morgantown — Remember a couple of weeks ago when the story broke that seven schools, including such powers such as Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina, were threatening to break away from the Atlantic Coast Conference?
It was leaked that they being drawn away from what has come to be perceived as a conference losing its luster by the lure of the SEC, which is flexing its football-toughened muscles and seems on the verge to becoming a true super conference in the restructuring of the college game.
It didn’t take long before the story was being pooh-poohed (Honest, there is such a word, the past tense of pooh-pooh. I looked it up) by the ACC.
But rest assured, that while such a breakaway was not imminent it certainly was being discussed in the hallways at league meetings and via texts and emails.
Know how we know?
By an announcement that came out of the ACC on Wednesday, the league’s board of directors announcing its endorsement of what it terms a “success incentive initiative” to begin in the 2024-25 season.
Right now you are probably wondering just what is a “success incentive initiative” and, just as important, whether you can get through saying it on the first attempt.
So, too, is the ACC wondering what it is, for it readily admits it endorses it even though “the specifics of the plan are in progress and will be solidified in the coming months.”
If this sounds like a rush job being put in place to appease the schools who were getting antsy and threatening to explore exit avenues that would lead to the SEC … or even the Big Ten or Big 12, you have company.
This is the kind of stuff that normally is kept under wraps until it is ready to be announced, but the league obviously must feel it has to put a public face on its effort to retain its status as a Power 5 conference.
What’s the idea behind this?
“Under this initiative, the implementation of the success incentives will come solely from the performance of teams in revenue generating postseason competition,” it reads. “All other revenues will continue to be equally shared as currently outlined.”
While the nuts and bolts have not been worked out, it sure sounds like the rich schools are getting richer as the poor schools get poorer.
This is not the all for one, one for all rallying cry of a conference.
It’s bad enough for the schools that don’t get into postseason are robbed of practice sessions that bowl or NCAA basketball teams get. Those same losing schools also are hurt in recruiting by not getting to the postseason and do not gain the same exposure as the other teams.
One may look at such a revenue sharing situation as an incentive for the lower schools to improve, but even if that is the case it widens the gap they have to make up and works completely against competitive balance, rather than promoting it.
The invention of NIL and the transfer portal seemed to be leading toward a more competitive landscape for college athletics, witness Big 12 football, basketball and baseball.
But it is uncertain how long that will last as a school like WVU — and there are far more like them than Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma and Michigan — would seem to have trouble sustaining in an atmosphere where you must bid for talent.
What’s more, players always had become part of the community family, staying around for four or five years where they got to know the school and the city it was in and the city could adopt them as their own.
But these one-and-done rent-a-player deals are going to grow old and stress the school’s ability to create an identity as the state’s or city’s own … when Tre Mitchell plays one year for Texas against West Virginia, then the next year for West Virginia against Texas.
With the death of regional rivalries already a reality and conference affiliation no longer a certainty, we are creating a situation where schools and players are loyal only to the man signing the checks … and in the long run that is going to hurt.
Follow @bhertzel on Twitter
