(04-04-2012 03:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 12:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 11:30 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 10:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 07:59 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  The big schools and conferences have spent millions over many decades building athletic facilities and programs, academic and research alliances and generally getting all the television money and exposure. In their mind the success and popularity of college sports is all due to them and their efforts and money. Next, they found what they consider "the little sisters of the poor" making bigger and bigger power grabs to get in on their exposure, money and even their major bowl games. Schools spending $50, $60, up to $100 million a year that were playing against other major programs through most of the year and with decades of tradition found themselves having to battle schools with half a decade of tradition spending $15 or $30 million and playing a schedule of warm up teams for money, recruits, exposure and bowls--and they don't want that to happen.

I think NoQuarter08 perfectly reflects the sentiments of countless Americans in the remarks he makes. Our culture was built with the understanding that the little guy gets a shot. It echoes what I've already said about the spirit of the times.

Mom & Pop businesses can't lobby for the breaks the Big Box stores get on local property tax, guaranteed return of sales tax until store front is paid for, etc. Mom and Pop who have supported the local schools, police department, fire department, banks, and other merchants goes out of business over essentially the 15 point advantage (8% sales tax plus property tax and misc. perks) that Big Box got before they ever opened their doors. And, we aren't even talking about the cheap stuff from your own factory in China angle.

Then the little guy finds out after waiting 20 minutes to talk to his/her congressperson's staff that they aren't nearly as important to their elected representative as the lobbyist of the corporation that is trying to condemn their home, or seize it through imminent domain, so that the wonderful spot they've occupied for 30 or 40 years can become a new strip shopping center. This stuff was once unthinkable in America!

How is that any different from large schools with enormous budgets using their viewing numbers to exclude the little guy from even being in the discussion. It's not! And what is more, most Americans get it.

If a large university (like mine) spends $100 million on its athletic budget and loses to Houston, Boise, or Tulane, tough. We should have been better. Fairness is paying your money and taking your chances. Fairness is not establishing your membership requirements and then denying those who can't afford to meet them the right to compete. The spirit behind this way of thinking has already gutted public education, wreaked havoc on private enterprise, and created a priviledged minority who believe the law does not apply to them if they have enough capital to outlast whomever is beneath them in an expensive trial.

That's why I said that college football could lose it's market if it remained on this course. And why I said the individual value of the parts in this case can not approach the value of the whole. Fans of little and big schools will watch all of the top teams, even if their team has suffered a horrible loss, as long as they think the system is fair.

If we branch off into an elite division, we lose all of the fans of the teams who didn't make the cut. Why? If they can't dream of beating the big boys, they will no longer have any interest in what they do. The executives who think they will gain more by sharing less fail to recognize two crucial points:

1. Without the little guys many more of them will have losing records. If you have a league of 64 elite programs who are all accustomed to 7-5 being a bad season, and who qualify for the postseason because 3 or 4 of their 7 wins came against little guys, how are they going to get to 7 without them? They won't! Now 64 winners are turned into 16 elite programs, 32 mediocre programs, and 16 losers. We call that success? The cycle of diminishing returns is in place. More fans lose interest, and everybody loses. Some future.

2. Without the little guys we lose the combined viewership of over half of Division 1 college football. Since we are supposedly making these changes for new market share and viewer ratings have these geniuses not figured this part out? What they plan to do to accomplish more income will actually, and ultimately, damage the model upon which they plan to increase their revenue. But, I suppose once the priviledged fail they will tax us more to sustain their revenue base and say that Division 1 was too big to fail.

A friend of mine called "Too Big to Fail", "I'm so rich and gifted you can't live without me." Well, I'd like to try.

By the way that's why monarchies don't exist anymore. The people tried to live without them, and liked it! JR

Money and power tend to corrupt and college football is no different. An argument can probably be made though, that with the top 64 or so teams--all of them aren't going to win the championship. Some will be great, some good, some average, some poor, some bad every year. So they may feel they are including lots of schools already-just within a certain financial and competitive level (from various standpoints). The big leagues can pretty much play mostly a conference schedule every year with a couple of crossover games. They'll probably still play a warmup game or two with lower division schools.

Reading earlier comments about the topic--seems as though the argument will be--we aren't denying those teams anything, they can still play for a championship--the championship held at their level of competition.

Care to take me up on my bet, Buck?

TerryD, you are pretty quick with those wagers.

(04-06-2012 10:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 03:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 12:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 11:30 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 10:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I think NoQuarter08 perfectly reflects the sentiments of countless Americans in the remarks he makes. Our culture was built with the understanding that the little guy gets a shot. It echoes what I've already said about the spirit of the times.

Mom & Pop businesses can't lobby for the breaks the Big Box stores get on local property tax, guaranteed return of sales tax until store front is paid for, etc. Mom and Pop who have supported the local schools, police department, fire department, banks, and other merchants goes out of business over essentially the 15 point advantage (8% sales tax plus property tax and misc. perks) that Big Box got before they ever opened their doors. And, we aren't even talking about the cheap stuff from your own factory in China angle.

Then the little guy finds out after waiting 20 minutes to talk to his/her congressperson's staff that they aren't nearly as important to their elected representative as the lobbyist of the corporation that is trying to condemn their home, or seize it through imminent domain, so that the wonderful spot they've occupied for 30 or 40 years can become a new strip shopping center. This stuff was once unthinkable in America!

How is that any different from large schools with enormous budgets using their viewing numbers to exclude the little guy from even being in the discussion. It's not! And what is more, most Americans get it.

If a large university (like mine) spends $100 million on its athletic budget and loses to Houston, Boise, or Tulane, tough. We should have been better. Fairness is paying your money and taking your chances. Fairness is not establishing your membership requirements and then denying those who can't afford to meet them the right to compete. The spirit behind this way of thinking has already gutted public education, wreaked havoc on private enterprise, and created a priviledged minority who believe the law does not apply to them if they have enough capital to outlast whomever is beneath them in an expensive trial.

That's why I said that college football could lose it's market if it remained on this course. And why I said the individual value of the parts in this case can not approach the value of the whole. Fans of little and big schools will watch all of the top teams, even if their team has suffered a horrible loss, as long as they think the system is fair.

If we branch off into an elite division, we lose all of the fans of the teams who didn't make the cut. Why? If they can't dream of beating the big boys, they will no longer have any interest in what they do. The executives who think they will gain more by sharing less fail to recognize two crucial points:

1. Without the little guys many more of them will have losing records. If you have a league of 64 elite programs who are all accustomed to 7-5 being a bad season, and who qualify for the postseason because 3 or 4 of their 7 wins came against little guys, how are they going to get to 7 without them? They won't! Now 64 winners are turned into 16 elite programs, 32 mediocre programs, and 16 losers. We call that success? The cycle of diminishing returns is in place. More fans lose interest, and everybody loses. Some future.

2. Without the little guys we lose the combined viewership of over half of Division 1 college football. Since we are supposedly making these changes for new market share and viewer ratings have these geniuses not figured this part out? What they plan to do to accomplish more income will actually, and ultimately, damage the model upon which they plan to increase their revenue. But, I suppose once the priviledged fail they will tax us more to sustain their revenue base and say that Division 1 was too big to fail.

A friend of mine called "Too Big to Fail", "I'm so rich and gifted you can't live without me." Well, I'd like to try.

By the way that's why monarchies don't exist anymore. The people tried to live without them, and liked it! JR

Money and power tend to corrupt and college football is no different. An argument can probably be made though, that with the top 64 or so teams--all of them aren't going to win the championship. Some will be great, some good, some average, some poor, some bad every year. So they may feel they are including lots of schools already-just within a certain financial and competitive level (from various standpoints). The big leagues can pretty much play mostly a conference schedule every year with a couple of crossover games. They'll probably still play a warmup game or two with lower division schools.

Reading earlier comments about the topic--seems as though the argument will be--we aren't denying those teams anything, they can still play for a championship--the championship held at their level of competition.

Care to take me up on my bet, Buck?

TerryD, you are pretty quick with those wagers.

I have only proposed two wagers on these boards, one to you that ND would not be joining the ACC (and I forgot what we wagered) and one to Buck that ND will remain independent and eligible for the proposed playoffs after this round of BCS "tweaking" is done.

Otherwise, I hate to gamble. I don't bet on sports at all, ever, and if I lose twenty bucks in a slot machine I am sick of my stomach.

I used to be General Counsel to an Indian tribe. I was privy to the gambling companies' information as to how casinos are controlled and how they can estimate their annual profits almost to the dollar.

That convinced me that gambling in a casino is very similar to just lighting your money on fire.

I did put two bucks down on the Mega Millions drawing last week, though.