(02-23-2014 01:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It will be a massive financial success and others will follow. The snugger capacity and intimate feel will make great TV. A crowd of 40k in a 40k stadium just looks better than 65k in an 80k. Schools will be able to divert resources from trying to fill massive stadiums. The worst thing in college football is an unsold seat. Unsold seats take pressure off people to buy season tickets or donate to get in to the game.

If you can generate the same or more revenue with 50% of the capacity or even 75% of the capacity you currently have you spend less dealing with traffic, concessions, and bathroom facilities and you spend less selling and marketing.

Or rather, you divert your marketing resources into getting more money out of the affluent premium-seat buyers who have the money and have shown they're willing to give some.

Miami is an obvious candidate for this. Beckham has floated the idea of a Miami stadium that could be used by both the Canes and an MLS team.

Marketing a product around it only being available to a certain class of purchaser has a long history of success.

Samsung has to sell something like three phones to generate the same profit Apple makes on a single sale.

I don't think it is at all unrealistic to see a day down the road when there is a lot of overlap in P5 and G5 attendance numbers but the P5 will be making many multiples per attendee more than the G5 than they currently do.

TV rights have exploded, but ESPN is available in fewer homes than ABC, NBC, or CBS. Part of what is driving expectations of higher TV revenue is the conference network, yet those networks will be in even fewer homes than ESPN.

In it's current form, the US economy has little need for a middle class. If you can import a foreign good at a third of the cost, the consumer no longer requires as much income to pay for that good and you can still have a nice profit margin. It's not great news if you sell houses, build houses, remodel houses, or sell cars but much of the retail and food economy is built on selling cheap at high volume and don't need people to have middle class incomes, in fact if they have such they may get uppity and move their purchases to target or buy more top end clothes.

(02-23-2014 12:28 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 10:40 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the 30,000 seat stadium rule should be reinstated. If a school can't fill a 30,000 seat stadium, they don't deserve to play at the highest level.

And if they design a poor stadium, that's their problem. Stupidity should be a punishable offense.

I always thought the best way to handle this rule would have been to make it 50,000 in capacity with a minimum requirement of 40,000 in ticket sales and actual attendance. That way if someone was upgrading facilities they had an attendance goal to shoot for as well. It also means they stand a better chance of attracting a home and home with a better brand. Truly if a school can't attract a home and home with a P5 school they likely don't belong in the P5. Very few P5 schools would fail to meet the 50,000/40,000 requirement and it would force some others not to be so glib as to try for something too unrealistic for them to obtain.

I think one of the reasons the P5 is pushing for a degree of separation is that the bar was set too low to begin with.

Actually, several P5 schools would fail a 40k attendance requirement. For example, only 5 ACC schools average 50k+, which 2 of such 5 narrowly making that mark (UNC and NCS). Of course the other three are Clemson, FSU and VT.

I don't know where you are getting your attendance numbers but NC State averaged 54K in attendance (actual tickets torn) in 2012 and 53K in 2013 during a year were went 3-9 and the home schedule outside Clemson and UNC was HORRIBLE. 92-93% of capacity is not bad considering those circumstances.

Now another issue to consider is what matters most, tickets sold or butts in seats? Getting UNC fans to show up for football during basketball season is a stretch but the tickets are sold. We only had 43K show up last year for Maryland in the cold of November and us having a 3-8 record at the time.

As far as selling 30K seats, against what competition are you selling those seats? Some of the largest college stadiums are located in the near middle of nowhere and the football weekends are huge deals. Schools located in major metropolitan areas tend to have a great deal of competition with Maryland being a prime example.

BC, Pitt, GT, and Miami all face direct pro football competition in their immediate market. Duke, UNC, and NC State compete against each other in their market to sell nearly 160,000 football tickets each weekend.

It's easy to look at stadium size and attendance in a vacuum, but it's a function of the size of the alums, size of the schools, and the level of direct competition for recreation dollars in addition to any direct investment in football.

(02-23-2014 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  In it's current form, the US economy has little need for a middle class. If you can import a foreign good at a third of the cost, the consumer no longer requires as much income to pay for that good and you can still have a nice profit margin. It's not great news if you sell houses, build houses, remodel houses, or sell cars but much of the retail and food economy is built on selling cheap at high volume and don't need people to have middle class incomes, in fact if they have such they may get uppity and move their purchases to target or buy more top end clothes.

To compensate for it they are pushing the minimum wage up. What you are going to have is a grand lower middle class that makes 50-60k in family income, has free access to education and internet and drives the economy car.

The highly skilled professional class in medical and technology will be making several times that because of demand for their skills. In the financially industry they are paying as high as 1200 a day for Data Architects. Its because they have the money to splurge on expensive labor.

The upper 1% are going to do extremely well. The next 10% will be fighting to keep their jobs. After that its going to be service economy millionaires and a grand lower middle class (which will have a quality of life similar to the traditional american middle class).

(02-23-2014 02:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  In it's current form, the US economy has little need for a middle class. If you can import a foreign good at a third of the cost, the consumer no longer requires as much income to pay for that good and you can still have a nice profit margin. It's not great news if you sell houses, build houses, remodel houses, or sell cars but much of the retail and food economy is built on selling cheap at high volume and don't need people to have middle class incomes, in fact if they have such they may get uppity and move their purchases to target or buy more top end clothes.

To compensate for it they are pushing the minimum wage up. What you are going to have is a grand lower middle class that makes 50-60k in family income, has free access to education and internet and drives the economy car.

The highly skilled professional class in medical and technology will be making several times that because of demand for their skills. In the financially industry they are paying as high as 1200 a day for Data Architects. Its because they have the money to splurge on expensive labor.

The upper 1% are going to do extremely well. The next 10% will be fighting to keep their jobs. After that its going to be service economy millionaires and a grand lower middle class (which will have a quality of life similar to the traditional american middle class).

You could also call it compensating by pushing the unemployment rate in he young up even higher. Artificially bumping up the minimum wage isn't the answer to the loss of the middle class. Saving the middle class will require rebuilding the manufacturing base that a middle class counts upon. Moving money around in the financial sector doesn't have much ripple effect on the economy. Selling a bond generates a commission and little else. Manufacturing a washing machine ripples thrugh the economy as miners are needed for steel, sheet metal has to be made, screws need to be purchased, electric motors made, belts manufactured. Manufacturing grows the middle class---service industry? Not so much.

(02-23-2014 10:40 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the 30,000 seat stadium rule should be reinstated. If a school can't fill a 30,000 seat stadium, they don't deserve to play at the highest level.

There is a de facto 15,000 minimum seating requirement because there is almost no way to make it unless you have that capacity.

Attendance counting is and has largely been a dog and pony show more important in analysis than enforcement. The NCAA likes to spot trends and to legitimize the information gathering they set a minimum attendance rule and a demand for audited figures.

The problem with the old 30k rule is that the NCAA was in the business of forcing schools to have minimum capacities. Central Michigan and Western Michigan for example both moved to 30k hard seats. The only time they fill them it is when they play each other.

(02-23-2014 02:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  In it's current form, the US economy has little need for a middle class. If you can import a foreign good at a third of the cost, the consumer no longer requires as much income to pay for that good and you can still have a nice profit margin. It's not great news if you sell houses, build houses, remodel houses, or sell cars but much of the retail and food economy is built on selling cheap at high volume and don't need people to have middle class incomes, in fact if they have such they may get uppity and move their purchases to target or buy more top end clothes.

To compensate for it they are pushing the minimum wage up. What you are going to have is a grand lower middle class that makes 50-60k in family income, has free access to education and internet and drives the economy car.

The highly skilled professional class in medical and technology will be making several times that because of demand for their skills. In the financially industry they are paying as high as 1200 a day for Data Architects. Its because they have the money to splurge on expensive labor.

The upper 1% are going to do extremely well. The next 10% will be fighting to keep their jobs. After that its going to be service economy millionaires and a grand lower middle class (which will have a quality of life similar to the traditional american middle class).

It just won't work that way guys. The value of the dollar is in serious question worldwide. When the dollar loses world reserve status (and it is already under pressure from Asia) you will see a 35% inflation rate overnight. Then this whole model predicated upon inflating wage and hour will collapse and erosion of the upper middle class will be a reality. There is nothing backing the value of the dollar now other than the technological superiority of the U.S. Military. As that gap is closed the economic house of cards will collapse. Now maybe that's in 20 years, or maybe that is sooner.

(02-23-2014 03:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 02:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  In it's current form, the US economy has little need for a middle class. If you can import a foreign good at a third of the cost, the consumer no longer requires as much income to pay for that good and you can still have a nice profit margin. It's not great news if you sell houses, build houses, remodel houses, or sell cars but much of the retail and food economy is built on selling cheap at high volume and don't need people to have middle class incomes, in fact if they have such they may get uppity and move their purchases to target or buy more top end clothes.

lol....Then we better keep our military strong...
To compensate for it they are pushing the minimum wage up. What you are going to have is a grand lower middle class that makes 50-60k in family income, has free access to education and internet and drives the economy car.

The highly skilled professional class in medical and technology will be making several times that because of demand for their skills. In the financially industry they are paying as high as 1200 a day for Data Architects. Its because they have the money to splurge on expensive labor.

The upper 1% are going to do extremely well. The next 10% will be fighting to keep their jobs. After that its going to be service economy millionaires and a grand lower middle class (which will have a quality of life similar to the traditional american middle class).

It just won't work that way guys. The value of the dollar is in serious question worldwide. When the dollar loses world reserve status (and it is already under pressure from Asia) you will see a 35% inflation rate overnight. Then this whole model predicated upon inflating wage and hour will collapse and erosion of the upper middle class will be a reality. There is nothing backing the value of the dollar now other than the technological superiority of the U.S. Military. As that gap is closed the economic house of cards will collapse. Now maybe that's in 20 years, or maybe that is sooner.

(02-23-2014 02:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 02:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  In it's current form, the US economy has little need for a middle class. If you can import a foreign good at a third of the cost, the consumer no longer requires as much income to pay for that good and you can still have a nice profit margin. It's not great news if you sell houses, build houses, remodel houses, or sell cars but much of the retail and food economy is built on selling cheap at high volume and don't need people to have middle class incomes, in fact if they have such they may get uppity and move their purchases to target or buy more top end clothes.

To compensate for it they are pushing the minimum wage up. What you are going to have is a grand lower middle class that makes 50-60k in family income, has free access to education and internet and drives the economy car.

The highly skilled professional class in medical and technology will be making several times that because of demand for their skills. In the financially industry they are paying as high as 1200 a day for Data Architects. Its because they have the money to splurge on expensive labor.

The upper 1% are going to do extremely well. The next 10% will be fighting to keep their jobs. After that its going to be service economy millionaires and a grand lower middle class (which will have a quality of life similar to the traditional american middle class).

You could also call it compensating by pushing the unemployment rate in he young up even higher. Artificially bumping up the minimum wage isn't the answer to the loss of the middle class. Saving the middle class will require rebuilding the manufacturing base that a middle class counts upon. Moving money around in the financial sector doesn't have much ripple effect on the economy. Selling a bond generates a commission and little else. Manufacturing a washing machine ripples thrugh the economy as miners are needed for steel, sheet metal has to be made, screws need to be purchased, electric motors made, belts manufactured. Manufacturing grows the middle class---service industry? Not so much.

Its not realistic for the US to have 20% of the worlds manufacturing power with only 3% of the worlds population. It was necessary for the global economy after World War II but those were very special historical circumstances.

Unless there is something like an Oil Boom like there is in North Dakota there is only 3 ways any kind of growth gets happens in middle america.

1) The state builds a new highway or other infrastructure for the community. This leads eventually down the road to logistics and service jobs.

2) The community raises a levy. The best example of this is raising a levy for building new schools.

3) The community receives a gift. Someone gives money to build a new community theater.

New manufacturing only comes in today if it is completely necessary to have a plant to reach the consumer market like the auto industry. If a particular strategic resource is in that town they may also build the plant there but that isn't something a community has it its control.

Many communities haven't had any of the 3 above and look like the struggling main street towns we are all accustomed to.

(02-23-2014 02:56 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 10:40 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the 30,000 seat stadium rule should be reinstated. If a school can't fill a 30,000 seat stadium, they don't deserve to play at the highest level.

There is a de facto 15,000 minimum seating requirement because there is almost no way to make it unless you have that capacity.

Attendance counting is and has largely been a dog and pony show more important in analysis than enforcement. The NCAA likes to spot trends and to legitimize the information gathering they set a minimum attendance rule and a demand for audited figures.

The problem with the old 30k rule is that the NCAA was in the business of forcing schools to have minimum capacities. Central Michigan and Western Michigan for example both moved to 30k hard seats. The only time they fill them it is when they play each other.

Little known fact. A professor at Wichita State had the students in his/her class do a lot of measurements on Cessna Stadium including counting seats and measuring bleachers. The professor was putting it all together and asked the Faculty Athletic rep about how many inches of bleacher constituted a seat. Applied that to the data and determined that Cessna had something 29,992 seats under using the data and gave a copy to the FAR not realizing the significance.

The FAR and AD met and they met with NCAA folks who said they could apply for a waiver and felt that because it was a good faith error, Wichita State would probably receive the waiver.

The president was already thinking hard about pulling the plug on football and took the stance that any effort to save Wichita State football would be killed if Wichita State wasn't granted the waiver and had to play a year of I-AA while climbing back and the publicity from seeking a waiver would dampen the effort and used that as justification to pull the plug without a full on save the program fund-raising, ticket selling effort.

I believe we have to scrap the notion that schools are "entitled" to play at the highest level simply because that's what they have traditionally been a part of. However, a top division could be created without obviously excluding anyone and would put the onus back on the school and fan base. I agree that the capacity/attendance levels were set too low as well and what I suggest should rectify that.

A new top division could be created with the stipulations that members must have a minimum athletic budget of at least $50 million or attendance with a three-year average of 30,000 per game. This would allow the schools that fall just short in attendance, but have good athletic budgets to remain among the haves. The reverse would be true as well with schools with well attended games having the opportunity to increase their budgets over time. If I am correct, all current P5 schools would qualify under one category or the other and some of the AAC schools would as well. Where the decisions would have to be made are those schools on the cusp of qualifying, but one of the criteria is well short. For example, UTEPs attendance in 2012 was just short of 30,000 and the Miners could reasonably be expected to meet the 30,000 three-year average. But their budget in 2013 was just $27 million. They would have to ask themselves if they can make the commitment to almost double their budget for the opportunity to compete in this top division. Schools like USM would undoubtedly be relegated to the lower group, since they could probably get the attendance but would never get the funds to get to the $50 million threshold. Tulsa's 2012 attendance of just 20K and Tulane's 18K may cause them to think that the top division is beyond their capability. And I believe there would be nothing wrong with that. While those schools may be able to compete on the field in a particular game against a P5 schools, they would be unlikely to manage success over a full schedule consistently -- they just don't have the resources. At some point pride has to give way to common sense.

No one who is in the P5 already is going to be kicked out due to attendance. I think the post above mine is on to a good solution. We won't ever see the Wakes and Dukes kicked out, but if someone says "hey.. they've got money.. let's add an attendance OR athletic budget requirement so that we keep them in." That's what's going to happen. BTW more than just AAC teams would fit the 30k or 50M. You have Hawaii, Army, Fresno, Boise, SDSU, and Air Force on the 30k Side of attendance (though SDSU inflates #s.. so we'd have to figure out away to actually count tickets in the gate). UNLV would get in for their 58 million dollar budget.