(10-22-2014 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 04:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:18 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I doubt it.

Administrations at the lesser programs are too brainwashed into maintaining FBS status at all cost.

There may come a point for some schools where they can either take their football to a lower level, quit fielding football teams altogether, or bankrupt themselves trying to compete at the highest level. Conference TV money can only carry a school so far.

Bit, we've had P5 additions in the latest consolidation. Some of those are welcomed participants, a few others were questionable overall. What this does is provide another culling mechanism. This could get us to a field of 64 by culling three or four and then having some of the best funded G5's step into their places. Brigham Young could easily handle this, Cincinnati probably would, and perhaps one of South or Central Florida or Connecticut. We'll see. But when this starts to play out there will be choices that have to be made at the lower end of the P5.

IMO financial viability is a distinctly relevant factor in the future determination of who remains among the power conferences. It should be. You and I both happen to recognize this as a culling method for the future. This is a less painful method for conference leaders than actually forcing a school out of the conference, like Big East football did with Temple, even though it has the same effect.

My father said it would come to this when the CFA was first formed, and I agreed with him. It was just a matter of time. It will take a little more time for the end result to be realized, and a new equilibrium to be reached. But it's coming, whether anyone else realizes it or not.

Its going to cull non-rev sports as well. More schools will go to the minimum.

Oh I agree. I covered it in an earlier post in this thread. I can foresee the U.S. Olympic Committee helping to pair corporate sponsors with some non revenue Olympic Sports, and I can see conferences using the number of sports supported directly by the A.Dept as a culling tool for the restructuring of their conferences as well.

(10-22-2014 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 04:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  There may come a point for some schools where they can either take their football to a lower level, quit fielding football teams altogether, or bankrupt themselves trying to compete at the highest level. Conference TV money can only carry a school so far.

Bit, we've had P5 additions in the latest consolidation. Some of those are welcomed participants, a few others were questionable overall. What this does is provide another culling mechanism. This could get us to a field of 64 by culling three or four and then having some of the best funded G5's step into their places. Brigham Young could easily handle this, Cincinnati probably would, and perhaps one of South or Central Florida or Connecticut. We'll see. But when this starts to play out there will be choices that have to be made at the lower end of the P5.

IMO financial viability is a distinctly relevant factor in the future determination of who remains among the power conferences. It should be. You and I both happen to recognize this as a culling method for the future. This is a less painful method for conference leaders than actually forcing a school out of the conference, like Big East football did with Temple, even though it has the same effect.

My father said it would come to this when the CFA was first formed, and I agreed with him. It was just a matter of time. It will take a little more time for the end result to be realized, and a new equilibrium to be reached. But it's coming, whether anyone else realizes it or not.

Its going to cull non-rev sports as well. More schools will go to the minimum.

Oh I agree. I covered it in an earlier post in this thread. I can foresee the U.S. Olympic Committee helping to pair corporate sponsors with some non revenue Olympic Sports, and I can see conferences using the number of sports supported directly by the A.Dept as a culling tool for the restructuring of their conferences as well.

And there will be programs that are important to alumni at the various schools, and wholly funded by a small group of alums, like WVU's rifle program, which was resurrected by a group of alums after WVU cut rifle in an attempt to save some money for the athletic department. It all depends on what is important to the alums at the various schools. WVU's rifle program was important to WVU because it was our only national championship program. Other sports will have similar support at other schools. It all depends on the school and the sport.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that this is even close to being settled law on the subject of athlete compensation. This statement by UT is probably little more than a shot across the bow, designed to demonstrate that the most recent ruling makes no legal or economic sense.

$5K per year is intended to compensate the athlete for the commercial use of his/her image. Exactly how many members of a school's Cross-country teams actually have their image used for any commercial purpose? Or the women's rowing team? How long before the star basketball player, whose image is broadcast widely and often, decides that limiting his compensation to the same amount as a student who has never appeared on television, and whose status as an athlete is known only to her family and closest friends, is an unfair restraint of trade?

By throwing out a number like $6 million, Texas is issuing a threat. I don't think it will fall on deaf ears.

(10-22-2014 01:38 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Title is kind of misleading. What they are being "paid" for is full cost of attendance, which everyone agrees will already happen, and all of the FBS conferences to my knowledge have said they already support, and compensation for use of NIL (names, images, and licenses). This won't be unique to Texas at all.

Again, people what we are talking about is full cost of attendance (which everyone has already agreed to, including so called "g5" conferences) and use of NIL. Not actual salary payments as some are suggesting. Nothing groundbreaking or new here.

I believe G5 schools and conferences have said they support the idea of full cost of atttendance. I do not think they have agreed to a definite amount of support. Each school or conference may choose more or less. It apppears UT is talking $10,000 per student athelete or $6 million per year. It remains to be seen if all schools will match that amount. I seriously doubt it.

That amount (6 mil) isn't so bad if you're getting 20 mil just from TV...but if you're making less than that from TV money....wow

There's only 16 - 20 schools in the country whose athletic departments are self-sustaining, and which make money for their respective schools. Out of that group, only Texas and Ohio State have the resources to pay $10K/year to their student athletes.

This is not about the P5 versus the G5. Texas is saying everybody for themselves, and they've got the cash to play. This is the death knell for college sports as we used to know it. Now there's no more pretense about amateurism. It's strictly the minor leagues now. How will the major leagues take to this?

(10-22-2014 06:28 PM)Ghis Wrote:  There's only 16 - 20 schools in the country whose athletic departments are self-sustaining, and which make money for their respective schools. Out of that group, only Texas and Ohio State have the resources to pay $10K/year to their student athletes.

This is not about the P5 versus the G5. Texas is saying everybody for themselves, and they've got the cash to play. This is the death knell for college sports as we used to know it. Now there's no more pretense about amateurism. It's strictly the minor leagues now. How will the major leagues take to this?

What? We could afford it also. I'm sure Michigan could also
we gave 24 million back to the Academic side.

(10-22-2014 05:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think it would be a mistake to assume that this is even close to being settled law on the subject of athlete compensation. This statement by UT is probably little more than a shot across the bow, designed to demonstrate that the most recent ruling makes no legal or economic sense.

$5K per year is intended to compensate the athlete for the commercial use of his/her image. Exactly how many members of a school's Cross-country teams actually have their image used for any commercial purpose? Or the women's rowing team? How long before the star basketball player, whose image is broadcast widely and often, decides that limiting his compensation to the same amount as a student who has never appeared on television, and whose status as an athlete is known only to her family and closest friends, is an unfair restraint of trade?

By throwing out a number like $6 million, Texas is issuing a threat. I don't think it will fall on deaf ears.

The $6 million is of course a high ball figure.

There was talk of basing the amount of the stipend on a cost of living adjustment region by region. Austin may be a more expensive place to live than most.

(10-22-2014 06:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 05:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think it would be a mistake to assume that this is even close to being settled law on the subject of athlete compensation. This statement by UT is probably little more than a shot across the bow, designed to demonstrate that the most recent ruling makes no legal or economic sense.

$5K per year is intended to compensate the athlete for the commercial use of his/her image. Exactly how many members of a school's Cross-country teams actually have their image used for any commercial purpose? Or the women's rowing team? How long before the star basketball player, whose image is broadcast widely and often, decides that limiting his compensation to the same amount as a student who has never appeared on television, and whose status as an athlete is known only to her family and closest friends, is an unfair restraint of trade?

By throwing out a number like $6 million, Texas is issuing a threat. I don't think it will fall on deaf ears.

The $6 million is of course a high ball figure.

There was talk of basing the amount of the stipend on a cost of living adjustment region by region. Austin may be a more expensive place to live than most.

I doubt seriously that they are joking and there is not a single school in the SEC that would balk at that figure.

In terms of the details, it is all just talk and posturing at this point. Texas is leading the way in this because...well Texas is leading the way. There is more to it than just what is being talked about on the surface.

For those that think the Government will stop this?

Quote:Colleges will soon be asked to do even more, and they ought to prepare for that, some on the panels argued. Former U.S. Rep. Tom McMillen of Maryland said colleges should brace for profound challenges to their business models in the near future.

“We’re in for a period of dynamic change,” said McMillen, an All-America basketball player for the University of Maryland who also played for the United States in the 1972 Olympics in Munich. “The system has to change. The money needs to be handled differently.”

Other panelists argued that so much is changing in college sports that a stronger governing hand is needed.

“Everybody is in charge and nobody is,” said Lisa Love, former Athletic Director at Arizona State.

McMillen added: “What I’m looking for is a benevolent dictator for college sports.”

(10-22-2014 03:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:18 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:43 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:31 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college...45ba53a385

Seems like schools are going to have some choices to make.....


"USA Today sportswriter Steve Berkowitz said he worries that the price of keeping a program in contention for championships is driving some schools to spend too much. That can put students and taxpayers on the hook for debt or higher fees, all in a gamble that teams will be successful.

Chris Del Conte, Athletic Director at Texas Christian University, didn’t disagree with that. But he and Patterson both said schools should set their own priorities. Those that invest in top-flight athletics should be rewarded, they said.

Del Conte said TCU decided it would make the investments necessary to compete nationally, and ultimately joined a major conference, the Big 12."

Most FBS programs are self supporting, with such things handled by big money boosters. But marginal programs do have to resort to public money for funding. This could weed out a few of the lesser programs in time. We shall see.

I doubt it.

Administrations at the lesser programs are too brainwashed into maintaining FBS status at all cost.

There may come a point for some schools where they can either take their football to a lower level, quit fielding football teams altogether, or bankrupt themselves trying to compete at the highest level. Conference TV money can only carry a school so far.

TBH I have been saying this all along.

If CUSA, the MAC, SBC, and whatever teams from the AAC and MWC are not able to keep up went to FCS then FCS would significantly improve it's product.

When this happens there will be literally no point for most of the G5 teams to even remain. You will be essentially paying millions of $$$ to play in a league you can't compete in.

Did texas open the bidding or set the standard?

The g5 should give up the bs and start their own playoff. Who wants to play all year with a single bowl game as a consolation prize.

(10-22-2014 06:28 PM)Ghis Wrote:  There's only 16 - 20 schools in the country whose athletic departments are self-sustaining, and which make money for their respective schools. Out of that group, only Texas and Ohio State have the resources to pay $10K/year to their student athletes.

This is not about the P5 versus the G5. Texas is saying everybody for themselves, and they've got the cash to play. This is the death knell for college sports as we used to know it. Now there's no more pretense about amateurism. It's strictly the minor leagues now. How will the major leagues take to this?

Pretty sure everyone on this group could afford this.

Oregon
USC
Everyone in the SEC
Ohio State
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Michigan
Louisville
Florida State
Clemson

probably about ten others.

It's teams like Washington State, Iowa State, etc that will be hit.

IMHO, the idea that any P5 school would just decide to scale back their sports programs due to a reluctance to pay stipends to student athletes is nonsensical for a number of reasons:

1. The P5 schools have already won the college sports lottery. The amount of money their athletic departments will bring in over the years due to P5 membership will dwarf any cost of stipends.

2. Pretty much all of the P5 schools have voiced support for the stipends. Furthermore, since the terms and amount of the stipends must be agreed to by a majority of the P5 schools, the top 5-10 programs will not be able to set the market.

3. One of the reasons that many colleges place such an emphasis on athletics is due to the correlation between alumni pride in their schools' athletic accomplishments and alumni donations to not only athletics, but the schools' general funds as well. Indeed, much of the schools' identity to its alums are forged through athletics. Just think about it for a second, most of us are alums of the schools we are fans of. What part of the university provides the enduring "hook" (read: alumni donations) for each of us?? How many of us get the inevitable call for donations from our schools' Development people right after a big win?

4. Schools understand the linkage between athletic success and the way they are perceived by be the general public. This positive perception leads to higher perceptions of the schools' academics, more funding etc. People can try to poke holes in the often mentioned "Flutie Effect", but, as an alum/fan of the school for which it was was named for, I can tell you first-hand of the tremendous difference in BC pre-Flutie and post-Flutie.

Again, in my opinion, not a single P5 school, will opt out. I believe to think otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding as to the way these colleges and universities operate.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-22-2014 08:17 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:18 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:43 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  Seems like schools are going to have some choices to make.....


"USA Today sportswriter Steve Berkowitz said he worries that the price of keeping a program in contention for championships is driving some schools to spend too much. That can put students and taxpayers on the hook for debt or higher fees, all in a gamble that teams will be successful.

Chris Del Conte, Athletic Director at Texas Christian University, didn’t disagree with that. But he and Patterson both said schools should set their own priorities. Those that invest in top-flight athletics should be rewarded, they said.

Del Conte said TCU decided it would make the investments necessary to compete nationally, and ultimately joined a major conference, the Big 12."

Most FBS programs are self supporting, with such things handled by big money boosters. But marginal programs do have to resort to public money for funding. This could weed out a few of the lesser programs in time. We shall see.

I doubt it.

Administrations at the lesser programs are too brainwashed into maintaining FBS status at all cost.

There may come a point for some schools where they can either take their football to a lower level, quit fielding football teams altogether, or bankrupt themselves trying to compete at the highest level. Conference TV money can only carry a school so far.

TBH I have been saying this all along.

If CUSA, the MAC, SBC, and whatever teams from the AAC and MWC are not able to keep up went to FCS then FCS would significantly improve it's product.

When this happens there will be literally no point for most of the G5 teams to even remain. You will be essentially paying millions of $$$ to play in a league you can't compete in.

I could see this being the catalyst for the nationwide G5 conference. The G5 schools that wish to invest in staying in FBS would come together under a single umbrella and the rest would pay well below the rest of FBS or drop down to FCS. The cutting of FBS inventory and the increased quality (since the G5 would be paying far more than FCS and any straggling G5s in FBS) would increase the value and appeal of the nationwide G5 network. The resulting better G5 TV contract might actually largely pay for the expense of staying FBS.

(10-22-2014 06:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 05:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think it would be a mistake to assume that this is even close to being settled law on the subject of athlete compensation. This statement by UT is probably little more than a shot across the bow, designed to demonstrate that the most recent ruling makes no legal or economic sense.

$5K per year is intended to compensate the athlete for the commercial use of his/her image. Exactly how many members of a school's Cross-country teams actually have their image used for any commercial purpose? Or the women's rowing team? How long before the star basketball player, whose image is broadcast widely and often, decides that limiting his compensation to the same amount as a student who has never appeared on television, and whose status as an athlete is known only to her family and closest friends, is an unfair restraint of trade?

By throwing out a number like $6 million, Texas is issuing a threat. I don't think it will fall on deaf ears.

The $6 million is of course a high ball figure.

There was talk of basing the amount of the stipend on a cost of living adjustment region by region. Austin may be a more expensive place to live than most.

Not really if you think about it what's 10,000?

Let's say over a year someone bought:
Cheap car $4000
xbox one $399
2 pairs Nike shoes $120
groceries 100x12 for the semester $1200
clothes for the semester $350

And let's be honest by the time you start with fun things guys my age do (22) like strip clubs, clubbing, bars, movies, going on dates 10,000 is not crap for a whole year even if you do have a full ride.

Do you guys know much it freaking cost to even walk into somewhere like Dick's sporting goods and buy three pairs of under armor long sleeves? Let alone also getting the pants and gloves?

These 15+ million dollar media contracts come from the football players. Not the school, no women's soccer, not boosters. Giving all of the athletes a little cut of the money they are generating is not such a terrible thing.

(10-22-2014 08:46 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  IMHO, the idea that any P5 school would just decide to scale back their sports programs due to a reluctance to pay stipends to student athletes is nonsensical for a number of reasons:

1. The P5 schools have already won the college sports lottery. The amount of money their athletic departments will bring in over the years due to P5 membership will dwarf any cost of stipends.

2. Pretty much all of the P5 schools have voiced support for the stipends. Furthermore, since the terms and amount of the stipends must be agreed to by a majority of the P5 schools, the top 5-10 programs will not be able to set the market.

3. One of the reasons that many colleges place such an emphasis on athletics is due to the correlation between alumni pride in their schools' athletic accomplishments and alumni donations to not only athletics, but the schools' general funds as well. Indeed, much of the schools' identity to its alums are forged through athletics. Just think about it for a second, most of us are alums of the schools we are fans of. What part of the university provides the enduring "hook" (read: alumni donations) for each of us?? How many of us get the inevitable call for donations from our schools' Development people right after a big win?

4. Schools understand the linkage between athletic success and the way they are perceived by be the general public. This positive perception leads to higher perceptions of the schools' academics, more funding etc. People can try to poke holes in the often mentioned "Flutie Effect", but, as an alum/fan of the school for which it was was named for, I can tell you first-hand of the tremendous difference in BC pre-Flutie and post-Flutie.

Again, in my opinion, not a single P5 school, will opt out. I believe to think otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding as to the way these colleges and universities operate.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Dropping football may make sense for some. Downgrading w/o dropping football doesn't make sense for any of the P5.
But it will be concussion and Miami/North Carolina type of embarrassing issues that will trigger it. The increasing costs will justify it, but won't be the primary reason.

(10-22-2014 09:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:46 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  IMHO, the idea that any P5 school would just decide to scale back their sports programs due to a reluctance to pay stipends to student athletes is nonsensical for a number of reasons:

1. The P5 schools have already won the college sports lottery. The amount of money their athletic departments will bring in over the years due to P5 membership will dwarf any cost of stipends.

2. Pretty much all of the P5 schools have voiced support for the stipends. Furthermore, since the terms and amount of the stipends must be agreed to by a majority of the P5 schools, the top 5-10 programs will not be able to set the market.

3. One of the reasons that many colleges place such an emphasis on athletics is due to the correlation between alumni pride in their schools' athletic accomplishments and alumni donations to not only athletics, but the schools' general funds as well. Indeed, much of the schools' identity to its alums are forged through athletics. Just think about it for a second, most of us are alums of the schools we are fans of. What part of the university provides the enduring "hook" (read: alumni donations) for each of us?? How many of us get the inevitable call for donations from our schools' Development people right after a big win?

4. Schools understand the linkage between athletic success and the way they are perceived by be the general public. This positive perception leads to higher perceptions of the schools' academics, more funding etc. People can try to poke holes in the often mentioned "Flutie Effect", but, as an alum/fan of the school for which it was was named for, I can tell you first-hand of the tremendous difference in BC pre-Flutie and post-Flutie.

Again, in my opinion, not a single P5 school, will opt out. I believe to think otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding as to the way these colleges and universities operate.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Dropping football may make sense for some. Downgrading w/o dropping football doesn't make sense for any of the P5.
But it will be concussion and Miami/North Carolina type of embarrassing issues that will trigger it. The increasing costs will justify it, but won't be the primary reason.

I doubt any P5 school will ever drop football. To do so would mean dropping out of their respective P5 conferences, resulting in an overall downgrading of their programs. Such a move would, IMO, create a diminished perception of the school itself, and all that comes with that (see my above comments).

Concussions are an issue - but, IMO, that will be successfully addressed (new playing rules, required treatments, etc.) Football has been through this before. In the early 20th century, it was almost banned due to the severe injuries and deaths from things like moving wedges, etc. The game changed and these issues were addressed.

The embarrassing issues / rules breaking are nothing new. They have ALWAYS existed in the sport. If anything, I think these publicized events and the subsequent reaction of the stakeholders and public show just how far we have come. Not too long ago, these things were buried in secrecy, or worse, just treated in a blasé manner by the stakeholders and the public.



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Why is this news? Just because Texas announced their specific plans?

Everybody knew stipends were coming to D1 athletes. Texas isn't doing something "different" than anyone else. It will be interesting that the NCAA can't legislate how much each school gives (different costs of living in various cities, areas, etc.). That could give certain schools advantages...but there does need to be a cap.

When this was first proposed, it was obvious that this would be the death of many, many schools' participation in the top level of competition.

The only way this changes anything for me...is I want my daughter to become an elite D1 athlete now. Free tuition and a healthy stipend...and far less of the hassle and worry of a guy in an elite D1 sport. The women score BIG with this new change!