NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:07 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1064 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 ... 71  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 8:00 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
tute79 wrote:
A few years ago, Mizzou's preference was to join the Big Ten.
No doubt, the governor even campaigned for it.
Mizzou was given the cold shoulder.

Mizzou was shown open arms by the SEC.

(by the way - Mizzou is used to being slaughtered on the football field - (re: "The Norman Conquest", a 77-0 loss to Oklahoma in Norman).

Assuming the money stays good in the SEC, I can't see Missouri flirting with the Big Ten any time soon.


I think this is a prevalent sentiment among Missouri fans. And I don't blame them for feeling this way about the subject. However, what faculty and administrators believe...and these are the guys who make the decisions? Were the Big Ten to call, even tomorrow, I suspect Missouri would apply. The fans and institution deserve better than that.

It could be like what happened over in South Bend back in the late 90's. In secret, away from students, alumni, and other boosters/donators, the administration and faculty of Notre Dame approved a move to apply as a full member of the Big Ten conference. When the news leaked, before it got to the official trustee/regent vote, the other side got their say, all that anti-Catholic Big Ten history and Fielding Yost-hating therein. The initiative was tabled, and that was that.

Fans have a place in this thing...I just don't think it's at the public school level. Florida State fans might rather be in the SEC, but its then-president and its faculty did just about everything (including probably not even pursuing the subject with the SEC to the fullest of due diligence) to stay in the ACC. Fans and certain supporters were kept out while big-time boosters and trustees were wooed by a commissioner visit that was green-lighted by the president. We know what happened at Maryland. Things were definitely not happy in Happy Valley, either, some 20+ years ago. I firmly believe Missouri would be no different. Their school, their decision...even if it's on your dime.

As for who would join NCST? Assuming no GoRs? I think the list includes: West Virginia, FSU, VPI, Clemson, Kansas State, and maybe even a shocker like Louisville or Cincinnati.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 12:24 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
BePcr07 wrote:
sec03 wrote:
IF, and that is a big if, the SEC did eventually acquire, say, NC State, whom would be #14, assuming no other ACC schools would be in play?


I think the SEC is looking for 2 ACC schools to get to 16, but what do I know? If they were to pick up North Carolina St as #15 and no other ACC schools were in play, they would have to look at the XII.

Texas: does the SEC really want to deal with them?
Texas Tech: too far
TCU: brings in the DFW market, but their dominant football program has waned in the past couple years
Baylor: I actually wouldn't hate to see this, Waco sits between DFW and Austin and there are plenty of Baylor grads around the state; however, Baylor and Texas A&M had some bad blood when the Aggies were making the move to the SEC
Oklahoma: would be a strong addition, but would they go without Texas or Oklahoma St?
Oklahoma St: would be strong addition as well, but are they too "little brother" compared to Oklahoma?
Kansas/Kansas St: with Missouri, the Kansas City market is already hit by the SEC
West Virginia: it is a new state contiguous with the SEC, but there is no market unless you somehow count Pittsburgh? Plus their once strong football and basketball have both fallen off the map lately
Iowa St: just...no

Personally, I would like to see Baylor. They are upgrading facilities (new football stadium coming), have recent success in both football and basketball, and would not be in any plans for a mass exodus to the PAC which means they would do whatever the SEC asked which may be good leverage for the SEC.


BePcr07,
Opps, I need to remember to proof my numbers, not just words, or take my meds sooner. Yeah, the #15 & #16 stuff.
I agree, hypothetically, there are options but all seem conditional.
Much could depend on how the 'pairs' could or would break in the B12 and what the PAC12, B1G, and the B12 itself, plan to do.
I view Texas, TTU, OU, and OSU as not plausible options much along the lines you mentioned. If the Okie schools split, which is unlikely, maybe there is a slight option there. If Texas does go somewhere else, they'll want certain tag-alongs. The PAC12 could accommodate that if such materialized again for consideration. The B1G would have more limitations for addressing it.
I don't see the SEC interested in Baylor, TCU, and SMU. Though high on academics, Rice's fb and bb achievements are below the standards preferred and fan support is comparatively small. Some of the same issues are evident with Tulane in Louisiana.
West Virginia is interesting. They are an outlier with the B12. While their market is modest as you pointed out, they deliver the best fan support (fb attendance figures) to the northeast outside of Penn State. That is a plus for them along with being a flag-ship contiguous to the northeast. On the other hand, the SEC is looking to further complement the academic side with expansion, and WVU doesn't offer much from that standpoint. Still, WVU is at a strategic juncture in terms of geography, and they have proven they can compete. Frankly, the ACC were fools for not taking them IMO.
Iowa State is next to Mizzou and appears to have good fan support given their long struggles in fb. Academically, they are an AAU member. But geographically and along with some cultural dimensions, they are too much removed for the SEC. It's hard to vision they could recruit in fb to SEC levels and be consistently competitive in the SEC. Their B12 record confirms it. Since the B1G does not want ISU, I expect the school desires that the B12 holds together as much as anything.
Kansas or Kansas State? I read a credible source during the last expansion go-round, that the SEC was not interested in going there. Some of the same issues involved as applies to ISU. The Mizzou-KU rivalry could be renewed, but that got canned, at least for awhile, when Mizzou left the B12.
Back to the ACC, if #16 became a SEC focus, and other preferred options were just not available, the SEC could drop their stance against in-state additions. In that situation, FSU or Clemson could be considered. I'd give GT and Miami as slight options, but probably better than L'ville (or Cincy outside the ACC).
Obviously, VPI would look to be a target to change their minds before pursuing in-state prospects.
As much as some may want to fix or add to the B1G, they best look outside of the current SEC. Besides the obvious and practical reasons, I say this in the context that Mizzou and Texas A&M now have a seat at the SEC table and they would have input in SEC expansion discussions and would weigh-in heavily, particularly regarding potential expansion candidates near/around them. This will be done in the context of potentially re-organizing and making shifts with divisions. If it is two to the east that's added, or one to the east and one to the west that's added, matters to the whole conference. Schools focus on what impacts themselves, individually, so appeasement is part of the process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:45 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 219
sec03 wrote:
BePcr07,
Opps, I need to remember to proof my numbers, not just words, or take my meds sooner. Yeah, the #15 & #16 stuff.
I agree, hypothetically, there are options but all seem conditional.
Much could depend on how the 'pairs' could or would break in the B12 and what the PAC12, B1G, and the B12 itself, plan to do.
I view Texas, TTU, OU, and OSU as not plausible options much along the lines you mentioned. If the Okie schools split, which is unlikely, maybe there is a slight option there. If Texas does go somewhere else, they'll want certain tag-alongs. The PAC12 could accommodate that if such materialized again for consideration. The B1G would have more limitations for addressing it.
I don't see the SEC interested in Baylor, TCU, and SMU. Though high on academics, Rice's fb and bb achievements are below the standards preferred and fan support is comparatively small. Some of the same issues are evident with Tulane in Louisiana.
West Virginia is interesting. They are an outlier with the B12. While their market is modest as you pointed out, they deliver the best fan support (fb attendance figures) to the northeast outside of Penn State. That is a plus for them along with being a flag-ship contiguous to the northeast. On the other hand, the SEC is looking to further complement the academic side with expansion, and WVU doesn't offer much from that standpoint. Still, WVU is at a strategic juncture in terms of geography, and they have proven they can compete. Frankly, the ACC were fools for not taking them IMO.
Iowa State is next to Mizzou and appears to have good fan support given their long struggles in fb. Academically, they are an AAU member. But geographically and along with some cultural dimensions, they are too much removed for the SEC. It's hard to vision they could recruit in fb to SEC levels and be consistently competitive in the SEC. Their B12 record confirms it. Since the B1G does not want ISU, I expect the school desires that the B12 holds together as much as anything.
Kansas or Kansas State? I read a credible source during the last expansion go-round, that the SEC was not interested in going there. Some of the same issues involved as applies to ISU. The Mizzou-KU rivalry could be renewed, but that got canned, at least for awhile, when Mizzou left the B12.
Back to the ACC, if #16 became a SEC focus, and other preferred options were just not available, the SEC could drop their stance against in-state additions. In that situation, FSU or Clemson could be considered. I'd give GT and Miami as slight options, but probably better than L'ville (or Cincy outside the ACC).
Obviously, VPI would look to be a target to change their minds before pursuing in-state prospects.
As much as some may want to fix or add to the B1G, they best look outside of the current SEC. Besides the obvious and practical reasons, I say this in the context that Mizzou and Texas A&M now have a seat at the SEC table and they would have input in SEC expansion discussions and would weigh-in heavily, particularly regarding potential expansion candidates near/around them. This will be done in the context of potentially re-organizing and making shifts with divisions. If it is two to the east that's added, or one to the east and one to the west that's added, matters to the whole conference. Schools focus on what impacts themselves, individually, so appeasement is part of the process.


It seems almost guaranteed that the SEC wants into the States of North Carolina and Virginia. The less clear part is how. The SEC would only be interested in current Power 5 schools. North Carolina St seems to be the people's choice out of the 4 schools in North Carolina for various reasons. Virginia Tech also seems to be the people's choice in Virginia. If one of or both of these schools aren't looking to move to the SEC, would the SEC really double-down in a current state? If it were my choice, which it isn't, I would say Florida is too populous of a state with 3 major programs to not have another in the SEC. I think Miami would be a better option than Florida St. Miami is on the opposite side of the state, so it "stretches" the SEC reach - probably not a strong argument. I would also double-down in Texas if possible. If Oklahoma St is available (maybe the PAC takes only Texas and Oklahoma), then the Cowboys wouldn't be a bad option either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 12:23 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 399
The SEC knows it is a waiting matter. It's about timing and the right moment. Best to look at it in terms of years. TV, GoR relief, a new super-division, negotiating, somebody itching to leave, etc., has to come together in the right climate for change. Right now, the SEC is adjusting to some decisions about the number of conference games and cross-overs and rotations. Some complain, but when their Presidents vote and decide, orders are followed. It's a well-controlled and calculating conference.
The ACC is looking for the added strength to hold it all together and comparatively may have more of a marketing challenge with fb. They are behind the SEC with a new network pursuit. It may all boil down to whether or not more closure is found in terms of future money gaps. This nasty feud dragging on with Maryland leaving is a costly distraction with lasting repercussions. If the outcome dictates how future expansion and re-alignment shall go, including elsewhere, it's troubling that lawsuits shall guide new determinations rather than fresh and innovative policies. Collegiality among conferences have waned, thanks to TV chiefdoms and lawyers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 11:06 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
louisvillecard01 wrote:
The SEC knows it is a waiting matter.


It may not be as long a wait as some of us may think. The SEC and ESPN are building in Charlotte strong and fast. Belk, a major department store chain based in Charlotte, is going to be a sponsor of the Southeastern Conference and the SEC Network. Here's a May 8, 2014 announcement on this:
http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/ne ... e-sec.html

The SEC is prepping in Charlotte big-time. Charlotte is just a few miles from the SC state line and right down I-77 one gets to Columbia and Univ. of SC. There's plenty of SEC alumni (an fans) in the Charlotte area.

Initially a year or two back, I thought the SEC's interest with Charlotte was largely due to convenience and accessibility because of ESPN having a regional office there. But given the growing developments and the pattern of press releases in the Carolinas' over the last year or two, there's way more to it.

The SEC and ESPN know something not ready for public declaration. There will at some point be a North Carolina school(s) in the SEC. The ACC clinching to a GoR may ultimately not be enough to forestall developments, or a deal is in the works.

ESPN could be saying to the ACC, 'we'll move on your conference network interests, but you must first cooperate in our investment and intitiative with....'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 9:13 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
sec03 wrote:
louisvillecard01 wrote:
The SEC knows it is a waiting matter.


It may not be as long a wait as some of us may think. The SEC and ESPN are building in Charlotte strong and fast. Belk, a major department store chain based in Charlotte, is going to be a sponsor of the Southeastern Conference and the SEC Network. Here's a May 8, 2014 announcement on this:
http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/ne ... e-sec.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The SEC is prepping in Charlotte big-time. Charlotte is just a few miles from the SC state line and right down I-77 one gets to Columbia and Univ. of SC. There's plenty of SEC alumni (an fans) in the Charlotte area.

Initially a year or two back, I thought the SEC's interest with Charlotte was largely due to convenience and accessibility because of ESPN having a regional office there. But given the growing developments and the pattern of press releases in the Carolinas' over the last year or two, there's way more to it.

The SEC and ESPN know something not ready for public declaration. There will at some point be a North Carolina school(s) in the SEC. The ACC clinching to a GoR may ultimately not be enough to forestall developments, or a deal is in the works.

ESPN could be saying to the ACC, 'we'll move on your conference network interests, but you must first cooperate in our investment and intitiative with....'


If ESPN does to the ACC for the sake of the SEC what it did to the Big East for the ACC, and if Florida State isn't on that train into the SEC, there's going to be a war. Maybe the SEC gets into North Carolina or Virginia eventually, but I highly doubt they get into both in one move, as Florida State and/or Clemson would definitely make a stand for their own inclusion.

I don't envy Florida State's position in this. I think their now ex-president was a weasel and didn't get the Seminoles into the position they deserved. Barron thought too much like a faculty member to keep the Seminoles in a conference that has no skill in negotiating television deals with a footprint that large, and now he's skipped town for a school that's never had a problem raking in cash from its athletics (even with a scandal that would have destroyed other institutions). The Sems got hosed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 3:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
Not sure every institution is foaming at the mouth over more money at this point.
I'm thinking right now, if you are in one of the Power 5 conferences, you are doing OK in terms of revenue from TV rights, etc.

I'm thinking at some point, there will be another big TV rights package (maybe the NCG and playoffs) and the 5 commissioners of the power conferneces and
a few smart guys from various prominent sports networks will get together and come up with "imagine if you guys re-structured into a 72-school arrangement"
4 conferences x 18 teams = 8 divisions @ 9 teams. We create an expanded playoff bracket and the viewership for this thing will be "NFL-like".
the Big XII goes away, and the other conferences expand to 18. If there is enough money dangled out there, the schools may just put aside any petty differences.

Right now I see:
PAC (12), Big XII (10), B1G (14), SEC (14), ACC (14.5) = 64.5
Bring in Notre Dame (0.5) and UConn, Cincy, BYU and 4 others. Start minting money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 4:02 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 219
tute79 wrote:
Right now I see:
PAC (12), Big XII (10), B1G (14), SEC (14), ACC (14.5) = 64.5
Bring in Notre Dame (0.5) and UConn, Cincy, BYU and 4 others. Start minting money.


I agree-ish. I think the current 64 in power conferences + Notre Dame will be in whatever format occurs within or without the NCAA. I also see Connecticut, Cincinnati, and BYU being for sure included. If you want only 4, I'd say you have to go west: San Diego St, UNLV, and New Mexico for sure as they bring in kind of new markets. Then I'd go with either Boise St or Colorado St. If that 4th spot shouldn't be in the west, then I'd say UCF.

However, I'd like to see more Mountain West teams included (5-8) with 5-8 American teams included on top of Connecticut and Cincinnati.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 4:54 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
BePcr07 wrote:
tute79 wrote:
Right now I see:
PAC (12), Big XII (10), B1G (14), SEC (14), ACC (14.5) = 64.5
Bring in Notre Dame (0.5) and UConn, Cincy, BYU and 4 others. Start minting money.


I agree-ish. I think the current 64 in power conferences + Notre Dame will be in whatever format occurs within or without the NCAA. I also see Connecticut, Cincinnati, and BYU being for sure included. If you want only 4, I'd say you have to go west: San Diego St, UNLV, and New Mexico for sure as they bring in kind of new markets. Then I'd go with either Boise St or Colorado St. If that 4th spot shouldn't be in the west, then I'd say UCF.

However, I'd like to see more Mountain West teams included (5-8) with 5-8 American teams included on top of Connecticut and Cincinnati.


Disagree, consolidation is most likely, not expansion.

PAC (12), B1G (14), SEC (14), ACC (14.5) = 54.5

Texas, TX Tech, Oklahoma, Okie St, Kansas, WVU, Cincy, UConn, Notre Damefb (.5) + a Wildcard (Temple, Memphis, ISU, KSU, BYU, Tulane)

PAC16 (Texhoma 4), B1G16 (KU/+1 from ACC), SEC16 (+2 from ACC), ACC16 (-1 from B1G and -2 from SEC, +NDfb, UConn, Cincy, WVU, and 1 more)=64 (w/ effective 8 team playoff counting CCG's as round of 8)

The issue with 18 is that, there are not enough quality schools to make it work. Think about it.

PAC18 (Texhoma 4 + Kansas/KSU), B1G18 (Syracuse, ND, UConn, BC), SEC18 (UVA, UNC, Duke, FSU), ACC+Cincy+WVU=10...who are the next 8? UCF/USF, ECU, Temple, Memphis, Tulane, ISU and UMass????

If they expanded the ACC will be the only ones stretching for non AQ members other than maybe the Big Ten grabbing a single non AQ eastern member like UConn.

Then how long before we go to 20-24 team conferences (B1G/SEC picking apart whats left of the ACC and forcing the PAC18 to grab MWC schools like Boise, UNLV, SDSU, UNM, and BYU.

The only way to make it work on paper is to assume the PAC12 will take a few MWC schools instead of KU/KSU (very unlikely), and the Big Ten will take KU/KSU/ISU (extremely unlikely), and that the SEC will take more Texas schools like Baylor/TCU (highly unlikely).

That way the ACC only loses 2 and has plently power school left to maintain the resembleance of a real conference even with picking up 2-3 weaker schools to go along with Cincy/UConn/NDfb/WVU.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 8:05 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
tute79 wrote:
Not sure every institution is foaming at the mouth over more money at this point.
I'm thinking right now, if you are in one of the Power 5 conferences, you are doing OK in terms of revenue from TV rights, etc.


I think it depends on the institution. The intake is respectable, but these guys spend a lot of money, too. FSU's had some issues, specifically, where the money difference between the B1G and SEC to the rest of the majors may start to reenter the conversation.

The ACC's GoR was a gesture of faith in the conference and its member schools that the business dealings were good enough for them. FSU had to be coaxed into that decision, and the shill helping to peddle the ACC's miracle elixir skipped town.

Conversely, what made the money FSU eventually agreed upon good enough for them, but not Maryland? Both programs are bleeders (and continue to be). What was happening in Maryland (slashing programs) will happen in Tallahassee unless some major changes occur in funding or budgeting.

Where the SEC (and Big Ten) become vulnerable is when the money intake becomes so astronomically high, when does it finally start pulling its weight across the institution in subsidizing and relieving the burden of other initiatives? When does football help keep the school cheap? When does the intake create multiple new D1 sports at these schools? Maybe in a footprint that the SEC has, the question of athletic value to academic cost will never be raised within, but others will, and their fingers will point down south for some answers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 9:24 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
I'm not so sure much can be discerned as to how fb revenue is helping finance non-sports aspects of a given institution. Few are really turning a big profit, and among those that do, the pattern may be to re-invest the money back into the school's athletic endeavors. I expect it is largely true that fb revenue is helping to finance the lower profile sports as a common practice. But so many of these school's' athletic programs are substantively subsidized with portions of tuition, student activity fees, distributed taxpayer funds for operations, and of course alumni giving. Some are fortunate (or unfortunate in some cases when such brings trouble), to have big boosters behind them. The only geographic distinction I would make is that it likely coincides at locales where fb is most popular and pressure is strong to show success.

A lot of these schools are projecting poor mouth at the same time paying coaches and other athletic personnel exuberant salaries and bonuses while at the same time paying off a list of fired coaches, that collectively, or even a single situation, can run into the millions. And, more than one have embarked on facilities upgrades without fully figuring out how to pay the bills. While disclosures of finances are subject at public universities to the Freedom of Information Act, following some schools' money trail is not so easy. Such can get bundled, channeled through clever schemes, and made to look like it is helping academics and funding the women's tennis team. It cannot be ruled out that some of the financial struggles in athletics at places such as FSU and Maryland, are due in part to mismanagement and incompetent decisions. At some places, financial astuteness is measured in terms of the success at hiding endeavors ranging from recruitment efforts to travel activities they would not want to be publically disclosed.

I do concur with some of the upper posts that expansion/re-alignment among the now power five shall hinge on first structuring a new super-division. What's going to be interesting is to see how they ultimately police themselves. Whatever they come up with, may eventually become more acute in being examined by the body of peers. The most prominent fb (and bb) programs may be going into this thinking rules shall be relaxed or become more adaptive for a new era, but governance may become even more controlling when the overall body is reduced to a collection of 64, 72, or so. Those that have gotten away for so long with unorthodox practices, may find new movement for intense scrutiny among a lower mass of numbers minus the divisional distinctions and diversity. Having a 'level playing field' has more than one dimension to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 1:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
sec03 wrote:
Few are really turning a big profit...


Few are making a profit at all. That's what's so puzzling to me...the willing suspension of disbelief that all this money is actually doing anything. It's always been expensive to run a D1 athletic department. If we're in some supposed media/content-driven bidding war or economic boom for college athletics, and programs are being paid more and more than they've ever previously enjoyed, what gives? Big Ten money didn't build a D1 ice hockey program at Penn State...a donor did. The $450m Kyle Field monstrosity?

You nailed it about financial mismanagement. Athletic departments are like the school library, only the library knows its a resource-stealer and financial black hole. It's a shame people think athletics can be anything but. The only things these big media deals do is to make people believe the model can be profitable. The money isn't doing anything other than subsidizing some ridiculous spending.

I definitely do see an end to this all, even in the SEC. When student sections become less and less filled, and more and more expensive, while sitting in these unsellable sections of the venue, to cater to a base fan (season ticket holder) that is also being drained for all that it has (increased yearly season ticket prices, PSL's, parking, etc.), it's not sustainable. The cultivation process is not being tended to properly. It's not going to work out, because it doesn't look like it even works now.

Football will be the sport that shutters a lot of schools' departments if something doesn't change soon. Oddly enough, I think it's basketball where schools should be putting the model to use. Most programs, even the crappy ones, generate a profit out of their b-ball programs. It's a shame the SEC has gotten so bad in that sport, outside of Kentucky. Basketball is like the limit version of Texas Holdem...maybe the reward is better in No Limit (football), but it's not like the payout for hoops is something to chuckle over. Some of these basketball programs make more than entire D1 athletic departments...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 9:01 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
sec03 wrote:
Few are really turning a big profit...


Few are making a profit at all. That's what's so puzzling to me...the willing suspension of disbelief that all this money is actually doing anything. It's always been expensive to run a D1 athletic department. If we're in some supposed media/content-driven bidding war or economic boom for college athletics, and programs are being paid more and more than they've ever previously enjoyed, what gives? Big Ten money didn't build a D1 ice hockey program at Penn State...a donor did. The $450m Kyle Field monstrosity?

You nailed it about financial mismanagement. Athletic departments are like the school library, only the library knows its a resource-stealer and financial black hole. It's a shame people think athletics can be anything but. The only things these big media deals do is to make people believe the model can be profitable. The money isn't doing anything other than subsidizing some ridiculous spending.

I definitely do see an end to this all, even in the SEC. When student sections become less and less filled, and more and more expensive, while sitting in these unsellable sections of the venue, to cater to a base fan (season ticket holder) that is also being drained for all that it has (increased yearly season ticket prices, PSL's, parking, etc.), it's not sustainable. The cultivation process is not being tended to properly. It's not going to work out, because it doesn't look like it even works now.

Football will be the sport that shutters a lot of schools' departments if something doesn't change soon. Oddly enough, I think it's basketball where schools should be putting the model to use. Most programs, even the crappy ones, generate a profit out of their b-ball programs. It's a shame the SEC has gotten so bad in that sport, outside of Kentucky. Basketball is like the limit version of Texas Holdem...maybe the reward is better in No Limit (football), but it's not like the payout for hoops is something to chuckle over. Some of these basketball programs make more than entire D1 athletic departments...


Football is profitable for 15 schools. It could be profitable for more if they knew how to organize and work together.

Solidify the power schools in there own super divisions away from the MWC/AAC/CUSA/MAC/SBC.

Consolidate the power into 4 conference (ideally 4x16).

Only play teams in the super conference no FCS nor MWC/AAC/CUSA/MAC/SBC (not only does this help ratings but it also eliminate the need to pay for million dollar paydays for cupcakes to play bodybag games).

Align their distribution rights into 1 agreement (can still sell separate tiers but do it collectivly) excluding conference networks (as those startup cost/controls are owned by ESPN/FOX).

Allow athletes to used the same eligibility rules as baseball (if not drafted, not drafted high enough or not drafted to a favorable team) allow the athlete to return with his remaining eligibility.

Allow schools to pay the scholarship for a greyshirt year (where athletes can participate with team in everything but practice/games for a year) which would help the development of QBs/OL/DL and some undersized specialists as this will make the play better.

Expand scholarships by at least 15, sounds like an extra expense, but it actually will help the elite schools to have a better chance at finding a Vince Young, Johnny Football, Tim Tebow type players which is good for ratings/profit (it will also offset the extra greyshirt scholarships).

Collectively bargain for equipment (pads, helmets, shoes, uniforms) and with an airline in order to reduce equipment/travel costs and make someone the official "insert product here" sponsor of Super Division Football (something the NFL is doing more and more).
IF they can't figured it out as a division (Maryland Rebok vs Oregon Nike), at least bargain as a confernece.

Force Notre Dame to join a conference and Texas to join a conference network.

Enforce contract on coaches (don't allow them to leave before the contract is up), and collectively set a salary ceiling so it doesn't get outta hand like in basketball.

Allow beer/wine at stadiums (many like Texas have already started doing this).

Allow the conference/divisions to own the bowls (no more 3rd party forcing unsold ticket on schools for weak matchups).

Increase the number of BCS type bowls to 12 (currently at 6) to maximize the revenue (add the big bowls like the Alamo, Cap1, and others that can host top matchups).

Cut all non-BCS bowls (supply demand) but allow each non bowl team (even the ones that wouldn't have made a bowl) an extra week of spring practice (to offset them losing the 2 weeks of bowl practice).

Move away from conference bowl tie-ins, focus on best matchups, no more unranked vs a top 15 team.

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head, I'm sure someone smarter than me can easility figure out how to make football profitable for the other 60 odd schools as it is for the 15 eilite programs.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 9:47 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
tkalmus wrote:
[Allow beer/wine at stadiums (many like Texas have already started doing this).

I read recently the other day that the SEC was considering lifting the ban on sale of alcohol at conference stadiums. It'll be new revenue and consumers are going to have it anyway in the parking lots; and some sneak the alcohol in flasks into the stadium anyway.
It wasn't bad having a few sips on a brisk, cool, late-fall day. It made for a more festive atmosphere--and an enhanced feeling of glee.
But as I have matured, my tolerance for sitting around drunks have diminished. I can pass on the loud-mouths, vomit, arses' throwing stuff, seeing fights break out, and constantly trying to make room for wobbly fans frequently having to go urinate.
A catch 22.

Sell tickets to an alcohol free section of the stadium?


Last edited by sec03 on Wed May 14, 2014 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 9:50 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
The inability of schools to work together is part of college football's legacy, and collegiate athletics in general, too, pretty much since the beginning. We haven't seen that level of cooperation. We still aren't, and I don't think we ever will.

This new version of collectivism through autonomy is yet another attempt meant to distinguish certain types of programs from others. It's not a coincidence you don't see directional schools or a lot of commuter-based institutions in that mix, though, based on enrollment and other factors, they should be. That kind of exclusion, it's the same parochial snobbery that's run through athletics since forever. While it might help to make 25 programs into profitable ones instead of 15, that propulsion is done clearly at the expense of others. Shouldn't all institutions have the right to cultivate their programs? Why can't some programs have higher ceilings than others? Is it because the system can't be fully profitable?

Part of the problem of this pursuit for profitability is that to make money means to be consistently competitive, as an individual program as well as being more competitive than others. If it costs a certain amount to "keep up" on one front, one must add additional costs to address the others. Recruiting is becoming a VERY expensive endeavor, and one that media coverage has only hurt institutions. Kids who don't make a penny are scrutinized, advertised, and then auctioned off to ONE school among many who spend their resources to invest in persuading kids to become a paid-up student at a school where there is no guarantee of athletic or academic success. Some may argue the cap on scholarships helped create this new era of greed...I think it's made the playing field more equitable...and even from it, you see how ridiculously cut-throat, political, and unfair the system still is. All while making institutions house rich but cash poor?

Putting other programs out of the business of college football is untenable and exposes the cannibalism that exists when "football drives the bus." 30-40 years ago, you had a lot of programs playing "top-level" college football. 50-60 years ago, still more. Even if we see something where 64-72 programs "make the cut," give it another decade or two, and we'll see arguments on why even that paltry number is way too much. Even in the football-rich SEC, not every mouth will be fed. Today, we look to "cut out" Baylor, Wake Forest, and Northwestern...so, what does tomorrow spell for Washington State, California, and Mississippi State?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1064 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 ... 71  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 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:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








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

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

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