NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
 
NCAA Map
  It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:06 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping
College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1235 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:24 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 8747
USAToday college revenue chart for FY16 showing SEC member Texas A&M at the top at http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:09 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 2169
About a dozen private P5 colleges (which one would think would be in the Top 65) did not report their numbers here....

Just FYI...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:46 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1806
tute79 wrote:
About a dozen private P5 colleges (which one would think would be in the Top 65) did not report their numbers here....

Just FYI...

Pertaining to the SEC, it would be Vanderbilt. Mississippi State @ #34 collected the lowest per the SEC. I read somewhere on AL online, Vandy was #13 in collected revenue, slightly ahead of State.

Private schools are not required to report. However, if the list was revised to include them, I expect most P5 private institutions would be in the top 65.

Notre Dame would be high. From the same source they were way up there. Others would be Southern Cal, Stanford, and Northwestern.

TCU, Baylor, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami (Fl), Syracuse,, and Boston College, receive healthy P5 distributions. Outside a P5 conference, BYU would be in the mix.

Of the state - related schools in Pennsylvania, not technically state-owned, only Penn State is seen reported. I do not see Pittsburgh, Temple, and Lincoln on the list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:47 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 2169
Pitt (ACC) and Temple (AAC) are both private.

Lincoln ? Of the top of my head, I don't even know what division they are in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:59 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1806
tute79 wrote:
Pitt (ACC) and Temple (AAC) are both private.

Lincoln ? Of the top of my head, I don't even know what division they are in.


They are state-related as is PSU. They receive Commonwealth appropriations yearly from the legislature
and assess out-of-state tuition to non-residents. They have state representation on their Board of Trustees. Employee paychecks are not issued by the Commonwealth.

The Pennsylvania University System of Higher Education, consisting of 14 schools are state owned and operated with a Common Chancellor in Harrisburg. These do not include PSU and their branch campuses, Pitt and their branch campuses such as the ones in Johnstown and Bradford, and Temple. Lincoln is a historically black college, also state related, near Philly. It is not a large enrollment. Cheney University is also a historically black college, but is one of the 14 state owned universities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:24 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 2169
Aware of that. So this all referred to Freaked's post about D-1 school finances.

I didn't follow your reference to Lincoln, in that context, since they are in CIAA in D-2.

I think the PA schools in D-1 include: PSU (B1G), Pitt (ACC), Temple (AAC), Duquesne (A-10), Penn (Ivy League), Villanova (Big East), St. Joe's, Drexel, Robert Morris, St. Francis (did I miss any ?)

All those former state teacher's colleges (I grew up in Latrobe about 40 miles southwest of IUP) are in that D-2 PSAC...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:58 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1806
^ I was noting that Lincoln was one of the 4 state related institutions; not expressing their sports belonged on the list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:46 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 2169
Gotcha... sorry...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1806
Twist it as you may, I worked for PA HE system for decades.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:15 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 2169
Would that be in Harrisburg ?

I'll refrain from twisting.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:54 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1806
tute79 wrote:
Would that be in Harrisburg ?

I'll refrain from twisting.....

We were on diverging rails.
As you may know, Pennsylvania has an unusual classification system. At one time, PA was subsidizing all-private higher education more than any other state. The Bishin Cutter needs to join this discussion.

To the question, one dealt with them, but a campus. Leave Harrisburg to Jeffrey Lord.

We're probably rambling way off course from SEC dialogue.
I suppose the intended point was that Texas A&M was the top earner in distributions. They surpassed Texas who receives that 15m yearly in LHN payouts.

Jumping again, on the topic of realignment and the idea, a little fantasy included, of 4 power conferences @ 16 each as a great conspiracy reaching a compromise.

ACC -add ND fb FT and WVU
BIG - add Kanas and ISU
SEC- add OU and oSu
PAC: add TTU, UT, TCU, and KSU

Baylor gets ommited.

I like it in a symmetrical way, IF the B12 really decides to split and head to four corners. That's better than a series of extractions where fewer get accommodated.

OK, there are endless arguments, pro and con, with each.
Networks would prefer it if each gets a bigger slice, but may not come up with that kind of cash guarantees for all interests. ESPN, for one, is now showing an aversion to more long-term investments. However, if these conferences really want a P4, and demonstrate flexibilty for reaching an overall goal, then now is the time to plan for it, rather than 2024, when the bidding is more messy and costly.
The B12 can agree to dissolve their own GoR agreement and TV contract, if a comprehensive agreement is presented and backed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 2169
I do believe the "less popular" Big XII teams (ISU, KSU, OSU?, TCU, Baylor, TT?) will be reluctant to dissolve the GoR early.
Those schools would have to be nervous about where they are going to land, and are currently living off the gravy train, so I think they'll prefer to stay with the current Big XII format as long as possible (at least until current GoR expires.... 2024-25).

For the BiG, I agree that Kansas is a nice property (another state flagship with a top-notch BB program).
I don't want to see ISU or KSU stranded, but the BiG will likely consider those schools "redundant markets" to Iowa and Kansas.
With all the focus on money (to the exclusion of everything else), I see the BiG (Delany, et. al.) leveraging their huge TV revenue cornucopia to take another flagship school....
it might be UConn, Oklahoma, Texas... If you are one of those schools - only the SEC would be more lucrative financially.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:27 pm
Posts: 165
4 p5 conferences agreeing ahead of time
who goes where in dividing up a 5th one
will be near impossible. Each would get
a school they want, and a school or two
they don't want. Advanced assurances would
have to be made to at least 8 members
before voting to dissolve the GoR. The one
or two schools left out of a P4 assignment,
would probably sue and tie the matter up
in courts. The B12 could have expelled Baylor
over the scandals, but they wouldn't want to
operate at 9 for awhile, given they would
lose a conference game and have TV contracts
based on 10 members. There would also be long-
term repercussions in Texas.
What is most likely to happen for 2024/25, those
that have better deals elsewhere will depart for
the new destinations. Then the conference will
fill in with types such as Houston, USF, etc.
Texas may stay put, and press to fill openings
with schools they want included for schedules
and remain with 10. The one most discussed as
leaving is Oklahoma. Who takes them will need
another from somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:04 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 8747
Article out of Chattanooga with comments from UT AD regarding UT finances at http://www.chattanoogan.com/2017/7/9/35 ... range.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 544
The direction the college football playoffs will take directly impacts how further expansion goes.

Here are recent comments from Bill Hancock, Executive Director of College Football Playoff. These were conveyed at the SEC Media Days.

https://saturdayblitz.com/2017/12/bill- ... expansion/"

So it is doubtful there will be an expansion to a field of 8 anytime soon. Bowls were cited as one reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1235 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 

cron




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:
College Gear at Fanatics.com







Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

NCAA Store - Food Travel Ideas

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group