Quote:Shortly after Dave Clawson finished up his introductory press conference at Wake Forest, a line of alumni came up to him to offer their congratulations.

Their handshakes over, they each added one more line before leaving: "Just beat Carolina!"

Clawson later looked at the football schedule. Wake Forest was scheduled to play North Carolina twice over the next 10 years. The game his fan base considered most important had become a victim to divisional alignment.

So the Demon Deacons and Tar Heels decided to do something to remedy their plight. In January, they scheduled nonconference games against each another in 2019 and 2021.

On the surface, it sounds ridiculous -- two ACC members forced to go the nonconference route so they can play more often. But this is what expansion and, in turn, the creation of divisions has come to in college football.

That one example is enough to raise questions about the purpose divisions serve. Are they worth the lines in the sand they have formed? Not only have traditional rivalries been abandoned, but in the four Power 5 conferences that have divisions, there is an imbalance between them, creating schisms between institutions increasingly worried about where they reside and how it impacts their College Football Playoff prospects.

Throw in imbalances with permanent crossover rivals, especially in the ACC and SEC, and it all adds up to growing unhappiness with the status quo.

For all these reasons, the deregulation of league championship games has become an intriguing proposition. The ACC first submitted deregulation legislation to the NCAA in early 2014. The Big 12 has since joined as a co-sponsor.

If the proposed legislation passes next year, leagues would no longer be required to stay in divisions. Instead, each league would have the ability to determine how it chooses its championship game participants.

While deregulation makes perfect sense for the Big 12, a league with only 10 teams and no divisions, it remains nebulous why the ACC would be behind such a move.

Surely the endgame would be to eliminate divisions, creating opportunities to play league members more often, while also ensuring the top two teams in the league make it into the title game -- enhancing playoff opportunities.

But that is not the case. The majority of ACC athletic directors and coaches want to keep their division format. Commissioner John Swofford has said repeatedly the idea behind deregulation is based on principle.

"We're not sitting around anticipating that, 'Hey, this is going to change, and we're going to have the freedom to change what we're doing, so let's change it,'" Swofford said. "The overall sense around our table right now is to maintain what we're doing.

"Could that change in the future? Sure, anything could change in the future, but right now it's very evident that's where the majority are in terms of our situation."

That has created some confusion about what, exactly, the endgame is to all this.

"I'd like to know what it is people want to do," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said. "I don't think deregulating it just for the sake of deregulation is good. We could end up with 20-team conferences and four five-team pods. What are we trying to do? If somebody wanted to identify what it is they wanted to do, and if it were reasonable, I would say, why not?

"I'm open to creativity and deregulation, but I'm not open to just a blank check to reorganize the regular season however you choose."

Read more..........

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...e-football

I still find UNC and wake playing each other as non-conference game is ridiculous; they're BOTH in the ACC, it's a conference game no matter how you want to spin it.

(04-30-2015 10:17 PM)RamblinRedWolf44 Wrote:  I still find UNC and wake playing each other as non-conference game is ridiculous; they're BOTH in the ACC, it's a conference game no matter how you want to spin it.

It's happened a few times before. Nevada once played a conference member in a non-conference game. Maybe NMSU? Big Sky teams do it some.

side note on Wake Forrest-

between 1888-1980 WF had 27 coaches and only one of them lasted more than 4 years. DC Pearhead Walker ('37-'50) and Jim Grobe ('01-'13) are the winningest coaches in program history with 77 wins each. The guy in 3rd place has 29 wins.

Wake Forrest is 32-66-2 against UNC but considers them to be a rival. smh, that's one sorry program. A sorry program that gets a slice of the revenue pie that's bigger than any G5 conference's total share for doing nothing but having the dumb luck of joining the ACC way back in 1953. what a country.

(05-01-2015 11:05 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  side note on Wake Forrest-

between 1888-1980 WF had 27 coaches and only one of them lasted more than 4 years. DC Pearhead Walker ('37-'50) and Jim Grobe ('01-'13) are the winningest coaches in program history with 77 wins each. The guy in 3rd place has 29 wins.

Wake Forrest is 32-66-2 against UNC but considers them to be a rival. smh, that's one sorry program. A sorry program that gets a slice of the revenue pie that's bigger than any G5 conference's total share for doing nothing but having the dumb luck of joining the ACC way back in 1953. what a country.

Why are you going to hate on Wake? They were a founding member of the ACC. Yes, their program is not strong, but neither are Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, etc. They are the smallest school in the FBS. Considering their restrictions, I think they overachieve.

What this means is, it doesn't appear there is support to change the rule. Besides, it just not the P5 that votes to change but the FCS division also does too.
Seems like a lot of people really like the divisions more than they hate it. The ACC problem is Notre Dame and there 5 game requirement. The slowed the cross division play like WF vs NC. It think eventually the ACC will stay as is and let time wait to see if enough time and pressure has been applied for ND to join fully what then adding #16 would balance the north and south schools.

(05-01-2015 01:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  What this means is, it doesn't appear there is support to change the rule. Besides, it just not the P5 that votes to change but the FCS division also does too.
Seems like a lot of people really like the divisions more than they hate it. The ACC problem is Notre Dame and there 5 game requirement. The slowed the cross division play like WF vs NC. It think eventually the ACC will stay as is and let time wait to see if enough time and pressure has been applied for ND to join fully what then adding #16 would balance the north and south schools.

I think since 'autonomy' this is no longer the case on football issues. I believe only FBS votes on FBS issues.

(05-01-2015 01:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  What this means is, it doesn't appear there is support to change the rule. Besides, it just not the P5 that votes to change but the FCS division also does too.
Seems like a lot of people really like the divisions more than they hate it. The ACC problem is Notre Dame and there 5 game requirement. The slowed the cross division play like WF vs NC. It think eventually the ACC will stay as is and let time wait to see if enough time and pressure has been applied for ND to join fully what then adding #16 would balance the north and south schools.

The ACC should make Notre Dame count as a conference game, then allow the other teams in the conference to play each other more often with their ninth game. This would require Notre Dame to play either 4 or 6 ACC teams each year, or the ACC could just add a 15th full member so if Notre Dame plays 5 teams no one gets left out . . .

The "9th game" rivalries could be set up like this:

UNC-Wake
NCSU-Duke
BC-Miami
Clemson-Virginia
Syracuse-Virginia Tech
Louisville-Pittsburgh
Florida State-Georgia Tech

Some juggling would occur when Notre Dame plays only one school in each pairing, unless if you arranged Notre Dame's schedule to consume only whole pairs of schools each year.

(05-01-2015 12:36 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:05 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  side note on Wake Forrest-

between 1888-1980 WF had 27 coaches and only one of them lasted more than 4 years. DC Pearhead Walker ('37-'50) and Jim Grobe ('01-'13) are the winningest coaches in program history with 77 wins each. The guy in 3rd place has 29 wins.

Wake Forrest is 32-66-2 against UNC but considers them to be a rival. smh, that's one sorry program. A sorry program that gets a slice of the revenue pie that's bigger than any G5 conference's total share for doing nothing but having the dumb luck of joining the ACC way back in 1953. what a country.

Why are you going to hate on Wake? They were a founding member of the ACC. Yes, their program is not strong, but neither are Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, etc. They are the smallest school in the FBS. Considering their restrictions, I think they overachieve.

the ACC received $58M from the CFP TV contract last year, the top G5 conference received $17M. It is absolutely criminal that a program as horrible as WF continues to receive an embarrassment of riches compared to the rest of us while doing nothing to improve its program. Being a founding member of a conference 60+ years ago shouldn't be a birthright to earn over 3X what a school like Boise State receives. As long as league revenue is distributed in criminally unfair percentages to conferences within the same league I will rail unmercifully against the Wakes and the Northwesterns that benefit from this totally corrupt system.

(05-01-2015 06:30 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:36 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:05 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  side note on Wake Forrest-

between 1888-1980 WF had 27 coaches and only one of them lasted more than 4 years. DC Pearhead Walker ('37-'50) and Jim Grobe ('01-'13) are the winningest coaches in program history with 77 wins each. The guy in 3rd place has 29 wins.

Wake Forrest is 32-66-2 against UNC but considers them to be a rival. smh, that's one sorry program. A sorry program that gets a slice of the revenue pie that's bigger than any G5 conference's total share for doing nothing but having the dumb luck of joining the ACC way back in 1953. what a country.

Why are you going to hate on Wake? They were a founding member of the ACC. Yes, their program is not strong, but neither are Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, etc. They are the smallest school in the FBS. Considering their restrictions, I think they overachieve.

the ACC received $58M from the CFP TV contract last year, the top G5 conference received $17M. It is absolutely criminal that a program as horrible as WF continues to receive an embarrassment of riches compared to the rest of us while doing nothing to improve its program. Being a founding member of a conference 60+ years ago shouldn't be a birthright to earn over 3X what a school like Boise State receives. As long as league revenue is distributed in criminally unfair percentages to conferences within the same league I will rail unmercifully against the Wakes and the Northwesterns that benefit from this totally corrupt system.

You vote donk, don't you.

(05-01-2015 06:45 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:30 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:36 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:05 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  side note on Wake Forrest-

between 1888-1980 WF had 27 coaches and only one of them lasted more than 4 years. DC Pearhead Walker ('37-'50) and Jim Grobe ('01-'13) are the winningest coaches in program history with 77 wins each. The guy in 3rd place has 29 wins.

Wake Forrest is 32-66-2 against UNC but considers them to be a rival. smh, that's one sorry program. A sorry program that gets a slice of the revenue pie that's bigger than any G5 conference's total share for doing nothing but having the dumb luck of joining the ACC way back in 1953. what a country.

Why are you going to hate on Wake? They were a founding member of the ACC. Yes, their program is not strong, but neither are Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, etc. They are the smallest school in the FBS. Considering their restrictions, I think they overachieve.

the ACC received $58M from the CFP TV contract last year, the top G5 conference received $17M. It is absolutely criminal that a program as horrible as WF continues to receive an embarrassment of riches compared to the rest of us while doing nothing to improve its program. Being a founding member of a conference 60+ years ago shouldn't be a birthright to earn over 3X what a school like Boise State receives. As long as league revenue is distributed in criminally unfair percentages to conferences within the same league I will rail unmercifully against the Wakes and the Northwesterns that benefit from this totally corrupt system.

You vote donk, don't you.

sure, a revenue distribution model where half the members of a league get 70% and the other half get 27% is fair and equitable and to say other wise is class warfare and an attempt to redistribute wealth, right? G5 teams need to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, right?

child please.

(05-01-2015 08:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  sure, a revenue distribution model where half the members of a league get 70% and the other half get 27% is fair and equitable and to say other wise is class warfare and an attempt to redistribute wealth, right? G5 teams need to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, right?

child please.

Sorry if I offended you, it's just when I see someone using the words receive and get in relation to money earned, the bells usually go off for me.

Also, when I see LSU draw 90,000 plus fans to play someone they've never heard of, like New Mexico State, and then I see the Cajuns (50 miles down the interstate) draw 25,000 for their oldest rival La Tech, I understand why the P5's get all that money.

I'm not arguing that there are no inequities between the haves and the have-nots in college football, but let's not pretend most of them (the haves) don't earn it in terms of fan support and televisión advertising dollars.

Life's unfair.

(05-01-2015 06:30 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:36 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:05 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  side note on Wake Forrest-

between 1888-1980 WF had 27 coaches and only one of them lasted more than 4 years. DC Pearhead Walker ('37-'50) and Jim Grobe ('01-'13) are the winningest coaches in program history with 77 wins each. The guy in 3rd place has 29 wins.

Wake Forrest is 32-66-2 against UNC but considers them to be a rival. smh, that's one sorry program. A sorry program that gets a slice of the revenue pie that's bigger than any G5 conference's total share for doing nothing but having the dumb luck of joining the ACC way back in 1953. what a country.

Why are you going to hate on Wake? They were a founding member of the ACC. Yes, their program is not strong, but neither are Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, etc. They are the smallest school in the FBS. Considering their restrictions, I think they overachieve.

the ACC received $58M from the CFP TV contract last year, the top G5 conference received $17M. It is absolutely criminal that a program as horrible as WF continues to receive an embarrassment of riches compared to the rest of us while doing nothing to improve its program. Being a founding member of a conference 60+ years ago shouldn't be a birthright to earn over 3X what a school like Boise State receives. As long as league revenue is distributed in criminally unfair percentages to conferences within the same league I will rail unmercifully against the Wakes and the Northwesterns that benefit from this totally corrupt system.

Life isn't fair. They were here first.

I might be a little bias as a doctor at Wake Forest Baptist saved my life, but I would still like them otherwise. Did you know that Wake is the only ACC baseball team to win a national championship? That's crazy and one of my favorite pointless facts. Anyway, I disagree and think Wake both has earned and deserves their spot in the ACC.

name another sports league that divides league revenue using the logic you've outlined. There isn't one. Besides, revenue is split at a conference level, not a team level, so by your own example how can you justify Wake Forrest "earning" 4X Boise State? Its unjustifiable.

If your logic is valid then why don't conferences split revenue amongst their teams the same way? Why does Northwestern get the same B1G revenue as Ohio State? Is that fair? Did NW "earn" as much as OSU? Or how about the revenue from NCAA Tournament appearances? Every B1G team receives an equal amount even though Michigan State has earned more than any other team and Northwestern has NEVER made an NCAA Tournament appearance and thus has earned nothing. So why split it evenly?

Last year the NFL earned over $6Billion in league TV revenue and they split it evenly amongst the 32 teams, $187.7M each. Why? Didn't the Dallas Cowboys "earn" more than the Cincinnati Bengals? And why do AFC teams, which come from the old AFL, earn as much as NFC teams, which are from the original NFL. Shouldn't the AFC teams just be thankful the NFC teams allowed them to join their league? Shouldn't they be forever indebted? Shouldn't the revenue distribution reflect who deserves it more?

Using the FBS model of a 70/27 split, why doesn't the NFL give the NFC teams $262M and the AFC $101M? Isn't that the fair thing to do? Aren't your bells going off at the sight of these freeloading AFL teams getting more than they deserve? Why aren't you outraged that every professional sports league in America has an equitable revenue distribution plan and NONE of them perpetuate eternal wealth and eternal poverty based on some BS notion of worth and value?

And spare me your "life's unfair" routine. Please, stop swallowing the talking points of rich people who want you to support a corrupt system that benefits them but not you. This is league revenue were talking about, it should benefit the entire league. Individual teams are rewarded for their success by individual revenue streams- ticket sales, merchandising, donations, etc. Nobody is suggesting those dollars be redistributed.

I think the revenues are mostly generated by the fans of the teams with the highest attended games.

The conferences with the highest attendances get most of the money and they can split it how ever they want. If the SEC wants to continue to pay Vandy to be the whipping boy of the SEC, then that is their right. As it is Vandy's right to accept the offer.

Birth rights are real. It might not be fair that a spoiled young man inherits , from his grandfather, a company that he has spent little time with and knows little about. He will keep the lion's share of the profit that company makes although you and your grandfather may have poured your life and hard work for years into it - You get only your salary and maybe some small profit sharing. That's just life.


My beef is that some of these guys cheat with all that money!
AND that they seek to lock out G5 programs from being able to "earn" their way to the title game. Agreeing to not discuss expanding the playoff field for 12 years is a crock of crap! They knew public out cry would come for it. They offer up a supposed olive branch with the so called "Access Bowl" HA- Another crock of CRAP. That bowl has ZERO ACCESS to the playoff. Stupid name imop unless it is going to be part of the playoff. THIS is the real criminal act. I see the CFP payout money as an attempt to subdue our desire for anti trust lawsuits, and it's working.
But the more we scream and keep the discussion there - the more we may get of the pie.

I'm not happy with the way the $ is divided. But the revenue is produced ,in large part,by their paying fans. Well, that and all of us ESPN subscribers.

NOBAMA
ROLL BLUE TIDE!

(05-02-2015 12:24 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  ...so by your own example how can you justify Wake Forrest "earning" 4X Boise State?
...
Why does Northwestern get the same B1G revenue as Ohio State? Is that fair? Did NW "earn" as much as OSU? Or how about the revenue from NCAA Tournament appearances? Every B1G team receives an equal amount even though Michigan State has earned more than any other team and Northwestern has NEVER made an NCAA Tournament appearance and thus has earned nothing. So why split it evenly?
...

THIS is why EVERYTHING a school brings to the table matters in conference alignment. Wake may not bring as much to the ACC athletically as other schools, but they outclass much of the conference academically. It all comes out in the wash at the end of the day.

(05-02-2015 03:37 AM)wb247 Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 12:24 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  ...so by your own example how can you justify Wake Forrest "earning" 4X Boise State?
...
Why does Northwestern get the same B1G revenue as Ohio State? Is that fair? Did NW "earn" as much as OSU? Or how about the revenue from NCAA Tournament appearances? Every B1G team receives an equal amount even though Michigan State has earned more than any other team and Northwestern has NEVER made an NCAA Tournament appearance and thus has earned nothing. So why split it evenly?
...

THIS is why EVERYTHING a school brings to the table matters in conference alignment. Wake may not bring as much to the ACC athletically as other schools, but they outclass much of the conference academically. It all comes out in the wash at the end of the day.

you've got to be kidding me. y'all sound like you have Stockholm Syndrome and are trying to make excuses for the guy that kidnapped you and tortured you for years.

Wake is no better academically than Duke, Virginia, UNC, ND or Boston College. That's half the conference. And they're not better than Rice academically but they get a share of a chunk of revenue that is $40M larger than the chunk Rice gets a piece of.

Stop making excuses. There is no valid reason why a sports league made up of amateur college athletes should be this blatantly biased and corrupt. None.

(05-01-2015 06:45 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  You vote donk, don't you.

You could argue that Wake doesn't pull their weight and is a welfare queen. the other schools in the ACC actually invest in and win at sports and Wake collects TV and postseason money.

(05-02-2015 12:24 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  name another sports league that divides league revenue using the logic you've outlined. There isn't one. Besides, revenue is split at a conference level, not a team level, so by your own example how can you justify Wake Forrest "earning" 4X Boise State? Its unjustifiable.

If your logic is valid then why don't conferences split revenue amongst their teams the same way? Why does Northwestern get the same B1G revenue as Ohio State? Is that fair? Did NW "earn" as much as OSU? Or how about the revenue from NCAA Tournament appearances? Every B1G team receives an equal amount even though Michigan State has earned more than any other team and Northwestern has NEVER made an NCAA Tournament appearance and thus has earned nothing. So why split it evenly?

Last year the NFL earned over $6Billion in league TV revenue and they split it evenly amongst the 32 teams, $187.7M each. Why? Didn't the Dallas Cowboys "earn" more than the Cincinnati Bengals? And why do AFC teams, which come from the old AFL, earn as much as NFC teams, which are from the original NFL. Shouldn't the AFC teams just be thankful the NFC teams allowed them to join their league? Shouldn't they be forever indebted? Shouldn't the revenue distribution reflect who deserves it more?

Using the FBS model of a 70/27 split, why doesn't the NFL give the NFC teams $262M and the AFC $101M? Isn't that the fair thing to do? Aren't your bells going off at the sight of these freeloading AFL teams getting more than they deserve? Why aren't you outraged that every professional sports league in America has an equitable revenue distribution plan and NONE of them perpetuate eternal wealth and eternal poverty based on some BS notion of worth and value?

And spare me your "life's unfair" routine. Please, stop swallowing the talking points of rich people who want you to support a corrupt system that benefits them but not you. This is league revenue were talking about, it should benefit the entire league. Individual teams are rewarded for their success by individual revenue streams- ticket sales, merchandising, donations, etc. Nobody is suggesting those dollars be redistributed.

I view each conference as a league and each has the right to split their revenue the way they see fit. If that means an equal share for each team in the league, then so be it. I'd also have no problem with any of them awarding $$$ to the teams who performed best against OOC opponents with the highest RPI's and then placed highest in the league's final rankings. But it's their money, they earned it, and they get to decide how they divi it up.

Alternately we could go to a form of the system you propose, split everything equally, give gold stars to everyone, and don't bother to tote wins and losses. Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

(05-02-2015 12:24 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  name another sports league that divides league revenue using the logic you've outlined. There isn't one. Besides, revenue is split at a conference level, not a team level, so by your own example how can you justify Wake Forrest "earning" 4X Boise State? Its unjustifiable.

If your logic is valid then why don't conferences split revenue amongst their teams the same way? Why does Northwestern get the same B1G revenue as Ohio State? Is that fair? Did NW "earn" as much as OSU? Or how about the revenue from NCAA Tournament appearances? Every B1G team receives an equal amount even though Michigan State has earned more than any other team and Northwestern has NEVER made an NCAA Tournament appearance and thus has earned nothing. So why split it evenly?

Last year the NFL earned over $6Billion in league TV revenue and they split it evenly amongst the 32 teams, $187.7M each. Why? Didn't the Dallas Cowboys "earn" more than the Cincinnati Bengals? And why do AFC teams, which come from the old AFL, earn as much as NFC teams, which are from the original NFL. Shouldn't the AFC teams just be thankful the NFC teams allowed them to join their league? Shouldn't they be forever indebted? Shouldn't the revenue distribution reflect who deserves it more?

Using the FBS model of a 70/27 split, why doesn't the NFL give the NFC teams $262M and the AFC $101M? Isn't that the fair thing to do? Aren't your bells going off at the sight of these freeloading AFL teams getting more than they deserve? Why aren't you outraged that every professional sports league in America has an equitable revenue distribution plan and NONE of them perpetuate eternal wealth and eternal poverty based on some BS notion of worth and value?

And spare me your "life's unfair" routine. Please, stop swallowing the talking points of rich people who want you to support a corrupt system that benefits them but not you. This is league revenue were talking about, it should benefit the entire league. Individual teams are rewarded for their success by individual revenue streams- ticket sales, merchandising, donations, etc. Nobody is suggesting those dollars be redistributed.

It's in Ohio state and Michigan states best interest that northwestern sucks as least as possible. The better the conference is, the stronger Ohio state and Michigan state appear against the tops of other P5's... Otherwise the bottom 2/3 of every P5 would be putrid... Making the top look weak and undeserving.