|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 8, 2023 13:13:48 GMT -5
I agree. I think most everybody involved in college sports is a self-interested hypocrite. I at least like someone standing up and giving voice to how much time they make these athletes spend at their "hobby", and how little time it leaves to actually take advantage of the free benefit that everyone claims makes it worth it for them to be there in the first place, and how detrimental their time, travel and emotional stresses are to their overall mental health. There are Covid freshmen who were burned out and transferred to be closer to home, who now end up on long flights to go right back to where they left. That was not part of the plan. Oh good grief. There are 340 Division 1 schools that offer volleyball. An athlete that is good enough to play in the Big Ten or SEC is talented enough to play in at least 300 of them. If somebody wants to treat volleyball as a “hobby” they can do so in a regional conference with limited travel. They could even play D3 so there are fewer time demands in the spring. The thing is, a lot of athletes WANT more volleyball. But if it’s as terrible as you’re making it out to be, they should play in a different conference. OK, We've got you down in the f**ck the athletes column. Good for you. Moving on. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,381 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 8, 2023 13:26:03 GMT -5
Be jazzed if you want. I don't think it's a good move. Lower value brands that will eventually demand a full share. Worse travel situation for the existing 14 schools. And the Big Ten almost certainly pissed off USC (they dislike Oregon), who doesn't exactly strike me as the most loyal school possible. If I were to grade the P5 conferences on their moves, it would be like so: SEC: A+ Big 10: B+ (would have been an A+ if they just stopped with USC and UCLA) Big 12: B (would have been an A if they didn't add Arizona State and Utah) ACC: Incomplete Pac-12: F I think the SEC has to be thrilled with everything that's happened. They added two great brands, which will help them continue their football dominance. Meanwhile the Big 10 and Big 12 overexpanded, the ACC is trapped in a terrible TV contract, and the Pac-12 is dead. I fully expect that when the ACC breaks up, the SEC will add great football brands like Florida State, Miami and Clemson, while the Big Ten will counter with like Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. Edit: I obviously don't expect Big Ten fans to agree with me on this, but I stand by my statements. I think you are undervaluing the addition of the other 3 corner schools? The Big 12 now has a lock on the Mountain Time zone (okay, probably not a big deal). They have added a couple real rivalries (and rivalries are important for TV viewing). Arizona/Arizona State is pretty big - and Utah/BYU should be outstanding (although I will defer to you on that one if I am thinking this wrong). Kansas vs. Arizona in basketball is potentially huge. Utah has become a recent significant football school which helps. And the conference makes more geographical/travel sense - other than UCF and West Virginia. More potential for travel partners in scheduling. |
|
|
|
Post by NYCHusker on Aug 8, 2023 13:55:50 GMT -5
I agree. I think most everybody involved in college sports is a self-interested hypocrite. I at least like someone standing up and giving voice to how much time they make these athletes spend at their "hobby", and how little time it leaves to actually take advantage of the free benefit that everyone claims makes it worth it for them to be there in the first place, and how detrimental their time, travel and emotional stresses are to their overall mental health. There are Covid freshmen who were burned out and transferred to be closer to home, who now end up on long flights to go right back to where they left. That was not part of the plan. Oh good grief. There are 340 Division 1 schools that offer volleyball. An athlete that is good enough to play in the Big Ten or SEC is talented enough to play in at least 300 of them. If somebody wants to treat volleyball as a “hobby” they can do so in a regional conference with limited travel. They could even play D3 so there are fewer time demands in the spring. The thing is, a lot of athletes WANT more volleyball. But if it’s as terrible as you’re making it out to be, they should play in a different conference. Seems like you've completely left the "student" part out of your argument here. Would love to see how you feel about playing in LA on a Wednesday night with a big test in Chemistry the next afternoon in Piscataway. To say that an athlete should be perfectly fine with spending half of their season in airports, while trying to maintain a full load of coursework, just to play at a school that will set them up better for their hopeful future in the sport is pretty short-sighted. |
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Aug 8, 2023 14:16:41 GMT -5
Oh good grief. There are 340 Division 1 schools that offer volleyball. An athlete that is good enough to play in the Big Ten or SEC is talented enough to play in at least 300 of them. If somebody wants to treat volleyball as a “hobby” they can do so in a regional conference with limited travel. They could even play D3 so there are fewer time demands in the spring. The thing is, a lot of athletes WANT more volleyball. But if it’s as terrible as you’re making it out to be, they should play in a different conference. Seems like you've completely left the "student" part out of your argument here. Would love to see how you feel about playing in LA on a Wednesday night with a big test in Chemistry the next afternoon in Piscataway. To say that an athlete should be perfectly fine with spending half of their season in airports, while trying to maintain a full load of coursework, just to play at a school that will set them up better for their hopeful future in the sport is pretty short-sighted. Well, probably because that isn't likely how the schedule is going to work and in that scenario most students would have a proctored exam while on the road or take the exam during a make up session upon returning. There are some very legitimate concerns about the impending travel, but that really isn't one of them. Those kind of accommodations have been planned for and incorporated into season travel for a very long time. Heck, I played 20 years ago and we accommodations for that. The volume of academic resources allocated to athletics will likely need to increase a bit, but this isn't new territory. The questions that need to be answered that are likely to either exacerbate the problem or alleviate some of it: 1. Charter vs Private- Chartering flights could genuinely ease the travel burden, but it's a massive financial burden. Hard to say if it will be offset by the media deal and increased budgets, but hopefully 2. Maximizing trips- Maybe playing two back-to-back away weekends and staying in the Midwest vs flying home and turning around and flying back. Given the proliferation of online class offerings and Zoom capabilities, it is very likely that accommodations can and will be made to make that a reality. The only thing that would be a struggle would be any lab-based class offerings, but most student athletes don't take those in season anyway due to missed class time. 3. Minimizing OOC travel- this one already seems to be in the works, but likely many of these schools will choose to stay home as much as possible out of conference, or it will become a mandate from their admin. Either way, I think we see the schools with the heaviest travel burden in conference host more pre-conference tournaments or stay local. |
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 8, 2023 14:57:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 8, 2023 15:35:44 GMT -5
Oh good grief. There are 340 Division 1 schools that offer volleyball. An athlete that is good enough to play in the Big Ten or SEC is talented enough to play in at least 300 of them. If somebody wants to treat volleyball as a “hobby” they can do so in a regional conference with limited travel. They could even play D3 so there are fewer time demands in the spring. The thing is, a lot of athletes WANT more volleyball. But if it’s as terrible as you’re making it out to be, they should play in a different conference. OK, We've got you down in the f**ck the athletes column. Good for you. Moving on. Not at all. I want athletes to have options. I want them to be able to choose if a certain school in a certain conference is what's best for them. You want everything to be in your model. Washington has a 2024 commitment from Cincinnati. Oregon has a 2025 commitment from Indianapolis. I bet they love it. 4 flights east per season wouldn't move the needle at all for me. I guess we'll see if/when all of the volleyball players from Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA jump in the portal in December. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 8, 2023 15:39:21 GMT -5
Oh good grief. There are 340 Division 1 schools that offer volleyball. An athlete that is good enough to play in the Big Ten or SEC is talented enough to play in at least 300 of them. If somebody wants to treat volleyball as a “hobby” they can do so in a regional conference with limited travel. They could even play D3 so there are fewer time demands in the spring. The thing is, a lot of athletes WANT more volleyball. But if it’s as terrible as you’re making it out to be, they should play in a different conference. Seems like you've completely left the "student" part out of your argument here. Would love to see how you feel about playing in LA on a Wednesday night with a big test in Chemistry the next afternoon in Piscataway. To say that an athlete should be perfectly fine with spending half of their season in airports, while trying to maintain a full load of coursework, just to play at a school that will set them up better for their hopeful future in the sport is pretty short-sighted. If they schedule that way, I'll agree but I'll be shocked if they didn't use some sort of travel partners for long distance trips. Also, the number of flights and amount of time "spent in airports" will only be reduced with increased budgets and more charters. It HAS to be part of the plan if Washington was claiming that team travel would increase by $10 million. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 8, 2023 15:42:35 GMT -5
Seems like you've completely left the "student" part out of your argument here. Would love to see how you feel about playing in LA on a Wednesday night with a big test in Chemistry the next afternoon in Piscataway. To say that an athlete should be perfectly fine with spending half of their season in airports, while trying to maintain a full load of coursework, just to play at a school that will set them up better for their hopeful future in the sport is pretty short-sighted. Well, probably because that isn't likely how the schedule is going to work and in that scenario most students would have a proctored exam while on the road or take the exam during a make up session upon returning. There are some very legitimate concerns about the impending travel, but that really isn't one of them. Those kind of accommodations have been planned for and incorporated into season travel for a very long time. Heck, I played 20 years ago and we accommodations for that. The volume of academic resources allocated to athletics will likely need to increase a bit, but this isn't new territory. The questions that need to be answered that are likely to either exacerbate the problem or alleviate some of it: 1. Charter vs Private- Chartering flights could genuinely ease the travel burden, but it's a massive financial burden. Hard to say if it will be offset by the media deal and increased budgets, but hopefully 2. Maximizing trips- Maybe playing two back-to-back away weekends and staying in the Midwest vs flying home and turning around and flying back. Given the proliferation of online class offerings and Zoom capabilities, it is very likely that accommodations can and will be made to make that a reality. The only thing that would be a struggle would be any lab-based class offerings, but most student athletes don't take those in season anyway due to missed class time. 3. Minimizing OOC travel- this one already seems to be in the works, but likely many of these schools will choose to stay home as much as possible out of conference, or it will become a mandate from their admin. Either way, I think we see the schools with the heaviest travel burden in conference host more pre-conference tournaments or stay local. It's also become much easier for these teams to stay local in non-con. UO and UW will generally can maybe schedule Portland St. (in a good year), but will otherwise not have RPI-favorable local options for competition. A rotating tourney with UW/UO/WSU/OSU seems a given, plus there's a Stanford home-and-home possibility now too. That's two convenient trips for NW teams used to having to go FAR to get decent competition (and stepping down in conference should make Cal and OSU much more "schedule-able" for RPI reasons - OSU is probably a 15-20 win team in the MWC). |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 8, 2023 15:45:38 GMT -5
So, what were the terms of the deal as to when Oregon and Washington begin earning equal revenue in the B1G? Or, is it based on some type of performance metrics, TV ratings, etc. that will determine if they ever earn equal revenue?
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 8, 2023 15:51:11 GMT -5
So, what were the terms of the deal as to when Oregon and Washington begin earning equal revenue in the B1G? Or, is it based on some type of performance metrics, TV ratings, etc. that will determine if they ever earn equal revenue? They get equal revenue in 2030 on the next TV deal. Sorry to disappoint. |
|
|
|
Post by katn on Aug 8, 2023 15:57:08 GMT -5
Seems like you've completely left the "student" part out of your argument here. Would love to see how you feel about playing in LA on a Wednesday night with a big test in Chemistry the next afternoon in Piscataway. To say that an athlete should be perfectly fine with spending half of their season in airports, while trying to maintain a full load of coursework, just to play at a school that will set them up better for their hopeful future in the sport is pretty short-sighted. Well, probably because that isn't likely how the schedule is going to work and in that scenario most students would have a proctored exam while on the road or take the exam during a make up session upon returning. There are some very legitimate concerns about the impending travel, but that really isn't one of them. Those kind of accommodations have been planned for and incorporated into season travel for a very long time. Heck, I played 20 years ago and we accommodations for that. The volume of academic resources allocated to athletics will likely need to increase a bit, but this isn't new territory. The questions that need to be answered that are likely to either exacerbate the problem or alleviate some of it: 1. Charter vs Private- Chartering flights could genuinely ease the travel burden, but it's a massive financial burden. Hard to say if it will be offset by the media deal and increased budgets, but hopefully 2. Maximizing trips- Maybe playing two back-to-back away weekends and staying in the Midwest vs flying home and turning around and flying back. Given the proliferation of online class offerings and Zoom capabilities, it is very likely that accommodations can and will be made to make that a reality. The only thing that would be a struggle would be any lab-based class offerings, but most student athletes don't take those in season anyway due to missed class time. 3. Minimizing OOC travel- this one already seems to be in the works, but likely many of these schools will choose to stay home as much as possible out of conference, or it will become a mandate from their admin. Either way, I think we see the schools with the heaviest travel burden in conference host more pre-conference tournaments or stay local. do you mean charter vs commercial flights? |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 8, 2023 16:02:50 GMT -5
So, what were the terms of the deal as to when Oregon and Washington begin earning equal revenue in the B1G? Or, is it based on some type of performance metrics, TV ratings, etc. that will determine if they ever earn equal revenue? They get equal revenue in 2030 on the next TV deal. Sorry to disappoint. That still puts them 6 years' revenue at some percentage less than UCLA and USC, and their new 14 B1G co-members. So, if equal revenue sharing is $60 million * 6 years, that's $360 million for the other 16 B1G members. If the unequal share for UO and UW is 50% of that, they will only be behind $180 million. No way to ever make up that deficit. Sorry to disappoint. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 8, 2023 16:10:16 GMT -5
They get equal revenue in 2030 on the next TV deal. Sorry to disappoint. That still puts them 6 years' revenue at some percentage less than UCLA and USC, and their new 14 B1G co-members. So, if equal revenue sharing is $60 million * 6 years, that's $360 million for the other 16 B1G members. If the unequal share for UO and UW is 50% of that, they will only be behind $180 million. No way to ever make up that deficit. Sorry to disappoint. We'll be fine. Thank you for your concern. |
|
|
|
Post by davethecoug on Aug 8, 2023 16:10:35 GMT -5
If I were to grade the P5 conferences on their moves, it would be like so: SEC: A+ Big 10: B+ (would have been an A+ if they just stopped with USC and UCLA) Big 12: B (would have been an A if they didn't add Arizona State and Utah) ACC: Incomplete Pac-12: F I also think adding Arizona State and Utah was a mistake by the Big-12.
By adding BYU, the Big-12 added the Utah college sports market to their broadcast map. Is that 70% of the Utah college sports market? 80%? 60%? Who knows. But how many more fans are going to purchase the ESPN App, or Fox Sports App, or Apple App (etc...) because Utah is now added to the Big-12. It doesn't seem logical that adding a 2nd school in the same market will double the value. The same goes for Arizona and ASU. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 8, 2023 16:13:09 GMT -5
If I were to grade the P5 conferences on their moves, it would be like so: SEC: A+ Big 10: B+ (would have been an A+ if they just stopped with USC and UCLA) Big 12: B (would have been an A if they didn't add Arizona State and Utah) ACC: Incomplete Pac-12: F I think the SEC has to be thrilled with everything that's happened. They added two great brands, which will help them continue their football dominance. Meanwhile the Big 10 and Big 12 overexpanded, the ACC is trapped in a terrible TV contract, and the Pac-12 is dead. I fully expect that when the ACC breaks up, the SEC will add great football brands like Florida State, Miami and Clemson, while the Big Ten will counter with like Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. Edit: I obviously don't expect Big Ten fans to agree with me on this, but I stand by my statements. I think you are undervaluing the addition of the other 3 corner schools? The Big 12 now has a lock on the Mountain Time zone (okay, probably not a big deal). They have added a couple real rivalries (and rivalries are important for TV viewing). Arizona/Arizona State is pretty big - and Utah/BYU should be outstanding (although I will defer to you on that one if I am thinking this wrong). Kansas vs. Arizona in basketball is potentially huge. Utah has become a recent significant football school which helps. And the conference makes more geographical/travel sense - other than UCF and West Virginia. More potential for travel partners in scheduling. I don't think you need two schools in Arizona, and you really don't need two schools in Utah (at least the Arizona schools are in different markets, and there are a lot more people in Arizona than Utah). And rivalries can be played out of conference. Georgia and Georgia Tech have figured out how to play every year despite not being in the same conference. Same for Florida and Florida State. Etc. Utah is pretty good at football, but they don't have an especially impressive football brand, which is what really matters. Boise State has the second-highest winning percentage of the last 27 years, behind only Ohio State. That has not gotten them into a power conference. I also think there's an opportunity cost, as I believe the networks only approved up to four spots for expansion. Using all four on Mountain Time schools seems shortsighted to me. I'd rather have stopped at 14 and waited to see what happens with the ACC. Edit: Oh, and Utah and Arizona State also aren't even happy to be in the conference (for example, the ASU president already vowed to not go to Morgantown), which makes them different than every other school in the conference. I just don't think it was a good move. |
|
