(12-13-2013 01:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  JR, no one is in control.

When the CFP financials were released I remember people giddy that G5 leagues would get $1 million per team but the reality was the gap increased.

You cannot used fundamental capital markets theory to analyze intercollegiate athletics because the players in this economic system not only are not concerned about gaining the greatest return on their dollar, they mostly have the capacity to operate at a loss.

Out of the 120+ FBS programs, easily 80 and probably 100 could operate in the black but less than half of the 80 actually operate in the black.

Conventional economic theory does not apply.

Ole Miss hired Hugh Freeze in December of 2011 for $1.3 million and is now going to make $3 million and is what 2 games over .500 in 2 years.

Intercollegiate athletics is operated on fear model.

Alabama has some ridiculous expenditure that they make and every becomes convinced that they must have something similar to remain competitive. If Saban is going to make $4 million then you feel compelled to spend a similar number.

The only thing that can derail this train is running out of capacity to cover losses and when that happens the 40 left will continue the cycle until they too are tapped out unless something changes.

Good post.

If you go back to where college football was 20 years ago it was driven by mega fanbase schools that locked up all the recruits and made the same kind of money whether the school finished 6-5 or 8-3. Coaches generally were not under yearly pressure to compete for a national title.

Today there is about a 50% difference in revenue for a P5 school contending for a national championship to one that goes 7-5. Its a second level that exceeds the goes beyond just the amount of fans you can put into a stadium. Therefore a coach that doesn't hit that second level for a couple of years in a row is forced out where as in the past making a bowl game would have been enough to keep a P5 regime rolling.

Stipends capped out at 10,000 per athlete are fine with a conference by conference decision on how much they want to pay. Low major D1 conference could pay 5,000 since they don't get prime athletes anyway. That is totally different than a bidding war for athletes or sticking 500,000 in a student athlete trust fund as Dennis Dodd is suggesting. The bidding war for coaches is already bad enough at P5 schools, it would be a madhouse if a school had to spend 10-15 million on players.

(12-12-2013 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 02:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 02:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The history of college football shows each attempt to make it more exclusive is followed by a growth period of more inclusion.

The key to exclusiveness is not trimming the numbers of members but restructuring the power so that growth in numbers does not change the balance of power.

Thus the "U.N. Security Council" concept for governing Division I.

And that is why I radically support a complete breakaway.

LOL!

(12-19-2013 05:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 01:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  JR, no one is in control.

When the CFP financials were released I remember people giddy that G5 leagues would get $1 million per team but the reality was the gap increased.

You cannot used fundamental capital markets theory to analyze intercollegiate athletics because the players in this economic system not only are not concerned about gaining the greatest return on their dollar, they mostly have the capacity to operate at a loss.

Out of the 120+ FBS programs, easily 80 and probably 100 could operate in the black but less than half of the 80 actually operate in the black.

Conventional economic theory does not apply.

Ole Miss hired Hugh Freeze in December of 2011 for $1.3 million and is now going to make $3 million and is what 2 games over .500 in 2 years.

Intercollegiate athletics is operated on fear model.

Alabama has some ridiculous expenditure that they make and every becomes convinced that they must have something similar to remain competitive. If Saban is going to make $4 million then you feel compelled to spend a similar number.

The only thing that can derail this train is running out of capacity to cover losses and when that happens the 40 left will continue the cycle until they too are tapped out unless something changes.

Good post.

If you go back to where college football was 20 years ago it was driven by mega fanbase schools that locked up all the recruits and made the same kind of money whether the school finished 6-5 or 8-3. Coaches generally were not under yearly pressure to compete for a national title.

Today there is about a 50% difference in revenue for a P5 school contending for a national championship to one that goes 7-5. Its a second level that exceeds the goes beyond just the amount of fans you can put into a stadium. Therefore a coach that doesn't hit that second level for a couple of years in a row is forced out where as in the past making a bowl game would have been enough to keep a P5 regime rolling.

Stipends capped out at 10,000 per athlete are fine with a conference by conference decision on how much they want to pay. Low major D1 conference could pay 5,000 since they don't get prime athletes anyway. That is totally different than a bidding war for athletes or sticking 500,000 in a student athlete trust fund as Dennis Dodd is suggesting. The bidding war for coaches is already bad enough at P5 schools, it would be a madhouse if a school had to spend 10-15 million on players.

Agree. Frankly, I don't think even the P5 really want bidding wars for the best athletes. Why would they want to pay for huge amounts of money for the same athletes they used to get for free. I think they wouldn't mind sharing a bit of thier cash with the athletes---but I doubt they want the players to become a major expense. The college model isn't built that way. I have to laugh at theses law suits that discuss how much money college athletics makes. For the most part---college athletics is a money loser at the school level. So at most universities, sharing in the profits would mean mean paying money to allow the school to break even.

(12-12-2013 08:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 06:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Regardless of how it all shakes out I'm sure the fools in charge will completely screw it up. It's screwed up as it is but I doubt that they're able to reach the end goal they want (or the one the talking heads advertise). Remember, this is academia attempting to make what really amounts to business decisions. In those cases, things rarely work out as intended. At the end of the day it will benefit the Ohio St/Texas/Alabama/Michigan/USC type of programs while it screws things up for the rest of the P5 schools.

I agree with this and here's why. Right now Delany and Slive and the others feel like they are in control. They are not. When the networks have pared down their sku's (the schools) and maximized their content appeal through merchandising (realignment), and have market control over their delivery system (playoffs and conference infrastructure designed to maximize viewership) and have total control over the means of production (meaning they have leveraged the PAC into selling a controlling interest in their network the way they have with the Big 10), then the commissioners of the remaining conferences and their presidents will find out how truly enslaved they are to yet another corporate interest. Without the means to produce their own product it is the schools which ultimately will be leveraged by the networks through dependency on guaranteed revenue streams. The demands will not end. More games, different time slots, enlarged playoffs, etc, etc, etc, and all at more minimal profit increases.

The puppet master is the one that controls the purse strings and the puppets are those who dance at the end of the strings to put on the show.

Realignment has been nothing more than a hostile takeover of an undervalued and poorly managed product.

The networks will not have gained anything because the process will have alienated millions of former viewers of their product, and there would be no compensating increase in their revenue.

The networks won't lose many viewers at all. Live sports programming is cheap to produce and most people watch it because they don't want to see a rerun movie, or watch the other totally nonsensical crap on TV. There are only a few good series on television these days and most of those are on the major pay channels. The execs know they have a captive audience no matter how pissed off they claim to be. And among sports programming football is king. So they watch whether they admit it or not. And if their revenues don't increase they will simply pay less in the next contract. What will the schools do? That's why I said they won't be in control. Without the capacity to produce their own product they are in control of nothing except whether they offer football as a sport or not. And those that don't dance to the networks' tune will be forced into making that choice a lot sooner than those who put on their tap shoes.

(12-24-2013 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 05:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 01:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  JR, no one is in control.

When the CFP financials were released I remember people giddy that G5 leagues would get $1 million per team but the reality was the gap increased.

You cannot used fundamental capital markets theory to analyze intercollegiate athletics because the players in this economic system not only are not concerned about gaining the greatest return on their dollar, they mostly have the capacity to operate at a loss.

Out of the 120+ FBS programs, easily 80 and probably 100 could operate in the black but less than half of the 80 actually operate in the black.

Conventional economic theory does not apply.

Ole Miss hired Hugh Freeze in December of 2011 for $1.3 million and is now going to make $3 million and is what 2 games over .500 in 2 years.

Intercollegiate athletics is operated on fear model.

Alabama has some ridiculous expenditure that they make and every becomes convinced that they must have something similar to remain competitive. If Saban is going to make $4 million then you feel compelled to spend a similar number.

The only thing that can derail this train is running out of capacity to cover losses and when that happens the 40 left will continue the cycle until they too are tapped out unless something changes.

Good post.

If you go back to where college football was 20 years ago it was driven by mega fanbase schools that locked up all the recruits and made the same kind of money whether the school finished 6-5 or 8-3. Coaches generally were not under yearly pressure to compete for a national title.

Today there is about a 50% difference in revenue for a P5 school contending for a national championship to one that goes 7-5. Its a second level that exceeds the goes beyond just the amount of fans you can put into a stadium. Therefore a coach that doesn't hit that second level for a couple of years in a row is forced out where as in the past making a bowl game would have been enough to keep a P5 regime rolling.

Stipends capped out at 10,000 per athlete are fine with a conference by conference decision on how much they want to pay. Low major D1 conference could pay 5,000 since they don't get prime athletes anyway. That is totally different than a bidding war for athletes or sticking 500,000 in a student athlete trust fund as Dennis Dodd is suggesting. The bidding war for coaches is already bad enough at P5 schools, it would be a madhouse if a school had to spend 10-15 million on players.

Agree. Frankly, I don't think even the P5 really want bidding wars for the best athletes. Why would they want to pay for huge amounts of money for the same athletes they used to get for free. I think they wouldn't mind sharing a bit of thier cash with the athletes---but I doubt they want the players to become a major expense. The college model isn't built that way. I have to laugh at theses law suits that discuss how much money college athletics makes. For the most part---college athletics is a money loser at the school level. So at most universities, sharing in the profits would mean mean paying money to allow the school to break even.

I don't know how this was spun into a bidding war concept. This line of argumentation is totally absurd. Of course the Universities don't want to bid up their overhead. And remember that stipends are predicated upon the non-scholarship covered expenses of a college education. Each school must determine what the "real cost" of an education at their institution is. Then those "real costs" will be averaged across the board and a cap will be set on stipends that may be paid. In the present economy schools wishing to fudge that "real cost" upward will be putting forth figures that to all other non-scholarship students will not favorably compare with other schools competing to give them that sheepskin and the likely outcome of such a move would be decreased enrollment among those who pay the bills. The proposal is not pay for play. The proposal is simply to provide common amenities that other students commonly have.

I've lived long enough to see this come full circle. Barry Switzer among others abused the athletic dorm concept way back in the 70's bringing about an end to that accommodation for the athletes. Lost with the athletic dorm were carefully planned meals, tutors on site under coaching supervision, bed checks, and control over the exposure of the student athletes to negative influences. Now that the athletes live off campus, they are responsible for rent, food, clothing, and many other things that were once provided for in the athletic dorm which includes rudimentary medical care. Plus many of them live in the cheapest off campus housing that they can find and many of those locations are high crime. The stipend addresses some of these inequities that have arisen since the demise of the athletic dorms. It really isn't pay for play. But, it is an attempt to improve the living conditions for many of these kids who come from poor families and can't afford, or lack the skills, to manage off campus living.

(12-24-2013 11:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 05:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 01:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  JR, no one is in control.

When the CFP financials were released I remember people giddy that G5 leagues would get $1 million per team but the reality was the gap increased.

You cannot used fundamental capital markets theory to analyze intercollegiate athletics because the players in this economic system not only are not concerned about gaining the greatest return on their dollar, they mostly have the capacity to operate at a loss.

Out of the 120+ FBS programs, easily 80 and probably 100 could operate in the black but less than half of the 80 actually operate in the black.

Conventional economic theory does not apply.

Ole Miss hired Hugh Freeze in December of 2011 for $1.3 million and is now going to make $3 million and is what 2 games over .500 in 2 years.

Intercollegiate athletics is operated on fear model.

Alabama has some ridiculous expenditure that they make and every becomes convinced that they must have something similar to remain competitive. If Saban is going to make $4 million then you feel compelled to spend a similar number.

The only thing that can derail this train is running out of capacity to cover losses and when that happens the 40 left will continue the cycle until they too are tapped out unless something changes.

Good post.

If you go back to where college football was 20 years ago it was driven by mega fanbase schools that locked up all the recruits and made the same kind of money whether the school finished 6-5 or 8-3. Coaches generally were not under yearly pressure to compete for a national title.

Today there is about a 50% difference in revenue for a P5 school contending for a national championship to one that goes 7-5. Its a second level that exceeds the goes beyond just the amount of fans you can put into a stadium. Therefore a coach that doesn't hit that second level for a couple of years in a row is forced out where as in the past making a bowl game would have been enough to keep a P5 regime rolling.

Stipends capped out at 10,000 per athlete are fine with a conference by conference decision on how much they want to pay. Low major D1 conference could pay 5,000 since they don't get prime athletes anyway. That is totally different than a bidding war for athletes or sticking 500,000 in a student athlete trust fund as Dennis Dodd is suggesting. The bidding war for coaches is already bad enough at P5 schools, it would be a madhouse if a school had to spend 10-15 million on players.

Agree. Frankly, I don't think even the P5 really want bidding wars for the best athletes. Why would they want to pay for huge amounts of money for the same athletes they used to get for free. I think they wouldn't mind sharing a bit of thier cash with the athletes---but I doubt they want the players to become a major expense. The college model isn't built that way. I have to laugh at theses law suits that discuss how much money college athletics makes. For the most part---college athletics is a money loser at the school level. So at most universities, sharing in the profits would mean mean paying money to allow the school to break even.

I don't know how this was spun into a bidding war concept. This line of argumentation is totally absurd. Of course the Universities don't want to bid up their overhead. And remember that stipends are predicated upon the non-scholarship covered expenses of a college education. Each school must determine what the "real cost" of an education at their institution is. Then those "real costs" will be averaged across the board and a cap will be set on stipends that may be paid. In the present economy schools wishing to fudge that "real cost" upward will be putting forth figures to all other non-scholarship students that will not favorably compete for the sheepskin they can get elsewhere and the likely outcome of such a move would be decreased enrollment among those who pay the bills. The proposal is not pay for play. The proposal is simply to provide common amenities that other students commonly have. I've lived long enough to see this come full circle. Barry Switzer among others abused the athletic dorm concept way back in the 70's bringing about an end to that accommodation for the athletes. Lost with the athletic dorm were carefully planned meals, tutors on site under coaching supervision, bed checks, and control over the exposure of the student athletes to negative influences. Now that the athletes live off campus, they are responsible for rent, food, clothing, and many other things that were once provided for in the athletic dorm which includes rudimentary medical care. Plus many of them live in the cheapest off campus housing that they can find and many of those locations are high crime. The stipend addresses some of these inequities that have arisen since the demise of the athletic dorms. It really isn't pay for play. But, it is an attempt to improve the living conditions for many of these kids who come from poor families and can't afford, or lack the skills, to manage off campus living.

I agree. It was Dennis Dodd (via some Delany quotes) that brought up the bidding aspect---and I think that was more related to outside autograph income than to anything the proposed stipend would provide. That said, the whole concept of bidding wars for athletes is a very bad precedent---even for the well heeled P5 schools. Once that Jeanie is out of the bottle it could quickly spiral out of control in very unpredictable ways.

(12-24-2013 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 11:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 05:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 01:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  JR, no one is in control.

When the CFP financials were released I remember people giddy that G5 leagues would get $1 million per team but the reality was the gap increased.

You cannot used fundamental capital markets theory to analyze intercollegiate athletics because the players in this economic system not only are not concerned about gaining the greatest return on their dollar, they mostly have the capacity to operate at a loss.

Out of the 120+ FBS programs, easily 80 and probably 100 could operate in the black but less than half of the 80 actually operate in the black.

Conventional economic theory does not apply.

Ole Miss hired Hugh Freeze in December of 2011 for $1.3 million and is now going to make $3 million and is what 2 games over .500 in 2 years.

Intercollegiate athletics is operated on fear model.

Alabama has some ridiculous expenditure that they make and every becomes convinced that they must have something similar to remain competitive. If Saban is going to make $4 million then you feel compelled to spend a similar number.

The only thing that can derail this train is running out of capacity to cover losses and when that happens the 40 left will continue the cycle until they too are tapped out unless something changes.

Good post.

If you go back to where college football was 20 years ago it was driven by mega fanbase schools that locked up all the recruits and made the same kind of money whether the school finished 6-5 or 8-3. Coaches generally were not under yearly pressure to compete for a national title.

Today there is about a 50% difference in revenue for a P5 school contending for a national championship to one that goes 7-5. Its a second level that exceeds the goes beyond just the amount of fans you can put into a stadium. Therefore a coach that doesn't hit that second level for a couple of years in a row is forced out where as in the past making a bowl game would have been enough to keep a P5 regime rolling.

Stipends capped out at 10,000 per athlete are fine with a conference by conference decision on how much they want to pay. Low major D1 conference could pay 5,000 since they don't get prime athletes anyway. That is totally different than a bidding war for athletes or sticking 500,000 in a student athlete trust fund as Dennis Dodd is suggesting. The bidding war for coaches is already bad enough at P5 schools, it would be a madhouse if a school had to spend 10-15 million on players.

Agree. Frankly, I don't think even the P5 really want bidding wars for the best athletes. Why would they want to pay for huge amounts of money for the same athletes they used to get for free. I think they wouldn't mind sharing a bit of thier cash with the athletes---but I doubt they want the players to become a major expense. The college model isn't built that way. I have to laugh at theses law suits that discuss how much money college athletics makes. For the most part---college athletics is a money loser at the school level. So at most universities, sharing in the profits would mean mean paying money to allow the school to break even.

I don't know how this was spun into a bidding war concept. This line of argumentation is totally absurd. Of course the Universities don't want to bid up their overhead. And remember that stipends are predicated upon the non-scholarship covered expenses of a college education. Each school must determine what the "real cost" of an education at their institution is. Then those "real costs" will be averaged across the board and a cap will be set on stipends that may be paid. In the present economy schools wishing to fudge that "real cost" upward will be putting forth figures to all other non-scholarship students that will not favorably compete for the sheepskin they can get elsewhere and the likely outcome of such a move would be decreased enrollment among those who pay the bills. The proposal is not pay for play. The proposal is simply to provide common amenities that other students commonly have. I've lived long enough to see this come full circle. Barry Switzer among others abused the athletic dorm concept way back in the 70's bringing about an end to that accommodation for the athletes. Lost with the athletic dorm were carefully planned meals, tutors on site under coaching supervision, bed checks, and control over the exposure of the student athletes to negative influences. Now that the athletes live off campus, they are responsible for rent, food, clothing, and many other things that were once provided for in the athletic dorm which includes rudimentary medical care. Plus many of them live in the cheapest off campus housing that they can find and many of those locations are high crime. The stipend addresses some of these inequities that have arisen since the demise of the athletic dorms. It really isn't pay for play. But, it is an attempt to improve the living conditions for many of these kids who come from poor families and can't afford, or lack the skills, to manage off campus living.

I agree. It was Dennis Dodd (via some Delany quotes) that brought up the bidding aspect---and I think that was more related to outside autograph income than to anything the proposed stipend would provide. That said, the whole concept of bidding wars for athletes is a very bad precedent---even for the well heeled P5 schools. Once that Jeanie is out of the bottle it could quickly spiral out of control in very unpredictable ways.

We'll just have Darren tell her to get back in the bottle.

(12-24-2013 12:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 11:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 05:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Good post.

If you go back to where college football was 20 years ago it was driven by mega fanbase schools that locked up all the recruits and made the same kind of money whether the school finished 6-5 or 8-3. Coaches generally were not under yearly pressure to compete for a national title.

Today there is about a 50% difference in revenue for a P5 school contending for a national championship to one that goes 7-5. Its a second level that exceeds the goes beyond just the amount of fans you can put into a stadium. Therefore a coach that doesn't hit that second level for a couple of years in a row is forced out where as in the past making a bowl game would have been enough to keep a P5 regime rolling.

Stipends capped out at 10,000 per athlete are fine with a conference by conference decision on how much they want to pay. Low major D1 conference could pay 5,000 since they don't get prime athletes anyway. That is totally different than a bidding war for athletes or sticking 500,000 in a student athlete trust fund as Dennis Dodd is suggesting. The bidding war for coaches is already bad enough at P5 schools, it would be a madhouse if a school had to spend 10-15 million on players.

Agree. Frankly, I don't think even the P5 really want bidding wars for the best athletes. Why would they want to pay for huge amounts of money for the same athletes they used to get for free. I think they wouldn't mind sharing a bit of thier cash with the athletes---but I doubt they want the players to become a major expense. The college model isn't built that way. I have to laugh at theses law suits that discuss how much money college athletics makes. For the most part---college athletics is a money loser at the school level. So at most universities, sharing in the profits would mean mean paying money to allow the school to break even.

I don't know how this was spun into a bidding war concept. This line of argumentation is totally absurd. Of course the Universities don't want to bid up their overhead. And remember that stipends are predicated upon the non-scholarship covered expenses of a college education. Each school must determine what the "real cost" of an education at their institution is. Then those "real costs" will be averaged across the board and a cap will be set on stipends that may be paid. In the present economy schools wishing to fudge that "real cost" upward will be putting forth figures to all other non-scholarship students that will not favorably compete for the sheepskin they can get elsewhere and the likely outcome of such a move would be decreased enrollment among those who pay the bills. The proposal is not pay for play. The proposal is simply to provide common amenities that other students commonly have. I've lived long enough to see this come full circle. Barry Switzer among others abused the athletic dorm concept way back in the 70's bringing about an end to that accommodation for the athletes. Lost with the athletic dorm were carefully planned meals, tutors on site under coaching supervision, bed checks, and control over the exposure of the student athletes to negative influences. Now that the athletes live off campus, they are responsible for rent, food, clothing, and many other things that were once provided for in the athletic dorm which includes rudimentary medical care. Plus many of them live in the cheapest off campus housing that they can find and many of those locations are high crime. The stipend addresses some of these inequities that have arisen since the demise of the athletic dorms. It really isn't pay for play. But, it is an attempt to improve the living conditions for many of these kids who come from poor families and can't afford, or lack the skills, to manage off campus living.

I agree. It was Dennis Dodd (via some Delany quotes) that brought up the bidding aspect---and I think that was more related to outside autograph income than to anything the proposed stipend would provide. That said, the whole concept of bidding wars for athletes is a very bad precedent---even for the well heeled P5 schools. Once that Jeanie is out of the bottle it could quickly spiral out of control in very unpredictable ways.

We'll just have Darren tell her to get back in the bottle.

It was Tony Nelson who told her to get back in the bottle. Darrin was "Bewitched".

(12-24-2013 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Agree. Frankly, I don't think even the P5 really want bidding wars for the best athletes. Why would they want to pay for huge amounts of money for the same athletes they used to get for free. I think they wouldn't mind sharing a bit of thier cash with the athletes---but I doubt they want the players to become a major expense. The college model isn't built that way.

The NCAA is at its core a system to avoid paying athletes: a successful system based on the flimsy pretense that football and basketball players at big successful money-generating football and basketball programs are "student-athletes". Despite the flimsiness of the pretence, it has the advantage of a long history in place, and people have a tendency to accept rules that have been in place for a long time as "right" and "normal".

Which is a major part of the gravitational force against a breakaway by the Power 5, the threat that if they broke away, the political backlash driven by those locked out would bring down the whole system to avoid the payment of the entertainers driving the revenue stream.

Indeed, if the money-generating football and basketball programs were run as for-profit going concerns, paying a franchise fee to the school that they are affiliated with, the money spent chasing players would reduce the amount of money available in the college coaches salary arms race.

But if you start a negotiation with your desired outcome as your starting bid, you are likely to end up somewhere short of your desired outcome, so we ought to expect ongoing noise about a P5 breakway association, and a separate all-P5 division, en route to the P5 getting the pesky $12m budget FCS and non-FB schools out of their divisional rule making.

Stipends for athletes are a way of relieving the mounting pressure to pay those who are the fundamental source of the massive revenue flows, to the benefit of big money schools for whom the total cost of stipends is a much smaller share of their total budget than for small money schools, without threatening the student-athlete fiction.

(12-24-2013 11:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 11:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 05:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 01:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  JR, no one is in control.

When the CFP financials were released I remember people giddy that G5 leagues would get $1 million per team but the reality was the gap increased.

You cannot used fundamental capital markets theory to analyze intercollegiate athletics because the players in this economic system not only are not concerned about gaining the greatest return on their dollar, they mostly have the capacity to operate at a loss.

Out of the 120+ FBS programs, easily 80 and probably 100 could operate in the black but less than half of the 80 actually operate in the black.

Conventional economic theory does not apply.

Ole Miss hired Hugh Freeze in December of 2011 for $1.3 million and is now going to make $3 million and is what 2 games over .500 in 2 years.

Intercollegiate athletics is operated on fear model.

Alabama has some ridiculous expenditure that they make and every becomes convinced that they must have something similar to remain competitive. If Saban is going to make $4 million then you feel compelled to spend a similar number.

The only thing that can derail this train is running out of capacity to cover losses and when that happens the 40 left will continue the cycle until they too are tapped out unless something changes.

Good post.

If you go back to where college football was 20 years ago it was driven by mega fanbase schools that locked up all the recruits and made the same kind of money whether the school finished 6-5 or 8-3. Coaches generally were not under yearly pressure to compete for a national title.

Today there is about a 50% difference in revenue for a P5 school contending for a national championship to one that goes 7-5. Its a second level that exceeds the goes beyond just the amount of fans you can put into a stadium. Therefore a coach that doesn't hit that second level for a couple of years in a row is forced out where as in the past making a bowl game would have been enough to keep a P5 regime rolling.

Stipends capped out at 10,000 per athlete are fine with a conference by conference decision on how much they want to pay. Low major D1 conference could pay 5,000 since they don't get prime athletes anyway. That is totally different than a bidding war for athletes or sticking 500,000 in a student athlete trust fund as Dennis Dodd is suggesting. The bidding war for coaches is already bad enough at P5 schools, it would be a madhouse if a school had to spend 10-15 million on players.

Agree. Frankly, I don't think even the P5 really want bidding wars for the best athletes. Why would they want to pay for huge amounts of money for the same athletes they used to get for free. I think they wouldn't mind sharing a bit of thier cash with the athletes---but I doubt they want the players to become a major expense. The college model isn't built that way. I have to laugh at theses law suits that discuss how much money college athletics makes. For the most part---college athletics is a money loser at the school level. So at most universities, sharing in the profits would mean mean paying money to allow the school to break even.

I don't know how this was spun into a bidding war concept. This line of argumentation is totally absurd. Of course the Universities don't want to bid up their overhead. And remember that stipends are predicated upon the non-scholarship covered expenses of a college education. Each school must determine what the "real cost" of an education at their institution is. Then those "real costs" will be averaged across the board and a cap will be set on stipends that may be paid. In the present economy schools wishing to fudge that "real cost" upward will be putting forth figures that to all other non-scholarship students will not favorably compare with other schools competing to give them that sheepskin and the likely outcome of such a move would be decreased enrollment among those who pay the bills. The proposal is not pay for play. The proposal is simply to provide common amenities that other students commonly have.

I've lived long enough to see this come full circle. Barry Switzer among others abused the athletic dorm concept way back in the 70's bringing about an end to that accommodation for the athletes. Lost with the athletic dorm were carefully planned meals, tutors on site under coaching supervision, bed checks, and control over the exposure of the student athletes to negative influences. Now that the athletes live off campus, they are responsible for rent, food, clothing, and many other things that were once provided for in the athletic dorm which includes rudimentary medical care. Plus many of them live in the cheapest off campus housing that they can find and many of those locations are high crime. The stipend addresses some of these inequities that have arisen since the demise of the athletic dorms. It really isn't pay for play. But, it is an attempt to improve the living conditions for many of these kids who come from poor families and can't afford, or lack the skills, to manage off campus living.

Many athletes do still live on campus, just not in special dorms for them only. Normally, athletic scholarships pay for tuition, fees, books plus room and board. But the poorer athletes do not have enough money to travel home and back for holidays, take out a date, and other pocket money type issues. That's what the stipend will help with and it's long overdue.