12
2013: #20
2012: #9
2011: #35
2010:#16

I suspect most of those classes ranked in the 30's were transition years. Not one ACC title to prove it. Not one appearance, no Coastal titles. But sportswriters grew up with "the U" and their recruiting gives them much more cache than it has results.

 

[Pitt2009]

Miami Rivals rankings.

2024 #5
2023 #8
2022 #34
2021 #12
2020 #13
2019 #35
2018 #6
2017 #11
2016 #23
2015 #26
2014: #12
2013: #20
2012: #9
2011: #35
2010:#16

I suspect most of those classes ranked in the 30's were transition years. Not one ACC title to prove it. Not one appearance, no Coastal titles. But sportswriters grew up with "the U" and their recruiting gives them much more cache than it has results.

I think Miami is a double digit win team in 2024. They lost a lot of close games last year. They return a lot talent and Cameron Ward is a solid upgrade at QB.

 

[pittdan77]

I think Miami is a double digit win team in 2024. They lost a lot of close games last year. They return a lot talent and Cameron Ward is a solid upgrade at QB.

Uh huh.

 

[Pitt2009]

Uh huh.

I get the skepticism because we’ve heard the U is back for the last 20 years. I think this year is different. Miami was the better team in almost every game last year but untimely mistakes sunk them.

Miami has top 3 o-lines and d-lines in the ACC and elite athletes. They also have a QB made for the air raid and are one year older. I think they start putting it together.

 

[joeydavid]

I get the skepticism because we’ve heard the U is back for the last 20 years. I think this year is different. Miami was the better team in almost every game last year but untimely mistakes sunk them.

Miami has top 3 o-lines and d-lines in the ACC and elite athletes. They also have a QB made for the air raid and are one year older. I think they start putting it together.

No doubt. Miami is going to win





































































the offseason.

 

[cashisking884]

The “these teams are always hyped preseason” takes have a lot of confirmation bias.

I can’t really remember Miami, Auburn, or A&M picked to be really good that often over the last 10 to 15 years. Auburn barely made the preseason Top 25 in 2010, and was unranked in 2013. And that’s their national title game teams.

 

[rmf05]

I wonder if all these Titanic programs joining one another and the egos they bring with them will create a market for what I call fodder programs? These are programs that only exist to inflate win totals for others but get a payoff with being allowed to be elite in lesser sports or by being hailed as an academic elite.

Would folks be ok with Pitt going 6-6 most years (or worse), with the exchange being a blue blood wrestling/volleyball program?

Personally, I'd rather go 8-4 every year and .500 vs WVU in the B12 than 5-7 and going .200 vs PSU in the B10. I'd rather go 10-2 against Cuse, UConn, Temple, etc. in some relegated low tier conference than be stew for PSU, OSU and ND fans.