(10-22-2014 10:15 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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

Georgetown, Yale, Chicago? Don't think those Big East, Ivy or UAA schools have been downgraded in the public eye. Any of the ACC privates, Northwestern or Vanderbilt could get in the Big East and do just fine in public perception. Miami might actually improve their public perception without their thug reputation from football. Stanford could join the UAA and would still be viewed as the best university on the planet.

Also, these schools, other than Miami, aren't driven by football. In most cases they are basketball schools. So there wouldn't be as big a drop in fundraising as if a Notre Dame or USC dropped football.

Not that I think it is likely anytime soon. Duke is committing a bunch of money to upgrade their stadium. That would be the time to re-evaluate what they are doing. Tulane, Baylor and TCU have new stadiums. SMU and Stanford have relatively new stadiums. USC is putting a bunch of money into their stadium. Rice is starting to put some money in their stadium and already did a study a few years back. BYU uses it to help showcase the Mormon Church.

(10-23-2014 08:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:15 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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

Georgetown, Yale, Chicago? Don't think those Big East, Ivy or UAA schools have been downgraded in the public eye. Any of the ACC privates, Northwestern or Vanderbilt could get in the Big East and do just fine in public perception. Miami might actually improve their public perception without their thug reputation from football. Stanford could join the UAA and would still be viewed as the best university on the planet.

Also, these schools, other than Miami, aren't driven by football. In most cases they are basketball schools. So there wouldn't be as big a drop in fundraising as if a Notre Dame or USC dropped football.

Not that I think it is likely anytime soon. Duke is committing a bunch of money to upgrade their stadium. That would be the time to re-evaluate what they are doing. Tulane, Baylor and TCU have new stadiums. SMU and Stanford have relatively new stadiums. USC is putting a bunch of money into their stadium. Rice is starting to put some money in their stadium and already did a study a few years back. BYU uses it to help showcase the Mormon Church.

Your last paragraph makes my point for me. Why are all of these schools investing in their football programs/facilities in spite of the projected environment (stipends, etc.)? Think they know something about the importance of big-time FB?

The three schools you cite have not had big-time football for many, many decades and they are hardly typical examples. Yale? Part of the Ivy League which exists in its own separate eco structure completely outside of the mainstream of most colleges, IMO. Chicago? Part of a similar eco structure. (Georgetown is an interesting example which I will get to in a minute.)

I never said that schools would not survive without football. My limited point is that I think schools with big time college football programs today would see a reduction in overall alumni giving. THAT reduction, IMO, needs to be factored into any consideration a school might make to drop FB. The actions of many schools in recent years only makes my point. Look at how many fans/alums of G5 schools post on these boards desperately hoping for a P5 invitation someday. To your earlier point, P5 schools, including the so-called "smaller" programs, are upping their game regarding investments to the FB program, not pulling back!

Finally, your example of Georgetown is interesting. One of my kids is a recent Georgetown grad and I know the school well. Fabulous school! The comparison to Boston College is interesting. Both highly regarded top-30ish academics, private, Catholic schools on the East Coast. Similar in size. Similar in student demographics. In the 1970's, however, Boston College was largely a commuter school and near bankruptcy. Today, Boston College is a peer of Georgetown and its endowment, as of 2013, is about 41% HIGHER than Georgetown's (BC: $1.809B; GTOWN: $1.286). Now there are probably lots of varied factors which contribute to this delta. However, the fact remains that big-time football is a huge differential between the schools. Without FB, I doubt this kind of delta would exist.





Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Clearly the schools believe that. The question is how much net, after athletics, would they have. $400 million for a new football stadium doesn't do anything (directly) for the rest of the university. If they get $10 million from a group instead of $20 million and $10 million of that goes to fund athletics they break even.

I think the state schools would have a lot harder time dropping it as they don't have as strong a connection with their alumni and as strong a giving history. And it raises the profile of regional schools like many of the Sun Belt members. A school that doesn't have the academic reputation of a Duke or Northwestern, someone like Tulsa, for example, would be more vulnerable to a decline. But I don't see a Duke or Northwestern having any difficulties. Having big-time football hasn't given Boston College a better academic reputation than Harvard, MIT or even Boston U, who dropped their FCS football a few years back.

I doubt our reputation has suffered much since we dropped out of D1 football in the 70s, and then for good in the 90s. I also doubt that the VCUs or Gonzagas of the world are hurting for attention without football.

(10-23-2014 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  Clearly the schools believe that. The question is how much net, after athletics, would they have. $400 million for a new football stadium doesn't do anything (directly) for the rest of the university. If they get $10 million from a group instead of $20 million and $10 million of that goes to fund athletics they break even.

I think the state schools would have a lot harder time dropping it as they don't have as strong a connection with their alumni and as strong a giving history. And it raises the profile of regional schools like many of the Sun Belt members. A school that doesn't have the academic reputation of a Duke or Northwestern, someone like Tulsa, for example, would be more vulnerable to a decline. But I don't see a Duke or Northwestern having any difficulties. Having big-time football hasn't given Boston College a better academic reputation than Harvard, MIT or even Boston U, who dropped their FCS football a few years back.

I think Louisville could get by without football. They have a national brand for basketball which won't be going away anytime soon.

(10-23-2014 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  Clearly the schools believe that. The question is how much net, after athletics, would they have. $400 million for a new football stadium doesn't do anything (directly) for the rest of the university. If they get $10 million from a group instead of $20 million and $10 million of that goes to fund athletics they break even.

I think the state schools would have a lot harder time dropping it as they don't have as strong a connection with their alumni and as strong a giving history. And it raises the profile of regional schools like many of the Sun Belt members. A school that doesn't have the academic reputation of a Duke or Northwestern, someone like Tulsa, for example, would be more vulnerable to a decline. But I don't see a Duke or Northwestern having any difficulties. Having big-time football hasn't given Boston College a better academic reputation than Harvard, MIT or even Boston U, who dropped their FCS football a few years back.

Again, your arguments don't address my central point. Specifically: I believe, for P5 programs (and that is what I am talking abut here), revenue streams from big time football and the resulting level of alumni donations to the school far outweighs the the expenses of running these programs. Don't believe me, believe the schools themselves and the actions they are taking, which even you have noted. Dropping down to the BE? And what are the differences in conference revenues between the P5 programs and the BE (before we even get to the resulting impacts on alumni donations!).

Your comparing BC to Harvard and MIT is, frankly, nonsensical. Harvard is the Ivy League and the top of the food chain. According to the most recent USN&WR survey of colleges, NO school other than Princeton is ranked higher. MIT? Really, that's your comparison? You could not pick two schools that are more different!

That said, the comparison of BC to those schools is much better now than it was in the 1970's! That's my point! Your logic seems to be: "Hey you went from being penniless to a multi, multi millionaire in a short time. But, hey, it didn't work because you still trail Bill Gates by a large margin!"

Boston University? Not sure what you are basing your opinion on. The USN&WR has BC ranked #31 and BU ranked #42. Do you think if this survey was done in, say, 1975, that would be the case?? Now, I understand that one can poke holes in any survey like this. But, again, we are talking about perception, and the USN&WR is one of the most used surveys for these kinds of comparisons.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I just did a little math, and my math tells me that the Texas AD isn't very good at his math. $6 million at $10K each equals 600 athletes on scholarship. UT offers 7 men's sports and 9 women's sports. The total number of scholarships allowed by the NCAA for those sports is 260.2, of which 133 are in the headcount sports of football, basketball (men and women), women's tennis and volleyball.

That leaves 127.2 scholarships for all other sports. Probably, some of these are full scholarships. But let's assume that none of them are, and that all of them are divided into the smallest shares allowed, which is three athletes per scholarship. That means they could have a maximum of 382 partial scholarships, and a total of 515 athletes on scholarship - well below the 600 claimed.

Looked at further, the cost of a full scholarship for an in-state athlete at Texas has been roughly $22K per year. If an athlete had been getting a 1/3 scholarship up to now, they would have gotten $7300 a year. With the full cost of attendance stipend, plus the use of image payment, they now get $17,300 or close to 80% of what used to be a full scholarship.

In effect, by paying the full $10K to partial scholarship recipients, Texas has effectively increased the number of full scholarship equivalents from the 127 allowed by the NCAA to 300 in the non-headcount sports they sponsor. That's an increase of 173 scholarships, without adding any sports. For the poster who said the women are the big winners here, you couldn't be more right.

Even at a school like Texas, which doesn't offer very many scholarships above the D-I minimums compared with their P5 compatriots , their female athletes will divide about $3 million a year more in order to allow the football players to get $850K a year more and the basketball team $130K more. Is that what the O'Bannon lawsuit was trying to accomplish?

(10-22-2014 08:23 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  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.

Still beats a completely irrelevant G5 playoff.

(10-23-2014 11:56 AM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:23 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  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.

Still beats a completely irrelevant G5 playoff.

I agree. Especially with an auto-bid to the Major Bowls in place for the highest G5 champ.

(10-23-2014 11:02 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  Clearly the schools believe that. The question is how much net, after athletics, would they have. $400 million for a new football stadium doesn't do anything (directly) for the rest of the university. If they get $10 million from a group instead of $20 million and $10 million of that goes to fund athletics they break even.

I think the state schools would have a lot harder time dropping it as they don't have as strong a connection with their alumni and as strong a giving history. And it raises the profile of regional schools like many of the Sun Belt members. A school that doesn't have the academic reputation of a Duke or Northwestern, someone like Tulsa, for example, would be more vulnerable to a decline. But I don't see a Duke or Northwestern having any difficulties. Having big-time football hasn't given Boston College a better academic reputation than Harvard, MIT or even Boston U, who dropped their FCS football a few years back.

Again, your arguments don't address my central point. Specifically: I believe, for P5 programs (and that is what I am talking abut here), revenue streams from big time football and the resulting level of alumni donations to the school far outweighs the the expenses of running these programs. Don't believe me, believe the schools themselves and the actions they are taking, which even you have noted. Dropping down to the BE? And what are the differences in conference revenues between the P5 programs and the BE (before we even get to the resulting impacts on alumni donations!).

Your comparing BC to Harvard and MIT is, frankly, nonsensical. Harvard is the Ivy League and the top of the food chain. According to the most recent USN&WR survey of colleges, NO school other than Princeton is ranked higher. MIT? Really, that's your comparison? You could not pick two schools that are more different!

That said, the comparison of BC to those schools is much better now than it was in the 1970's! That's my point! Your logic seems to be: "Hey you went from being penniless to a multi, multi millionaire in a short time. But, hey, it didn't work because you still trail Bill Gates by a large margin!"

Boston University? Not sure what you are basing your opinion on. The USN&WR has BC ranked #31 and BU ranked #42. Do you think if this survey was done in, say, 1975, that would be the case?? Now, I understand that one can poke holes in any survey like this. But, again, we are talking about perception, and the USN&WR is one of the most used surveys for these kinds of comparisons.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

WUR (57 BU vs. 126 BC), ARWU (72 vs 401-500) and even the AAU internal ratings. Boston U was one of the top schools not in the AAU at #37, tied with Dartmouth. That's why they got invited in 2012. Northeastern was #121 of the 126 schools listed. I didn't see BC on the list.

Elite private schools like Duke would not be hurt. They would lose about $15 million in conference revenue going to the Big East from the ACC. They would lose gate revenue. But they would still get donations related to basketball.

They would save 85 men's and a similar number of women's scholarships. At 50k a year, that's $8.5 million With 10k in additional amounts, you're over $10 million. They wouldn't spend millions on coaching staff and support staff. That could easily add to another $10 million. They wouldn't spend millions on facility construction and maintenance.

Unless there are a huge amount of donations to academics that get generated specifically by football, they may come out ahead. For Notre Dame, that's probably a huge amount. For Duke/Northwestern, I doubt that it is.

(10-23-2014 11:02 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  Clearly the schools believe that. The question is how much net, after athletics, would they have. $400 million for a new football stadium doesn't do anything (directly) for the rest of the university. If they get $10 million from a group instead of $20 million and $10 million of that goes to fund athletics they break even.

I think the state schools would have a lot harder time dropping it as they don't have as strong a connection with their alumni and as strong a giving history. And it raises the profile of regional schools like many of the Sun Belt members. A school that doesn't have the academic reputation of a Duke or Northwestern, someone like Tulsa, for example, would be more vulnerable to a decline. But I don't see a Duke or Northwestern having any difficulties. Having big-time football hasn't given Boston College a better academic reputation than Harvard, MIT or even Boston U, who dropped their FCS football a few years back.

Again, your arguments don't address my central point. Specifically: I believe, for P5 programs (and that is what I am talking abut here), revenue streams from big time football and the resulting level of alumni donations to the school far outweighs the the expenses of running these programs. Don't believe me, believe the schools themselves and the actions they are taking, which even you have noted. Dropping down to the BE? And what are the differences in conference revenues between the P5 programs and the BE (before we even get to the resulting impacts on alumni donations!).

Your comparing BC to Harvard and MIT is, frankly, nonsensical. Harvard is the Ivy League and the top of the food chain. According to the most recent USN&WR survey of colleges, NO school other than Princeton is ranked higher. MIT? Really, that's your comparison? You could not pick two schools that are more different!

That said, the comparison of BC to those schools is much better now than it was in the 1970's! That's my point! Your logic seems to be: "Hey you went from being penniless to a multi, multi millionaire in a short time. But, hey, it didn't work because you still trail Bill Gates by a large margin!"

Boston University? Not sure what you are basing your opinion on. The USN&WR has BC ranked #31 and BU ranked #42. Do you think if this survey was done in, say, 1975, that would be the case?? Now, I understand that one can poke holes in any survey like this. But, again, we are talking about perception, and the USN&WR is one of the most used surveys for these kinds of comparisons.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The question of how BC compares with Harvard, MIT and BU is pointless. The only relevant comparison is BC with FBS football vs BC without it. And that, of course, is hypothetical.

(10-23-2014 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:02 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  Clearly the schools believe that. The question is how much net, after athletics, would they have. $400 million for a new football stadium doesn't do anything (directly) for the rest of the university. If they get $10 million from a group instead of $20 million and $10 million of that goes to fund athletics they break even.

I think the state schools would have a lot harder time dropping it as they don't have as strong a connection with their alumni and as strong a giving history. And it raises the profile of regional schools like many of the Sun Belt members. A school that doesn't have the academic reputation of a Duke or Northwestern, someone like Tulsa, for example, would be more vulnerable to a decline. But I don't see a Duke or Northwestern having any difficulties. Having big-time football hasn't given Boston College a better academic reputation than Harvard, MIT or even Boston U, who dropped their FCS football a few years back.

Again, your arguments don't address my central point. Specifically: I believe, for P5 programs (and that is what I am talking abut here), revenue streams from big time football and the resulting level of alumni donations to the school far outweighs the the expenses of running these programs. Don't believe me, believe the schools themselves and the actions they are taking, which even you have noted. Dropping down to the BE? And what are the differences in conference revenues between the P5 programs and the BE (before we even get to the resulting impacts on alumni donations!).

Your comparing BC to Harvard and MIT is, frankly, nonsensical. Harvard is the Ivy League and the top of the food chain. According to the most recent USN&WR survey of colleges, NO school other than Princeton is ranked higher. MIT? Really, that's your comparison? You could not pick two schools that are more different!

That said, the comparison of BC to those schools is much better now than it was in the 1970's! That's my point! Your logic seems to be: "Hey you went from being penniless to a multi, multi millionaire in a short time. But, hey, it didn't work because you still trail Bill Gates by a large margin!"

Boston University? Not sure what you are basing your opinion on. The USN&WR has BC ranked #31 and BU ranked #42. Do you think if this survey was done in, say, 1975, that would be the case?? Now, I understand that one can poke holes in any survey like this. But, again, we are talking about perception, and the USN&WR is one of the most used surveys for these kinds of comparisons.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

WUR (57 BU vs. 126 BC), ARWU (72 vs 401-500) and even the AAU internal ratings. Boston U was one of the top schools not in the AAU at #37, tied with Dartmouth. That's why they got invited in 2012. Northeastern was #121 of the 126 schools listed. I didn't see BC on the list.

Sorry, but you are using comparisons that are irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. AAU? BC is not an AAU member. Big surprise. Neither is Notre Dame. Neither is Georgetown. All three are mid-sized private, Catholic schools which don't fit the AAU profile. The WUR and ARWU tend to favor graduate programs. The USN&WR is more undergraduate focused. That's why I indicated that you can poke holes in any of these academic surveys/rankings. That is why I have stayed away from these direct comparisons (other than to respond to your points) because you can always point to a survey that is better tailored to one school's profile or the other.

You continue to either misunderstand or misrepresent my point. My point has never been to compare one school versus another in an absolute sense. Again, my central point is that schools that have invested in big time FB programs and are in the P5 have seen a healthy return on their investment - both in terms of Conference revenues and alumni donations. Again, don't believe me. Believe what the P5 schools are doing. Have any pulled in their horns? No! Rather, they continue to make investments. Even G5 schools are by and large making added investments. Do you think that is coincidence? A fluke? By accident? The answer is no. These school see the economics. They know their situations and circumstances. You don't. They are making decisions accordingly.

Look, I have seen it first hand. BC went from a reported near bankruptcy pre-Flutie to, post-Flutie, sharply increasing the visibility of the school - to the point of getting 35,000 applicants annually for 2200 freshman spots. Now, there are lots of reasons for the BC turnaround. But pride in the school, fostered by FB success, helped to drive alumni donations, which made all of the investments possible. Name recognition, fostered by FB success, helped to drive enrollments, which allowed BC the ability to raise tuitions, to make the investments.

Again, look at what schools are doing! I would hazard a guess that they are more informed about their situations than either you or I. No?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-23-2014 10:43 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I doubt our reputation has suffered much since we dropped out of D1 football in the 70s, and then for good in the 90s. I also doubt that the VCUs or Gonzagas of the world are hurting for attention without football.

I really wish more schools would consider dropping it or moving down.

I have been to four schools and even Alabama did not give the same experience that high school football did.

High school football was fun, spirited, and social. You could go to the game see your friends play and have a nice time. If the other team was better it was because they fair and square had a better team.

D1 football is quickly losing that. You go into the season with a predetermined opinion of how good your team is. The media hypes up certain teams and tries to degrade any team that is not part of their chosen. And states try to politically hold back programs.

It was only about eight years ago that the majority of college football fans watched it because of the tradition and the average Joe aspect. Now it's worse than the NFL IMO.

(10-23-2014 02:14 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:43 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I doubt our reputation has suffered much since we dropped out of D1 football in the 70s, and then for good in the 90s. I also doubt that the VCUs or Gonzagas of the world are hurting for attention without football.

I really wish more schools would consider dropping it or moving down.

I have been to four schools and even Alabama did not give the same experience that high school football did.

High school football was fun, spirited, and social. You could go to the game see your friends play and have a nice time. If the other team was better it was because they fair and square had a better team.

D1 football is quickly losing that. You go into the season with a predetermined opinion of how good your team is. The media hypes up certain teams and tries to degrade any team that is not part of their chosen. And states try to politically hold back programs.

It was only about eight years ago that the majority of college football fans watched it because of the tradition and the average Joe aspect. Now it's worse than the NFL IMO.

Really? I don't know. Maybe it's just me. But College football is at least trying to make the actual games more meaningful in determining a champion. First the BCS and now the playoffs. Are they perfect? Probably not. However, IMO, they are a damn sight better than the "good old days" when national championships were 100% decided by media polls.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-23-2014 02:01 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:02 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  Clearly the schools believe that. The question is how much net, after athletics, would they have. $400 million for a new football stadium doesn't do anything (directly) for the rest of the university. If they get $10 million from a group instead of $20 million and $10 million of that goes to fund athletics they break even.

I think the state schools would have a lot harder time dropping it as they don't have as strong a connection with their alumni and as strong a giving history. And it raises the profile of regional schools like many of the Sun Belt members. A school that doesn't have the academic reputation of a Duke or Northwestern, someone like Tulsa, for example, would be more vulnerable to a decline. But I don't see a Duke or Northwestern having any difficulties. Having big-time football hasn't given Boston College a better academic reputation than Harvard, MIT or even Boston U, who dropped their FCS football a few years back.

Again, your arguments don't address my central point. Specifically: I believe, for P5 programs (and that is what I am talking abut here), revenue streams from big time football and the resulting level of alumni donations to the school far outweighs the the expenses of running these programs. Don't believe me, believe the schools themselves and the actions they are taking, which even you have noted. Dropping down to the BE? And what are the differences in conference revenues between the P5 programs and the BE (before we even get to the resulting impacts on alumni donations!).

Your comparing BC to Harvard and MIT is, frankly, nonsensical. Harvard is the Ivy League and the top of the food chain. According to the most recent USN&WR survey of colleges, NO school other than Princeton is ranked higher. MIT? Really, that's your comparison? You could not pick two schools that are more different!

That said, the comparison of BC to those schools is much better now than it was in the 1970's! That's my point! Your logic seems to be: "Hey you went from being penniless to a multi, multi millionaire in a short time. But, hey, it didn't work because you still trail Bill Gates by a large margin!"

Boston University? Not sure what you are basing your opinion on. The USN&WR has BC ranked #31 and BU ranked #42. Do you think if this survey was done in, say, 1975, that would be the case?? Now, I understand that one can poke holes in any survey like this. But, again, we are talking about perception, and the USN&WR is one of the most used surveys for these kinds of comparisons.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

WUR (57 BU vs. 126 BC), ARWU (72 vs 401-500) and even the AAU internal ratings. Boston U was one of the top schools not in the AAU at #37, tied with Dartmouth. That's why they got invited in 2012. Northeastern was #121 of the 126 schools listed. I didn't see BC on the list.

Sorry, but you are using comparisons that are irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. AAU? BC is not an AAU member. Big surprise. Neither is Notre Dame. Neither is Georgetown. All three are mid-sized private, Catholic schools which don't fit the AAU profile. The WUR and ARWU tend to favor graduate programs. The USN&WR is more undergraduate focused. That's why I indicated that you can poke holes in any of these academic surveys/rankings. That is why I have stayed away from these direct comparisons (other than to respond to your points) because you can always point to a survey that is better tailored to one school's profile or the other.

You continue to either misunderstand or misrepresent my point. My point has never been to compare one school versus another in an absolute sense. Again, my central point is that schools that have invested in big time FB programs and are in the P5 have seen a healthy return on their investment - both in terms of Conference revenues and alumni donations. Again, don't believe me. Believe what the P5 schools are doing. Have any pulled in their horns? No! Rather, they continue to make investments. Even G5 schools are by and large making added investments. Do you think that is coincidence? A fluke? By accident? The answer is no. These school see the economics. They know their situations and circumstances. You don't. They are making decisions accordingly.

Look, I have seen it first hand. BC went from a reported near bankruptcy pre-Flutie to, post-Flutie, sharply increasing the visibility of the school - to the point of getting 35,000 applicants annually for 2200 freshman spots. Now, there are lots of reasons for the BC turnaround. But pride in the school, fostered by FB success, helped to drive alumni donations, which made all of the investments possible. Name recognition, fostered by FB success, helped to drive enrollments, which allowed BC the ability to raise tuitions, to make the investments.

Again, look at what schools are doing! I would hazard a guess that they are more informed about their situations than either you or I. No?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

No, you are misunderstanding my point. BC's football hasn't raised its profile above Boston U. (students do, but no academics take USNWR seriously). In fact, when you said Georgetown and BC were peers, I almost laughed, thinking, "what a homer." However, I looked at the various rankings and BC is rated pretty close to Georgetown, so your comment was fair. But with most of your private peers not playing big time football, it really lowers BC's perception. Instead of playing football with Patriot League schools, its Atlantic publics mixed with some privates.

For a school in the position you described BC as being in pre-Flutie days, football can raise your profile. It has happened to Baylor (they were plenty comfortable financially, but had room to move up in academics). But for schools who are already highly regarded and who aren't football kings, I don't think it adds much. It may even detract. Its hard to think of Miami as being a good school when their alums let thugs be the image of their football team. Having a Shapiro with money around you does more harm than good.

(10-23-2014 02:21 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 02:14 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:43 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I doubt our reputation has suffered much since we dropped out of D1 football in the 70s, and then for good in the 90s. I also doubt that the VCUs or Gonzagas of the world are hurting for attention without football.

I really wish more schools would consider dropping it or moving down.

I have been to four schools and even Alabama did not give the same experience that high school football did.

High school football was fun, spirited, and social. You could go to the game see your friends play and have a nice time. If the other team was better it was because they fair and square had a better team.

D1 football is quickly losing that. You go into the season with a predetermined opinion of how good your team is. The media hypes up certain teams and tries to degrade any team that is not part of their chosen. And states try to politically hold back programs.

It was only about eight years ago that the majority of college football fans watched it because of the tradition and the average Joe aspect. Now it's worse than the NFL IMO.

Really? I don't know. Maybe it's just me. But College football is at least trying to make the actual games more meaningful in determining a champion. First the BCS and now the playoffs. Are they perfect? Probably not. However, IMO, they are a damn sight better than the "good old days" when national championships were 100% decided by media polls.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Must we really have a champion...a NO 1? To me it was more fun in the old days when the game was played for fun ....not ratings or rankings.

(10-22-2014 09:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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:  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.

That's a possibility. But there could also be some power conference teams that decide to drop down to FCS, opening spots for G5 schools that want to remain FBS. This in addition to the G5 schools that decide to go FCS rather than compete at the FBS level. Either way, it has the same effect.

We shall see what the future holds soon enough.

(10-23-2014 05:10 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 02:21 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 02:14 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:43 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I doubt our reputation has suffered much since we dropped out of D1 football in the 70s, and then for good in the 90s. I also doubt that the VCUs or Gonzagas of the world are hurting for attention without football.

I really wish more schools would consider dropping it or moving down.

I have been to four schools and even Alabama did not give the same experience that high school football did.

High school football was fun, spirited, and social. You could go to the game see your friends play and have a nice time. If the other team was better it was because they fair and square had a better team.

D1 football is quickly losing that. You go into the season with a predetermined opinion of how good your team is. The media hypes up certain teams and tries to degrade any team that is not part of their chosen. And states try to politically hold back programs.

It was only about eight years ago that the majority of college football fans watched it because of the tradition and the average Joe aspect. Now it's worse than the NFL IMO.

Really? I don't know. Maybe it's just me. But College football is at least trying to make the actual games more meaningful in determining a champion. First the BCS and now the playoffs. Are they perfect? Probably not. However, IMO, they are a damn sight better than the "good old days" when national championships were 100% decided by media polls.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Must we really have a champion...a NO 1? To me it was more fun in the old days when the game was played for fun ....not ratings or rankings.

The old days to me were the 50's, and rankings were still a big deal even then. The big difference, though, was that the final poll was taken after the regular season but before the bowl games. So a team could lose its bowl game and still be "national champion".

I'm with you about not needing to have a champion, but I long ago gave up any hope of that ever happening.

(10-23-2014 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 02:01 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:02 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  Clearly the schools believe that. The question is how much net, after athletics, would they have. $400 million for a new football stadium doesn't do anything (directly) for the rest of the university. If they get $10 million from a group instead of $20 million and $10 million of that goes to fund athletics they break even.

I think the state schools would have a lot harder time dropping it as they don't have as strong a connection with their alumni and as strong a giving history. And it raises the profile of regional schools like many of the Sun Belt members. A school that doesn't have the academic reputation of a Duke or Northwestern, someone like Tulsa, for example, would be more vulnerable to a decline. But I don't see a Duke or Northwestern having any difficulties. Having big-time football hasn't given Boston College a better academic reputation than Harvard, MIT or even Boston U, who dropped their FCS football a few years back.

Again, your arguments don't address my central point. Specifically: I believe, for P5 programs (and that is what I am talking abut here), revenue streams from big time football and the resulting level of alumni donations to the school far outweighs the the expenses of running these programs. Don't believe me, believe the schools themselves and the actions they are taking, which even you have noted. Dropping down to the BE? And what are the differences in conference revenues between the P5 programs and the BE (before we even get to the resulting impacts on alumni donations!).

Your comparing BC to Harvard and MIT is, frankly, nonsensical. Harvard is the Ivy League and the top of the food chain. According to the most recent USN&WR survey of colleges, NO school other than Princeton is ranked higher. MIT? Really, that's your comparison? You could not pick two schools that are more different!

That said, the comparison of BC to those schools is much better now than it was in the 1970's! That's my point! Your logic seems to be: "Hey you went from being penniless to a multi, multi millionaire in a short time. But, hey, it didn't work because you still trail Bill Gates by a large margin!"

Boston University? Not sure what you are basing your opinion on. The USN&WR has BC ranked #31 and BU ranked #42. Do you think if this survey was done in, say, 1975, that would be the case?? Now, I understand that one can poke holes in any survey like this. But, again, we are talking about perception, and the USN&WR is one of the most used surveys for these kinds of comparisons.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

WUR (57 BU vs. 126 BC), ARWU (72 vs 401-500) and even the AAU internal ratings. Boston U was one of the top schools not in the AAU at #37, tied with Dartmouth. That's why they got invited in 2012. Northeastern was #121 of the 126 schools listed. I didn't see BC on the list.

Sorry, but you are using comparisons that are irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. AAU? BC is not an AAU member. Big surprise. Neither is Notre Dame. Neither is Georgetown. All three are mid-sized private, Catholic schools which don't fit the AAU profile. The WUR and ARWU tend to favor graduate programs. The USN&WR is more undergraduate focused. That's why I indicated that you can poke holes in any of these academic surveys/rankings. That is why I have stayed away from these direct comparisons (other than to respond to your points) because you can always point to a survey that is better tailored to one school's profile or the other.

You continue to either misunderstand or misrepresent my point. My point has never been to compare one school versus another in an absolute sense. Again, my central point is that schools that have invested in big time FB programs and are in the P5 have seen a healthy return on their investment - both in terms of Conference revenues and alumni donations. Again, don't believe me. Believe what the P5 schools are doing. Have any pulled in their horns? No! Rather, they continue to make investments. Even G5 schools are by and large making added investments. Do you think that is coincidence? A fluke? By accident? The answer is no. These school see the economics. They know their situations and circumstances. You don't. They are making decisions accordingly.

Look, I have seen it first hand. BC went from a reported near bankruptcy pre-Flutie to, post-Flutie, sharply increasing the visibility of the school - to the point of getting 35,000 applicants annually for 2200 freshman spots. Now, there are lots of reasons for the BC turnaround. But pride in the school, fostered by FB success, helped to drive alumni donations, which made all of the investments possible. Name recognition, fostered by FB success, helped to drive enrollments, which allowed BC the ability to raise tuitions, to make the investments.

Again, look at what schools are doing! I would hazard a guess that they are more informed about their situations than either you or I. No?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

No, you are misunderstanding my point. BC's football hasn't raised its profile above Boston U. (students do, but no academics take USNWR seriously). In fact, when you said Georgetown and BC were peers, I almost laughed, thinking, "what a homer." However, I looked at the various rankings and BC is rated pretty close to Georgetown, so your comment was fair. But with most of your private peers not playing big time football, it really lowers BC's perception. Instead of playing football with Patriot League schools, its Atlantic publics mixed with some privates.

For a school in the position you described BC as being in pre-Flutie days, football can raise your profile. It has happened to Baylor (they were plenty comfortable financially, but had room to move up in academics). But for schools who are already highly regarded and who aren't football kings, I don't think it adds much. It may even detract. Its hard to think of Miami as being a good school when their alums let thugs be the image of their football team. Having a Shapiro with money around you does more harm than good.

Well, it is pointless for us to continue comparing BC and BU. They are both outstanding schools - but very different. For some students, BC is the better choice. For others, BU is the better choice. That said, such comparisons are not really critical to the point we are discussing. I agree that some schools would be just fine without FB. My limited point is that most schools with big time FB see a positive return on their investment in terms of revenues, visibility and connections to alumni, and donations. It's the reason why nobody has cut back or dropped from the P5. If what you said was true, we would be seeing some programs pull back; but NOBODY has done that, have they? Fact is that the P5 schools have the golden ticket and nobody is giving it up.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App