forums

Miami Flo's Predictions

Rickd said:
Problem is ... if Miami spends the next 4-5 years in the B12 ... with the new aggressive programming that FOX and the ESPN are going to do for the B10 and SEC ... the "non P2" conferences are going to have virtually NO national TV broadcasts and will be limited more and more to regional streaming apps only.

Look no further than this Fall ... when FOX / B10 network ... introduce "Friday Night Football" for at least 9 Friday's. No longer will be seeing the smaller regional schools in that slot ... it will be "FRIDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL WITH THE BIG 10" national broadcast. You go to the B12 to disappear and die as a major program. They even currently are the worst conference for 4-5 star recruits. The SEC and B10 dominate and will do so to a much more dramatic level. the B12-ACC (what is left) will become sources of portal players for the P2. This is a seismic shift in college football, not some subtle conference change for a couple of $$$.
Click to expand...
step brothers dale GIF


what you're saying is we upgrade from Bally Sports???
 
Advertisement
Handsome Squidbum said:
Do you think the ACC is currently held in the same regard as the B1G and SEC? Seems to me we’re living that scenario right now but it hasn’t really hurt recruiting. A mediocre recruiter like Diaz was still sniffing around the top 10.
Click to expand...
Yeah ... but the dynamics are just getting ready to change significantly. The "P2" will begin dominating both air time and recruiting more and more each season. It is already starting with the Big 10 introducing "Friday Night Football" this Fall ... at least 9 games. Those will be Big 10 national broadcasts, instead of the regional games (BC vs Wake Forest). It is going to get more difficult each year. The P2 are working together and there is an expectation that there will be more Big 10 / SEC matchups in addition to their conference games. The networks are changing how the game is played (and broadcast).
 
Rickd said:
Doesn't matter that we are getting less than Perdue ... we are IN the P2 and PLAYING big games ... Michigan, USC, Penn State ... on national broadcasts, building the brand and strengthening recruiting. The entire program will suffer major setbacks IN brand visibility AND recruiting if we end up in a lower tier, increasingly invisible conference. We would be making about the same money BUT be "big time football" as far as all viewers are concerned. GO BIG10. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
It’s easy to say when it isn’t your money.
That’s the same sht they were saying about Clemson and fsu for years.
Clemson has been smacking down the game dcks yearly. They sit there and scream “sec sec” while Dabo tells them to bite the pillow cause he’s going in dry. He has 2 rings to show the sec.

Regardless of what happens, if we win we get paid either tv merchandise or whatever. Win and you have all kinds of leverage in everything we touch.

But as of now:
You want to compete against blue bloods like pedo and Michigan, Ohio state?
Do you know how much money big blue spent in the last decade on football?
In 2022 alone it was 50 million. They sent the entire team to Italy on vacation.
And despite all of that they only have one title? Now you’re saying it’s ok to take their scraps cause it’s big boy football??

In 3 years we are talking about at leas 100 million dollars in an era when we are paying players and competing against state school budgets. Put emotions and pride aside.

That’s a lot of fckng money. Try asking for 100 million from a state budget and see how many middle finger’s you get.

And that’s only 3 years. Idk how long you have to be a member to get the same as the other programs but even if it’s 3 years you don’t walk away from 100 million.

Especially a small private school.
Not only that. We can almost guarantee a conference chip if we keep going the way we are. Than means even more money for playoff games and not to mention the ridiculous amount of exposure.

My post history has always said “you dont make a decision based solely on money”
But I’m usually referring to recruiting.
As long as there isn’t some poison pill clause you take that money.
 
i wonder ...just wonder...if certain schools within these two big conferences look across the fence and conclude that a realignment would yield them MORE MONEY than the current setup.

Would Alabaga, LSU, Texas, OU, UF join OSU. Michigan, USC etc in their own conference and ditch the Vandys, Illinois, Northwesterns?
 
Advertisement
Rickd said:
Yeah ... but the dynamics are just getting ready to change significantly. The "P2" will begin dominating both air time and recruiting more and more each season. It is already starting with the Big 10 introducing "Friday Night Football" this Fall ... at least 9 games. Those will be Big 10 national broadcasts, instead of the regional games (BC vs Wake Forest). It is going to get more difficult each year. The P2 are working together and there is an expectation that there will be more Big 10 / SEC matchups in addition to their conference games. The networks are changing how the game is played (and broadcast).
Click to expand...

Some of the stuff can be mitigated by scheduling. Fox/espn would still show Big12/ACC games. They will put on the marquee game regardless of conference. Its ratings driven - more viewers mean more ads means more money. IMO pretty much nothing changes except the two big networks can pick and choose the top ratings matchups between the conferences they are paying 100 million per year and the conferences they are paying 60 million per year. A matchup of an undefeated UM vs undefeated UNC would get the marquee spot over Indiana-Iowa on tv. Big difference is the former two teams make 200 million combined over our 120 million combined. I don’t think the B1G cares if Fox flexes the Iowa game and puts on a Big 12/ACC game as long as they get their money.
 
Advertisement
pacusmc said:
According to Flo, he held your exact sentiment until someone close to what Miami has been planning asked him: “how would you feel playing Purdue every year and spanking them by 2 touchdowns while knowing they’re getting 30-40 million more a year than UM”?

The whole idea was to get the money now while knowing that there will just eventually be 2 big conferences in the next 5 or six years.

My take is that while that may sound great we can’t predict the future.
Also, while it makes a lot of sense we better not make the same mistake we did with acc and especially adidas.

The adidas deal sounded good at the time financially, but was it really a good long term deal for the program?
Click to expand...
Comparing shoe deals to conference realignnent is a joke. There is no prof that the move to Adidas has any negative effect on the school either economically or at the sport level. Only butt hurt fans that feel Nike is like air or water.
 
MiGonzCane said:
Comparing shoe deals to conference realignnent is a joke. There is no prof that the move to Adidas has any negative effect on the school either economically or at the sport level. Only butt hurt fans that feel Nike is like air or water.
Click to expand...
We always say that these are 16-18 year old kids. What we may see as insignificant matters a lot to them.
Maybe those that are closer to recruiting can verify or shoot it down. But it would not surprise me one bit if that there have been players that if all things were equal, Nike gear vs adidas/under armour etc changed their mind. A lot of kids wanted those Oregon uniforms and I guarantee you it helped with recruiting.

And for sure it helped with sales. You can call it but hurt or whatever, but Nike has a ridiculous hold on the sports market. Whether it’s really warranted doesn’t matter.
Something like 80-90 percent of basketball shoes are Nike. They didn’t make mj jump higher than adidas.

Louis bags are expensive and I doubt anything in those bags warrants the price. But most women would be very very happy if they got one as a gift.

Do I think Nike or adidas makes a receiver or a qb better? He’ll no.
But I know that most of them
want one brand over the other. And they prefer swoosh 9/10.

Blake took the better deal at the time when the admin was being stingy aF and he had a job to keep. But several on here have stated that long term it was shty deal.
Maybe revisionist history or maybe not. I don’t have any receipts about the reaction of switching to adidas.
 
Advertisement
pacusmc said:
We always say that these are 16-18 year old kids. What we may see as insignificant matters a lot to them.
Maybe those that are closer to recruiting can verify or shoot it down. But it would not surprise me one bit if that there have been players that if all things were equal, Nike gear vs adidas/under armour etc changed their mind. A lot of kids wanted those Oregon uniforms and I guarantee you it helped with recruiting.

And for sure it helped with sales. You can call it but hurt or whatever, but Nike has a ridiculous hold on the sports market. Whether it’s really warranted doesn’t matter.
Something like 80-90 percent of basketball shoes are Nike. They didn’t make mj jump higher than adidas.

Louis bags are expensive and I doubt anything in those bags warrants the price. But most women would be very very happy if they got one as a gift.

Do I think Nike or adidas makes a receiver or a qb better? He’ll no.
But I know that most of them
want one brand over the other. And they prefer swoosh 9/10.

Blake took the better deal at the time when the admin was being stingy aF and he had a job to keep. But several on here have stated that long term it was shty deal.
Maybe revisionist history or maybe not. I don’t have any receipts about the reaction of switching to adidas.
Click to expand...

The last straw!! Uniforms and shoe brands are key to recruiting I have heard it all.
 
Advertisement
MiGonzCane said:
Is just street talk. Show me a quote from a recruit that has said that the tipping point was shoe brands
Click to expand...
show me a quote where a recruit said he went to a specific school cause they paid him more.
Just because he doesn’t say it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.


But let’s not act like Nike isn’t the preferred brand.
Alabama uga Michigan and Ohio state could likely approach adidas and ask for more money.
But they won’t. And it’s because Nike is the brand of choice. Just go anywhere where teenagers hang out and see what they’re rocking.

You could look at everything from sales to market cap. It’s not even close. I could understand if Adidas and Nike were neck and neck, but they’re not. Just because adidas is well known brand doesn’t mean that they’re preferred.

I guarantee you if you took a vote at in’s locker room on wether they should stay with Adidas or change to Nike, most of that team would say Nike.

If I’m not mistaken, some of our players were wearing Nike cleats during pro day.

They don’t have to say anything, they’re literally showing you.
 
MiGonzCane said:
Is just street talk. Show me a quote from a recruit that has said that the tipping point was shoe brands
Click to expand...
It’s happened and a lot more than you’d expect. Living where I do I’ve heard recruits flat out say UF going to Jordan helped UF land them.

Some kids have different reasons for the “ tipping point “. Money , close to home , weather , facilities and even women. Plenty of recruits went to FSU because of all the “ talent “ since there’s a few different campuses so close together.

Nike and Jordan swag is much cooler to youngsters than Adidas and Under Armour. There’s been recruits that’s passed on those schools because that was the one box that didn’t check. So yes it happens and more frequent than you’d believe.
 
Last edited:
Cribby said:
It’s happened and a lot more than you’d expect. Living where I do I’ve heard recruits flat out say UF going to Jordan helped UF land them.

Some kids have different reasons for the “ tipping point “. Money , close to home , weather , facilities and even women. Plenty of recruits went to FSU because of all the “ talent “ since there’s a few different campuses so close together.

Nike and Jordan swag is much cooler to youngsters than Adidas and Under Armour. There’s been recruits that’s passed on those schools because that was the one box that didn’t check. So yes it happens and more frequent than you’d believe.
Click to expand...
I understand what you said but a school interest come first and Adidas at the time blown Nike money wise on the offer. I fully expect UM to choose Adidas again if money is better. So if that check on the box is a tipping point for a recruit inbthe NIL era that is s recruit I don’t want.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top