(12-12-2014 11:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Why the NFL won't just start their own minor leagues and control the revenue themselves is the question I find harder to answer.

Follow the $$$$$$$ or the lack of same. Currently, the NFL doesn't have to pay to support a minor league farm system, it's employees and the liabilities encumbered by another level of players.

(12-12-2014 10:31 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Leebron, who has some role in the NCAA decisionmaking (I'm too lazy to look it up), has been pretty supportive of the P5 efforts to pay players and to, in effect, distance themselves from middle-tier schools. Leebron's support for such measures might seem counterintuitive.

My personal theory is that he is thinking both pragmatically and strategically.

Perhaps Leebron's thinking is that the truly elite programs will get what's theirs, no matter what. The new measures that Leebron seems to support will probably put little to no strain on schools like Georgia or Oklahoma or Texas. They will put a lot of strain on the Iowas and West Virginias and the Kentuckys and the Texas Techs and the UHs. In other words, I think of the 130 or so FBS schools as being divided into (1) the truly elite, quasi-professional programs, comprising about 30 schools, (2) the truly bottom programs, comprising about 30 schools (including Rice), and (3) the vast middle majority that want to keep up as much as possible with Group (1). My guess is that the new measures throw a monkey wrench in the operations of that middle-class group. And to the extent the new measures cause some discord or fracturing and bellyaching in Group (3), and perhaps even some revolt against Group (1), maybe Leebron sees this as benefiting Rice.

Maybe the thinking is, if you're at the bottom of society, anything that upsets the status quo--even revolution--can't do anything but help.

My take is similar with the important difference that Rice might be in middle group. If FBS contracts to 70-80 schools, I think we can make that cut (if we choose). And in such a scenario we might end up with 5-7 conferences, in which case an all-inclusive playoff is much more plausible.

Now if 40 or fewer schools break away, as some have suggested, we aren't going to be a part of that. And I wouldn't want to be. At that point, I'd just watch the real NFL.

(12-15-2014 10:45 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 10:31 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Leebron, who has some role in the NCAA decisionmaking (I'm too lazy to look it up), has been pretty supportive of the P5 efforts to pay players and to, in effect, distance themselves from middle-tier schools. Leebron's support for such measures might seem counterintuitive.

My personal theory is that he is thinking both pragmatically and strategically.

Perhaps Leebron's thinking is that the truly elite programs will get what's theirs, no matter what. The new measures that Leebron seems to support will probably put little to no strain on schools like Georgia or Oklahoma or Texas. They will put a lot of strain on the Iowas and West Virginias and the Kentuckys and the Texas Techs and the UHs. In other words, I think of the 130 or so FBS schools as being divided into (1) the truly elite, quasi-professional programs, comprising about 30 schools, (2) the truly bottom programs, comprising about 30 schools (including Rice), and (3) the vast middle majority that want to keep up as much as possible with Group (1). My guess is that the new measures throw a monkey wrench in the operations of that middle-class group. And to the extent the new measures cause some discord or fracturing and bellyaching in Group (3), and perhaps even some revolt against Group (1), maybe Leebron sees this as benefiting Rice.

Maybe the thinking is, if you're at the bottom of society, anything that upsets the status quo--even revolution--can't do anything but help.

My take is similar with the important difference that Rice might be in middle group. If FBS contracts to 70-80 schools, I think we can make that cut (if we choose). And in such a scenario we might end up with 5-7 conferences, in which case an all-inclusive playoff is much more plausible.

Now if 40 or fewer schools break away, as some have suggested, we aren't going to be a part of that. And I wouldn't want to be. At that point, I'd just watch the real NFL.

I'll provide an alternative view. While there obviously is (and likely always will be) a stratification within the P5 between relative haves and relative have-nots, I do not see it leading to much further "professionalization" of college football and certainly not any further "breakaway"/contraction of the P5.

First of all, the P5 have-not group is much larger than the have group and will constrain the most egregious of the haves' impulses through sheer numbers/democracy. For every Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. - schools with vast resources and huge, rabid fanbases (significantly, often with a large proportion of non-alumni or even non-college-graduate members who really aren't invested in maintaining the school's academic respectability or even pretenses thereof) that would readily support the use of any means necessary to win - there are 3 to 4 Washington States, Iowa States, Mississippis, Virginias, Purdues, etc. (not to mention, of course, the P5 private schools) i.e., schools that could never hope to keep up in a truly no-holds-barred competitive environment. I will eat my hat if, say, players are ever allowed to major in football (much less not be required to even enroll in classes and are just paid straight out as employees), or if the scholarship limit is substantially increased from 85 (much less dealt away with entirely). There just aren't even close to the numbers required for approval of such radical deregulation - not in the P5 and certainly not at the Congressional level which is the ultimate safety net for the have-nots.

Of course, the response to the above might be that those constraining numerical realities are precisely what could prompt a breakaway by the "haves." But really, just think it through. It's a given that nobody (relatively speaking) gives a flip about minor league pro sports. And that's what a breakaway group would be: a group of 30 (maybe not even that many) schools playing nakedly professional football, but a vastly inferior brand thereof, with inevitably a pro-style playoff format where something like 8-4 would get in, rendering the regular season meaningless. The demand for football, per se, in Alabama (or Louisiana, Texas, wherever) is not inelastic by any means, as any number of defunct WFL, USFL, etc. franchises prove. College football's whole appeal is built on history, tradition, alumni ties/pride, an "every game counts" regular season, and the essential meaningfulness of trying to fight through a large nationwide group to the very top. So in breaking away and forming a minor pro league the haves would destroy their brands and end up killing the goose that's laying their golden eggs.

They are too smart for that. The haves, despite certainly chafing at having to constantly prop up the have-nots, need them for the whole thing to work, and vice versa. That's the paradox that binds all sports leagues together and works powerfully against contraction in all but the most dire situations, because (see the communism/capitalism threads in the smack forum) competition (consumed for entertainment purposes) amongst relative equals is the whole end product of the industry and therefore competition must basically be restrained, as opposed to all other industries in which competition inevitably resulting in contraction (weaker firms going out of business) is promoted because it ultimately leads to better end products.

So while there always has been - and always will continue to be - tinkering at the margins with the specifics of the fig leaves that cover this whole enterprise (let's face it, anything resembling true amateurism long ago went out the window - literally like a hundred years ago), the essential myth of it all (a myth which has gained considerable power and now yields tremendous value for those who took any of Doc C's classes! ) will always be maintained.

And as for the tinkerings currently under discussion, I don't think giving players "cost of attendance" stipends of $5K-$10K and a few more years of medical coverage and whatever other incremental steps are being bandied about is going to financially break any school that's currently in the P5. Not even close. We're talking another $1M-$2M per year in costs, right? Even for the lowest level P5s with athletic budgets of $50M, that is only a 2%-4% increase. With all the ballooning TV contracts for the P5 conferences and the playoff, that money is there.

Now in response to THAT, people might say these mid to low level P5 athletic departments are ALREADY losing money or just breaking even, so why would they blithely go along with even further costs and going further into the red every year? To which I would say: Why do you think they have been OK with going into the red every year up through now anyway? I mean, we presume rational people are in charge in the presidents', ADs', and BOTs' offices at these universities, right? They obviously know they have been losing/breaking even year after year after year and - just as obviously - have kept right on doing the same. Why?

Because - and critically, I am not sure the powers that be at Rice fully comprehend this - they have realized that even if you don't make a profit, big-time athletics still serves as a loss leader that more than pays back its investment to the university at large. For instance, yearly applications to TCU have tripled or more over the past 10+ years, enabling them to be more selective (or "selective" ) and boosting their rankings (which will lead to more people willing to pay full freight to go there). Ditto, Miami (a school nobody had heard of before the 1980s, now top-50); ditto, Baylor; and so forth. Being considered part of the "cool kids" (P5) also absolutely drives alumni giving. The best part is that you don't even have to win consistently on the field to reap the benefits! Oregon State's had a couple good years in the past 20 or so (which is about when they started investing seriously in football), sure, but no national championships, no Rose Bowls, and really they are still basically a .500 program over those years (granted, a major improvement over the previous 20 years when they were truly awful). Yet their enrollment has doubled in that time. Doubled. Just by itself that's going to lead to increased alumni giving.

Conversely, as a thought experiment, imagine what would happen to alumni giving at Oregon State or wherever if they were to drop down to a lower tier in football. It would dry up overnight, and IMO certainly would drop by more than whatever subsidy the athletic department receives from the university (through student fees or whatever). So that subsidy money is money well spent, and is why you won't be seeing any contraction in the P5.

TL; DR: Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee.

Very good and thoughtful post, Illiniowl.

(12-15-2014 06:40 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 10:45 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 10:31 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Leebron, who has some role in the NCAA decisionmaking (I'm too lazy to look it up), has been pretty supportive of the P5 efforts to pay players and to, in effect, distance themselves from middle-tier schools. Leebron's support for such measures might seem counterintuitive.

My personal theory is that he is thinking both pragmatically and strategically.

Perhaps Leebron's thinking is that the truly elite programs will get what's theirs, no matter what. The new measures that Leebron seems to support will probably put little to no strain on schools like Georgia or Oklahoma or Texas. They will put a lot of strain on the Iowas and West Virginias and the Kentuckys and the Texas Techs and the UHs. In other words, I think of the 130 or so FBS schools as being divided into (1) the truly elite, quasi-professional programs, comprising about 30 schools, (2) the truly bottom programs, comprising about 30 schools (including Rice), and (3) the vast middle majority that want to keep up as much as possible with Group (1). My guess is that the new measures throw a monkey wrench in the operations of that middle-class group. And to the extent the new measures cause some discord or fracturing and bellyaching in Group (3), and perhaps even some revolt against Group (1), maybe Leebron sees this as benefiting Rice.

Maybe the thinking is, if you're at the bottom of society, anything that upsets the status quo--even revolution--can't do anything but help.

My take is similar with the important difference that Rice might be in middle group. If FBS contracts to 70-80 schools, I think we can make that cut (if we choose). And in such a scenario we might end up with 5-7 conferences, in which case an all-inclusive playoff is much more plausible.

Now if 40 or fewer schools break away, as some have suggested, we aren't going to be a part of that. And I wouldn't want to be. At that point, I'd just watch the real NFL.

I'll provide an alternative view. While there obviously is (and likely always will be) a stratification within the P5 between relative haves and relative have-nots, I do not see it leading to much further "professionalization" of college football and certainly not any further "breakaway"/contraction of the P5.

First of all, the P5 have-not group is much larger than the have group and will constrain the most egregious of the haves' impulses through sheer numbers/democracy. For every Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. - schools with vast resources and huge, rabid fanbases (significantly, often with a large proportion of non-alumni or even non-college-graduate members who really aren't invested in maintaining the school's academic respectability or even pretenses thereof) that would readily support the use of any means necessary to win - there are 3 to 4 Washington States, Iowa States, Mississippis, Virginias, Purdues, etc. (not to mention, of course, the P5 private schools) i.e., schools that could never hope to keep up in a truly no-holds-barred competitive environment. I will eat my hat if, say, players are ever allowed to major in football (much less not be required to even enroll in classes and are just paid straight out as employees), or if the scholarship limit is substantially increased from 85 (much less dealt away with entirely). There just aren't even close to the numbers required for approval of such radical deregulation - not in the P5 and certainly not at the Congressional level which is the ultimate safety net for the have-nots.

Of course, the response to the above might be that those constraining numerical realities are precisely what could prompt a breakaway by the "haves." But really, just think it through. It's a given that nobody (relatively speaking) gives a flip about minor league pro sports. And that's what a breakaway group would be: a group of 30 (maybe not even that many) schools playing nakedly professional football, but a vastly inferior brand thereof, with inevitably a pro-style playoff format where something like 8-4 would get in, rendering the regular season meaningless. The demand for football, per se, in Alabama (or Louisiana, Texas, wherever) is not inelastic by any means, as any number of defunct WFL, USFL, etc. franchises prove. College football's whole appeal is built on history, tradition, alumni ties/pride, an "every game counts" regular season, and the essential meaningfulness of trying to fight through a large nationwide group to the very top. So in breaking away and forming a minor pro league the haves would destroy their brands and end up killing the goose that's laying their golden eggs.

They are too smart for that. The haves, despite certainly chafing at having to constantly prop up the have-nots, need them for the whole thing to work, and vice versa. That's the paradox that binds all sports leagues together and works powerfully against contraction in all but the most dire situations, because (see the communism/capitalism threads in the smack forum) competition (consumed for entertainment purposes) amongst relative equals is the whole end product of the industry and therefore competition must basically be restrained, as opposed to all other industries in which competition inevitably resulting in contraction (weaker firms going out of business) is promoted because it ultimately leads to better end products.

So while there always has been - and always will continue to be - tinkering at the margins with the specifics of the fig leaves that cover this whole enterprise (let's face it, anything resembling true amateurism long ago went out the window - literally like a hundred years ago), the essential myth of it all (a myth which has gained considerable power and now yields tremendous value for those who took any of Doc C's classes! ) will always be maintained.

And as for the tinkerings currently under discussion, I don't think giving players "cost of attendance" stipends of $5K-$10K and a few more years of medical coverage and whatever other incremental steps are being bandied about is going to financially break any school that's currently in the P5. Not even close. We're talking another $1M-$2M per year in costs, right? Even for the lowest level P5s with athletic budgets of $50M, that is only a 2%-4% increase. With all the ballooning TV contracts for the P5 conferences and the playoff, that money is there.

Now in response to THAT, people might say these mid to low level P5 athletic departments are ALREADY losing money or just breaking even, so why would they blithely go along with even further costs and going further into the red every year? To which I would say: Why do you think they have been OK with going into the red every year up through now anyway? I mean, we presume rational people are in charge in the presidents', ADs', and BOTs' offices at these universities, right? They obviously know they have been losing/breaking even year after year after year and - just as obviously - have kept right on doing the same. Why?

Because - and critically, I am not sure the powers that be at Rice fully comprehend this - they have realized that even if you don't make a profit, big-time athletics still serves as a loss leader that more than pays back its investment to the university at large. For instance, yearly applications to TCU have tripled or more over the past 10+ years, enabling them to be more selective (or "selective" ) and boosting their rankings (which will lead to more people willing to pay full freight to go there). Ditto, Miami (a school nobody had heard of before the 1980s, now top-50); ditto, Baylor; and so forth. Being considered part of the "cool kids" (P5) also absolutely drives alumni giving. The best part is that you don't even have to win consistently on the field to reap the benefits! Oregon State's had a couple good years in the past 20 or so (which is about when they started investing seriously in football), sure, but no national championships, no Rose Bowls, and really they are still basically a .500 program over those years (granted, a major improvement over the previous 20 years when they were truly awful). Yet their enrollment has doubled in that time. Doubled. Just by itself that's going to lead to increased alumni giving.

Conversely, as a thought experiment, imagine what would happen to alumni giving at Oregon State or wherever if they were to drop down to a lower tier in football. It would dry up overnight, and IMO certainly would drop by more than whatever subsidy the athletic department receives from the university (through student fees or whatever). So that subsidy money is money well spent, and is why you won't be seeing any contraction in the P5.

TL; DR: Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee.

Great, great post.

(12-15-2014 07:18 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:40 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 10:45 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 10:31 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Leebron, who has some role in the NCAA decisionmaking (I'm too lazy to look it up), has been pretty supportive of the P5 efforts to pay players and to, in effect, distance themselves from middle-tier schools. Leebron's support for such measures might seem counterintuitive.

My personal theory is that he is thinking both pragmatically and strategically.

Perhaps Leebron's thinking is that the truly elite programs will get what's theirs, no matter what. The new measures that Leebron seems to support will probably put little to no strain on schools like Georgia or Oklahoma or Texas. They will put a lot of strain on the Iowas and West Virginias and the Kentuckys and the Texas Techs and the UHs. In other words, I think of the 130 or so FBS schools as being divided into (1) the truly elite, quasi-professional programs, comprising about 30 schools, (2) the truly bottom programs, comprising about 30 schools (including Rice), and (3) the vast middle majority that want to keep up as much as possible with Group (1). My guess is that the new measures throw a monkey wrench in the operations of that middle-class group. And to the extent the new measures cause some discord or fracturing and bellyaching in Group (3), and perhaps even some revolt against Group (1), maybe Leebron sees this as benefiting Rice.

Maybe the thinking is, if you're at the bottom of society, anything that upsets the status quo--even revolution--can't do anything but help.

My take is similar with the important difference that Rice might be in middle group. If FBS contracts to 70-80 schools, I think we can make that cut (if we choose). And in such a scenario we might end up with 5-7 conferences, in which case an all-inclusive playoff is much more plausible.

Now if 40 or fewer schools break away, as some have suggested, we aren't going to be a part of that. And I wouldn't want to be. At that point, I'd just watch the real NFL.

I'll provide an alternative view. While there obviously is (and likely always will be) a stratification within the P5 between relative haves and relative have-nots, I do not see it leading to much further "professionalization" of college football and certainly not any further "breakaway"/contraction of the P5.

First of all, the P5 have-not group is much larger than the have group and will constrain the most egregious of the haves' impulses through sheer numbers/democracy. For every Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. - schools with vast resources and huge, rabid fanbases (significantly, often with a large proportion of non-alumni or even non-college-graduate members who really aren't invested in maintaining the school's academic respectability or even pretenses thereof) that would readily support the use of any means necessary to win - there are 3 to 4 Washington States, Iowa States, Mississippis, Virginias, Purdues, etc. (not to mention, of course, the P5 private schools) i.e., schools that could never hope to keep up in a truly no-holds-barred competitive environment. I will eat my hat if, say, players are ever allowed to major in football (much less not be required to even enroll in classes and are just paid straight out as employees), or if the scholarship limit is substantially increased from 85 (much less dealt away with entirely). There just aren't even close to the numbers required for approval of such radical deregulation - not in the P5 and certainly not at the Congressional level which is the ultimate safety net for the have-nots.

Of course, the response to the above might be that those constraining numerical realities are precisely what could prompt a breakaway by the "haves." But really, just think it through. It's a given that nobody (relatively speaking) gives a flip about minor league pro sports. And that's what a breakaway group would be: a group of 30 (maybe not even that many) schools playing nakedly professional football, but a vastly inferior brand thereof, with inevitably a pro-style playoff format where something like 8-4 would get in, rendering the regular season meaningless. The demand for football, per se, in Alabama (or Louisiana, Texas, wherever) is not inelastic by any means, as any number of defunct WFL, USFL, etc. franchises prove. College football's whole appeal is built on history, tradition, alumni ties/pride, an "every game counts" regular season, and the essential meaningfulness of trying to fight through a large nationwide group to the very top. So in breaking away and forming a minor pro league the haves would destroy their brands and end up killing the goose that's laying their golden eggs.

They are too smart for that. The haves, despite certainly chafing at having to constantly prop up the have-nots, need them for the whole thing to work, and vice versa. That's the paradox that binds all sports leagues together and works powerfully against contraction in all but the most dire situations, because (see the communism/capitalism threads in the smack forum) competition (consumed for entertainment purposes) amongst relative equals is the whole end product of the industry and therefore competition must basically be restrained, as opposed to all other industries in which competition inevitably resulting in contraction (weaker firms going out of business) is promoted because it ultimately leads to better end products.

So while there always has been - and always will continue to be - tinkering at the margins with the specifics of the fig leaves that cover this whole enterprise (let's face it, anything resembling true amateurism long ago went out the window - literally like a hundred years ago), the essential myth of it all (a myth which has gained considerable power and now yields tremendous value for those who took any of Doc C's classes! ) will always be maintained.

And as for the tinkerings currently under discussion, I don't think giving players "cost of attendance" stipends of $5K-$10K and a few more years of medical coverage and whatever other incremental steps are being bandied about is going to financially break any school that's currently in the P5. Not even close. We're talking another $1M-$2M per year in costs, right? Even for the lowest level P5s with athletic budgets of $50M, that is only a 2%-4% increase. With all the ballooning TV contracts for the P5 conferences and the playoff, that money is there.

Now in response to THAT, people might say these mid to low level P5 athletic departments are ALREADY losing money or just breaking even, so why would they blithely go along with even further costs and going further into the red every year? To which I would say: Why do you think they have been OK with going into the red every year up through now anyway? I mean, we presume rational people are in charge in the presidents', ADs', and BOTs' offices at these universities, right? They obviously know they have been losing/breaking even year after year after year and - just as obviously - have kept right on doing the same. Why?

Because - and critically, I am not sure the powers that be at Rice fully comprehend this - they have realized that even if you don't make a profit, big-time athletics still serves as a loss leader that more than pays back its investment to the university at large. For instance, yearly applications to TCU have tripled or more over the past 10+ years, enabling them to be more selective (or "selective" ) and boosting their rankings (which will lead to more people willing to pay full freight to go there). Ditto, Miami (a school nobody had heard of before the 1980s, now top-50); ditto, Baylor; and so forth. Being considered part of the "cool kids" (P5) also absolutely drives alumni giving. The best part is that you don't even have to win consistently on the field to reap the benefits! Oregon State's had a couple good years in the past 20 or so (which is about when they started investing seriously in football), sure, but no national championships, no Rose Bowls, and really they are still basically a .500 program over those years (granted, a major improvement over the previous 20 years when they were truly awful). Yet their enrollment has doubled in that time. Doubled. Just by itself that's going to lead to increased alumni giving.

Conversely, as a thought experiment, imagine what would happen to alumni giving at Oregon State or wherever if they were to drop down to a lower tier in football. It would dry up overnight, and IMO certainly would drop by more than whatever subsidy the athletic department receives from the university (through student fees or whatever). So that subsidy money is money well spent, and is why you won't be seeing any contraction in the P5.

TL; DR: Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee.

Great, great post.

I'll second (or third) that. In fact, it's so well written and thought-out-- particularly the final paragrath, I'd strongly encourage you to send it to BOTH Dr. K and Leebron (who's also serving on the NCAA Executive Committee), cc.ing Bobby Tudor. Seriously. Very well done.

(12-15-2014 06:40 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  ...tinkering at the margins with the specifics of the fig leaves that cover this whole enterprise (let's face it, anything resembling true amateurism long ago went out the window - literally like a hundred years ago)...

Because - and critically, I am not sure the powers that be at Rice fully comprehend this - they have realized that even if you don't make a profit, big-time athletics still serves as a loss leader that more than pays back its investment to the university at large....

imagine what would happen to alumni giving at Oregon State or wherever if they were to drop down to a lower tier in football. It would dry up overnight, and IMO certainly would drop by more than whatever subsidy the athletic department receives from the university (through student fees or whatever). So that subsidy money is money well spent, and is why you won't be seeing any contraction in the P5.

TL; DR: Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee.

Post of the year! Well done, sir!

Great post. And declining attendance in many college football venues shows that you CAN kill the golden goose - as a Longhorn, I can't get worked up about playing Iowa State...I want to beat the Aggies and Sooners and schools of my family like Rice :-) As an adopted Virginia Cavalier, I will never care as much about beating Syracuse as beating VaTech or Maryland for local bragging rights....College sports is driven by regional and/or historic rivalries, as least for me.

(12-15-2014 08:35 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:18 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:40 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 10:45 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 10:31 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Leebron, who has some role in the NCAA decisionmaking (I'm too lazy to look it up), has been pretty supportive of the P5 efforts to pay players and to, in effect, distance themselves from middle-tier schools. Leebron's support for such measures might seem counterintuitive.

My personal theory is that he is thinking both pragmatically and strategically.

Perhaps Leebron's thinking is that the truly elite programs will get what's theirs, no matter what. The new measures that Leebron seems to support will probably put little to no strain on schools like Georgia or Oklahoma or Texas. They will put a lot of strain on the Iowas and West Virginias and the Kentuckys and the Texas Techs and the UHs. In other words, I think of the 130 or so FBS schools as being divided into (1) the truly elite, quasi-professional programs, comprising about 30 schools, (2) the truly bottom programs, comprising about 30 schools (including Rice), and (3) the vast middle majority that want to keep up as much as possible with Group (1). My guess is that the new measures throw a monkey wrench in the operations of that middle-class group. And to the extent the new measures cause some discord or fracturing and bellyaching in Group (3), and perhaps even some revolt against Group (1), maybe Leebron sees this as benefiting Rice.

Maybe the thinking is, if you're at the bottom of society, anything that upsets the status quo--even revolution--can't do anything but help.

My take is similar with the important difference that Rice might be in middle group. If FBS contracts to 70-80 schools, I think we can make that cut (if we choose). And in such a scenario we might end up with 5-7 conferences, in which case an all-inclusive playoff is much more plausible.

Now if 40 or fewer schools break away, as some have suggested, we aren't going to be a part of that. And I wouldn't want to be. At that point, I'd just watch the real NFL.

I'll provide an alternative view. While there obviously is (and likely always will be) a stratification within the P5 between relative haves and relative have-nots, I do not see it leading to much further "professionalization" of college football and certainly not any further "breakaway"/contraction of the P5.

First of all, the P5 have-not group is much larger than the have group and will constrain the most egregious of the haves' impulses through sheer numbers/democracy. For every Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. - schools with vast resources and huge, rabid fanbases (significantly, often with a large proportion of non-alumni or even non-college-graduate members who really aren't invested in maintaining the school's academic respectability or even pretenses thereof) that would readily support the use of any means necessary to win - there are 3 to 4 Washington States, Iowa States, Mississippis, Virginias, Purdues, etc. (not to mention, of course, the P5 private schools) i.e., schools that could never hope to keep up in a truly no-holds-barred competitive environment. I will eat my hat if, say, players are ever allowed to major in football (much less not be required to even enroll in classes and are just paid straight out as employees), or if the scholarship limit is substantially increased from 85 (much less dealt away with entirely). There just aren't even close to the numbers required for approval of such radical deregulation - not in the P5 and certainly not at the Congressional level which is the ultimate safety net for the have-nots.

Of course, the response to the above might be that those constraining numerical realities are precisely what could prompt a breakaway by the "haves." But really, just think it through. It's a given that nobody (relatively speaking) gives a flip about minor league pro sports. And that's what a breakaway group would be: a group of 30 (maybe not even that many) schools playing nakedly professional football, but a vastly inferior brand thereof, with inevitably a pro-style playoff format where something like 8-4 would get in, rendering the regular season meaningless. The demand for football, per se, in Alabama (or Louisiana, Texas, wherever) is not inelastic by any means, as any number of defunct WFL, USFL, etc. franchises prove. College football's whole appeal is built on history, tradition, alumni ties/pride, an "every game counts" regular season, and the essential meaningfulness of trying to fight through a large nationwide group to the very top. So in breaking away and forming a minor pro league the haves would destroy their brands and end up killing the goose that's laying their golden eggs.

They are too smart for that. The haves, despite certainly chafing at having to constantly prop up the have-nots, need them for the whole thing to work, and vice versa. That's the paradox that binds all sports leagues together and works powerfully against contraction in all but the most dire situations, because (see the communism/capitalism threads in the smack forum) competition (consumed for entertainment purposes) amongst relative equals is the whole end product of the industry and therefore competition must basically be restrained, as opposed to all other industries in which competition inevitably resulting in contraction (weaker firms going out of business) is promoted because it ultimately leads to better end products.

So while there always has been - and always will continue to be - tinkering at the margins with the specifics of the fig leaves that cover this whole enterprise (let's face it, anything resembling true amateurism long ago went out the window - literally like a hundred years ago), the essential myth of it all (a myth which has gained considerable power and now yields tremendous value for those who took any of Doc C's classes! ) will always be maintained.

And as for the tinkerings currently under discussion, I don't think giving players "cost of attendance" stipends of $5K-$10K and a few more years of medical coverage and whatever other incremental steps are being bandied about is going to financially break any school that's currently in the P5. Not even close. We're talking another $1M-$2M per year in costs, right? Even for the lowest level P5s with athletic budgets of $50M, that is only a 2%-4% increase. With all the ballooning TV contracts for the P5 conferences and the playoff, that money is there.

Now in response to THAT, people might say these mid to low level P5 athletic departments are ALREADY losing money or just breaking even, so why would they blithely go along with even further costs and going further into the red every year? To which I would say: Why do you think they have been OK with going into the red every year up through now anyway? I mean, we presume rational people are in charge in the presidents', ADs', and BOTs' offices at these universities, right? They obviously know they have been losing/breaking even year after year after year and - just as obviously - have kept right on doing the same. Why?

Because - and critically, I am not sure the powers that be at Rice fully comprehend this - they have realized that even if you don't make a profit, big-time athletics still serves as a loss leader that more than pays back its investment to the university at large. For instance, yearly applications to TCU have tripled or more over the past 10+ years, enabling them to be more selective (or "selective" ) and boosting their rankings (which will lead to more people willing to pay full freight to go there). Ditto, Miami (a school nobody had heard of before the 1980s, now top-50); ditto, Baylor; and so forth. Being considered part of the "cool kids" (P5) also absolutely drives alumni giving. The best part is that you don't even have to win consistently on the field to reap the benefits! Oregon State's had a couple good years in the past 20 or so (which is about when they started investing seriously in football), sure, but no national championships, no Rose Bowls, and really they are still basically a .500 program over those years (granted, a major improvement over the previous 20 years when they were truly awful). Yet their enrollment has doubled in that time. Doubled. Just by itself that's going to lead to increased alumni giving.

Conversely, as a thought experiment, imagine what would happen to alumni giving at Oregon State or wherever if they were to drop down to a lower tier in football. It would dry up overnight, and IMO certainly would drop by more than whatever subsidy the athletic department receives from the university (through student fees or whatever). So that subsidy money is money well spent, and is why you won't be seeing any contraction in the P5.

TL; DR: Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee.

Great, great post.

I'll second (or third) that. In fact, it's so well written and thought-out-- particularly the final paragrath, I'd strongly encourage you to send it to BOTH Dr. K and Leebron (who's also serving on the NCAA Executive Committee), cc.ing Bobby Tudor. Seriously. Very well done.

I'll second Walt's second. Send it.

Most cogent single paragraph re Rice athletics dilemma I believe I've ever seen:

Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee

(12-15-2014 09:50 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:40 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  ...tinkering at the margins with the specifics of the fig leaves that cover this whole enterprise (let's face it, anything resembling true amateurism long ago went out the window - literally like a hundred years ago)...

Because - and critically, I am not sure the powers that be at Rice fully comprehend this - they have realized that even if you don't make a profit, big-time athletics still serves as a loss leader that more than pays back its investment to the university at large....

imagine what would happen to alumni giving at Oregon State or wherever if they were to drop down to a lower tier in football. It would dry up overnight, and IMO certainly would drop by more than whatever subsidy the athletic department receives from the university (through student fees or whatever). So that subsidy money is money well spent, and is why you won't be seeing any contraction in the P5.

TL; DR: Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee.

Post of the year! Well done, sir!

+1.

(12-15-2014 11:04 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 08:35 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:18 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:40 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 10:45 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  My take is similar with the important difference that Rice might be in middle group. If FBS contracts to 70-80 schools, I think we can make that cut (if we choose). And in such a scenario we might end up with 5-7 conferences, in which case an all-inclusive playoff is much more plausible.

Now if 40 or fewer schools break away, as some have suggested, we aren't going to be a part of that. And I wouldn't want to be. At that point, I'd just watch the real NFL.

I'll provide an alternative view. While there obviously is (and likely always will be) a stratification within the P5 between relative haves and relative have-nots, I do not see it leading to much further "professionalization" of college football and certainly not any further "breakaway"/contraction of the P5.

First of all, the P5 have-not group is much larger than the have group and will constrain the most egregious of the haves' impulses through sheer numbers/democracy. For every Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. - schools with vast resources and huge, rabid fanbases (significantly, often with a large proportion of non-alumni or even non-college-graduate members who really aren't invested in maintaining the school's academic respectability or even pretenses thereof) that would readily support the use of any means necessary to win - there are 3 to 4 Washington States, Iowa States, Mississippis, Virginias, Purdues, etc. (not to mention, of course, the P5 private schools) i.e., schools that could never hope to keep up in a truly no-holds-barred competitive environment. I will eat my hat if, say, players are ever allowed to major in football (much less not be required to even enroll in classes and are just paid straight out as employees), or if the scholarship limit is substantially increased from 85 (much less dealt away with entirely). There just aren't even close to the numbers required for approval of such radical deregulation - not in the P5 and certainly not at the Congressional level which is the ultimate safety net for the have-nots.

Of course, the response to the above might be that those constraining numerical realities are precisely what could prompt a breakaway by the "haves." But really, just think it through. It's a given that nobody (relatively speaking) gives a flip about minor league pro sports. And that's what a breakaway group would be: a group of 30 (maybe not even that many) schools playing nakedly professional football, but a vastly inferior brand thereof, with inevitably a pro-style playoff format where something like 8-4 would get in, rendering the regular season meaningless. The demand for football, per se, in Alabama (or Louisiana, Texas, wherever) is not inelastic by any means, as any number of defunct WFL, USFL, etc. franchises prove. College football's whole appeal is built on history, tradition, alumni ties/pride, an "every game counts" regular season, and the essential meaningfulness of trying to fight through a large nationwide group to the very top. So in breaking away and forming a minor pro league the haves would destroy their brands and end up killing the goose that's laying their golden eggs.

They are too smart for that. The haves, despite certainly chafing at having to constantly prop up the have-nots, need them for the whole thing to work, and vice versa. That's the paradox that binds all sports leagues together and works powerfully against contraction in all but the most dire situations, because (see the communism/capitalism threads in the smack forum) competition (consumed for entertainment purposes) amongst relative equals is the whole end product of the industry and therefore competition must basically be restrained, as opposed to all other industries in which competition inevitably resulting in contraction (weaker firms going out of business) is promoted because it ultimately leads to better end products.

So while there always has been - and always will continue to be - tinkering at the margins with the specifics of the fig leaves that cover this whole enterprise (let's face it, anything resembling true amateurism long ago went out the window - literally like a hundred years ago), the essential myth of it all (a myth which has gained considerable power and now yields tremendous value for those who took any of Doc C's classes! ) will always be maintained.

And as for the tinkerings currently under discussion, I don't think giving players "cost of attendance" stipends of $5K-$10K and a few more years of medical coverage and whatever other incremental steps are being bandied about is going to financially break any school that's currently in the P5. Not even close. We're talking another $1M-$2M per year in costs, right? Even for the lowest level P5s with athletic budgets of $50M, that is only a 2%-4% increase. With all the ballooning TV contracts for the P5 conferences and the playoff, that money is there.

Now in response to THAT, people might say these mid to low level P5 athletic departments are ALREADY losing money or just breaking even, so why would they blithely go along with even further costs and going further into the red every year? To which I would say: Why do you think they have been OK with going into the red every year up through now anyway? I mean, we presume rational people are in charge in the presidents', ADs', and BOTs' offices at these universities, right? They obviously know they have been losing/breaking even year after year after year and - just as obviously - have kept right on doing the same. Why?

Because - and critically, I am not sure the powers that be at Rice fully comprehend this - they have realized that even if you don't make a profit, big-time athletics still serves as a loss leader that more than pays back its investment to the university at large. For instance, yearly applications to TCU have tripled or more over the past 10+ years, enabling them to be more selective (or "selective" ) and boosting their rankings (which will lead to more people willing to pay full freight to go there). Ditto, Miami (a school nobody had heard of before the 1980s, now top-50); ditto, Baylor; and so forth. Being considered part of the "cool kids" (P5) also absolutely drives alumni giving. The best part is that you don't even have to win consistently on the field to reap the benefits! Oregon State's had a couple good years in the past 20 or so (which is about when they started investing seriously in football), sure, but no national championships, no Rose Bowls, and really they are still basically a .500 program over those years (granted, a major improvement over the previous 20 years when they were truly awful). Yet their enrollment has doubled in that time. Doubled. Just by itself that's going to lead to increased alumni giving.

Conversely, as a thought experiment, imagine what would happen to alumni giving at Oregon State or wherever if they were to drop down to a lower tier in football. It would dry up overnight, and IMO certainly would drop by more than whatever subsidy the athletic department receives from the university (through student fees or whatever). So that subsidy money is money well spent, and is why you won't be seeing any contraction in the P5.

TL; DR: Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee.

Great, great post.

I'll second (or third) that. In fact, it's so well written and thought-out-- particularly the final paragrath, I'd strongly encourage you to send it to BOTH Dr. K and Leebron (who's also serving on the NCAA Executive Committee), cc.ing Bobby Tudor. Seriously. Very well done.

I'll second Walt's second. Send it.

Most cogent single paragraph re Rice athletics dilemma I believe I've ever seen:

Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee

IlliniOwl-- I'm truly serious about sending at least that final paragraph to Joe Karlgaard, if not Leebron and Tudor, as well. And if you would rather not do it personally, please allow myself or someone else with more direct and personal ties with the key players to pass the message along (leaving your name anonymous if you wish). I think it's THAT spot on and powerful.

Another medium to deliver this sort of message would be for an alumnus to write an op-ed for the Thresher sports section, which I assume they still occasionally solicit. Certainly less of an influential audience than Karlgaard, Leebron and Tudor, but obviously a much broader one that is targeted towards those who will potentially choose to donate their time, effort and money to Rice athletics someday.

Thanks for the kind words! Well first of all, I don't think "spend more money" is an original idea, haha. But Walt, if you think JK, Leebron, or Bobby Tudor would benefit from hearing it, it will be much more effective coming from someone with relationships and influence like yourself or whomever rather than from some random alum they've never heard of, i.e., me. I'll PM my identity details to whomever wants them but I have no pride of authorship; I just want Rice to succeed. You might want to clean it up a bit first, though: I did call them cheap, after all. I also tend to say elitist things about our conference mates at times and I know that isn't diplomatic. (In my defense, this is the internet.)

The main point is that I just think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing, and urgently. Someone in a recent thread suggested maybe we need another McKinsey study since conditions on the ground have changed so much since the last one. I really, really agree with this, and frankly I think it's a better proposal and far more likely to gain traction than my wordy rant. I mean, I've made an argument for why I think we cannot go on doing what we're doing, and why I think significantly increasing our commitment to football (read, increasing the subsidy) could be justified (and I also think it would spur private donations as well, as opposed to us waiting for private donations to materialize and increase first like we seem to be doing now), and I've marshaled a little evidence for this view, but it's not researched with empirical data anywhere near the level of even a serious op-ed, much less a consultant's audit. So I'd suggest passing along that idea first!

(12-16-2014 03:20 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Thanks for the kind words! Well first of all, I don't think "spend more money" is an original idea, haha. But Walt, if you think JK, Leebron, or Bobby Tudor would benefit from hearing it, it will be much more effective coming from someone with relationships and influence like yourself or whomever rather than from some random alum they've never heard of, i.e., me. I'll PM my identity details to whomever wants them but I have no pride of authorship; I just want Rice to succeed. You might want to clean it up a bit first, though: I did call them cheap, after all. I also tend to say elitist things about our conference mates at times and I know that isn't diplomatic. (In my defense, this is the internet.)

The main point is that I just think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing, and urgently. Someone in a recent thread suggested maybe we need another McKinsey study since conditions on the ground have changed so much since the last one. I really, really agree with this, and frankly I think it's a better proposal and far more likely to gain traction than my wordy rant. I mean, I've made an argument for why I think we cannot go on doing what we're doing, and why I think significantly increasing our commitment to football (read, increasing the subsidy) could be justified (and I also think it would spur private donations as well, as opposed to us waiting for private donations to materialize and increase first like we seem to be doing now), and I've marshaled a little evidence for this view, but it's not researched with empirical data anywhere near the level of even a serious op-ed, much less a consultant's audit. So I'd suggest passing along that idea first!

I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

(12-16-2014 07:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:20 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Thanks for the kind words! Well first of all, I don't think "spend more money" is an original idea, haha. But Walt, if you think JK, Leebron, or Bobby Tudor would benefit from hearing it, it will be much more effective coming from someone with relationships and influence like yourself or whomever rather than from some random alum they've never heard of, i.e., me. I'll PM my identity details to whomever wants them but I have no pride of authorship; I just want Rice to succeed. You might want to clean it up a bit first, though: I did call them cheap, after all. I also tend to say elitist things about our conference mates at times and I know that isn't diplomatic. (In my defense, this is the internet.)
The main point is that I just think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing, and urgently. Someone in a recent thread suggested maybe we need another McKinsey study since conditions on the ground have changed so much since the last one. I really, really agree with this, and frankly I think it's a better proposal and far more likely to gain traction than my wordy rant. I mean, I've made an argument for why I think we cannot go on doing what we're doing, and why I think significantly increasing our commitment to football (read, increasing the subsidy) could be justified (and I also think it would spur private donations as well, as opposed to us waiting for private donations to materialize and increase first like we seem to be doing now), and I've marshaled a little evidence for this view, but it's not researched with empirical data anywhere near the level of even a serious op-ed, much less a consultant's audit. So I'd suggest passing along that idea first!

I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

The problem with McKinsey was that we didn't make proper use of the results. It got portrayed as "oh, well, we don't need to drop football" and so we could continue the status quo. McKinsey was actually an excellent analysis, and perceived as so among many in the athletic department, that said was that it was time to do it right. We're only starting to absorb and apply that lesson now, at least partially.

(12-16-2014 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:20 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Thanks for the kind words! Well first of all, I don't think "spend more money" is an original idea, haha. But Walt, if you think JK, Leebron, or Bobby Tudor would benefit from hearing it, it will be much more effective coming from someone with relationships and influence like yourself or whomever rather than from some random alum they've never heard of, i.e., me. I'll PM my identity details to whomever wants them but I have no pride of authorship; I just want Rice to succeed. You might want to clean it up a bit first, though: I did call them cheap, after all. I also tend to say elitist things about our conference mates at times and I know that isn't diplomatic. (In my defense, this is the internet.)
The main point is that I just think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing, and urgently. Someone in a recent thread suggested maybe we need another McKinsey study since conditions on the ground have changed so much since the last one. I really, really agree with this, and frankly I think it's a better proposal and far more likely to gain traction than my wordy rant. I mean, I've made an argument for why I think we cannot go on doing what we're doing, and why I think significantly increasing our commitment to football (read, increasing the subsidy) could be justified (and I also think it would spur private donations as well, as opposed to us waiting for private donations to materialize and increase first like we seem to be doing now), and I've marshaled a little evidence for this view, but it's not researched with empirical data anywhere near the level of even a serious op-ed, much less a consultant's audit. So I'd suggest passing along that idea first!

I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

The problem with McKinsey was that we didn't make proper use of the results. It got portrayed as "oh, well, we don't need to drop football" and so we could continue the status quo. McKinsey was actually an excellent analysis, and perceived as so among many in the athletic department, that said was that it was time to do it right. We're only starting to absorb and apply that lesson now, at least partially.

Maybe so, but the publicity surrounding it was far worse than any misapplication of its recommendations IMO. No matter how 'rational' it would be to repeat it, it would be a horrible, horrible message to send today and would set us back even further in terms of national perception.

(12-16-2014 07:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:20 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Thanks for the kind words! Well first of all, I don't think "spend more money" is an original idea, haha. But Walt, if you think JK, Leebron, or Bobby Tudor would benefit from hearing it, it will be much more effective coming from someone with relationships and influence like yourself or whomever rather than from some random alum they've never heard of, i.e., me. I'll PM my identity details to whomever wants them but I have no pride of authorship; I just want Rice to succeed. You might want to clean it up a bit first, though: I did call them cheap, after all. I also tend to say elitist things about our conference mates at times and I know that isn't diplomatic. (In my defense, this is the internet.)

The main point is that I just think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing, and urgently. Someone in a recent thread suggested maybe we need another McKinsey study since conditions on the ground have changed so much since the last one. I really, really agree with this, and frankly I think it's a better proposal and far more likely to gain traction than my wordy rant. I mean, I've made an argument for why I think we cannot go on doing what we're doing, and why I think significantly increasing our commitment to football (read, increasing the subsidy) could be justified (and I also think it would spur private donations as well, as opposed to us waiting for private donations to materialize and increase first like we seem to be doing now), and I've marshaled a little evidence for this view, but it's not researched with empirical data anywhere near the level of even a serious op-ed, much less a consultant's audit. So I'd suggest passing along that idea first!

I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

Agree 100%. Only one way the public, outside recruiters and potential recruits would take an announcement of a study right now.

It certainly didn't help recruiting last time around.

(12-16-2014 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:20 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Thanks for the kind words! Well first of all, I don't think "spend more money" is an original idea, haha. But Walt, if you think JK, Leebron, or Bobby Tudor would benefit from hearing it, it will be much more effective coming from someone with relationships and influence like yourself or whomever rather than from some random alum they've never heard of, i.e., me. I'll PM my identity details to whomever wants them but I have no pride of authorship; I just want Rice to succeed. You might want to clean it up a bit first, though: I did call them cheap, after all. I also tend to say elitist things about our conference mates at times and I know that isn't diplomatic. (In my defense, this is the internet.)
The main point is that I just think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing, and urgently. Someone in a recent thread suggested maybe we need another McKinsey study since conditions on the ground have changed so much since the last one. I really, really agree with this, and frankly I think it's a better proposal and far more likely to gain traction than my wordy rant. I mean, I've made an argument for why I think we cannot go on doing what we're doing, and why I think significantly increasing our commitment to football (read, increasing the subsidy) could be justified (and I also think it would spur private donations as well, as opposed to us waiting for private donations to materialize and increase first like we seem to be doing now), and I've marshaled a little evidence for this view, but it's not researched with empirical data anywhere near the level of even a serious op-ed, much less a consultant's audit. So I'd suggest passing along that idea first!

I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

The problem with McKinsey was that we didn't make proper use of the results. It got portrayed as "oh, well, we don't need to drop football" and . . . . . . .

Agree, and this is the problem. A number of professors, board members, even alumni, and certainly the public will see a study like this, and assume it's all about whether we follow U of Chicago or UAB, etc. It will become "the talking point" for the study, regardless of what else we hope it would accomplish.

The "oh, well" is the telling part . . .

(12-16-2014 07:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

Very good point. Unfortunately, the only way the Street would interpret Rice undertaking a new/updated McKinsey study would be to assume that Rice is seriously considering dropping football or D1 sports. The only way to do it would be a confidential engagement.

Or better yet, as 69 alludes to, just implement the initiatives that you paid McKinsey so much money to formulate.

Why does it have to be an alumnus to write the op-ed, since there are enough current students who could write one?

Instead of commissioning a new McKinsey study, why do we ask a business strategy class in the Jones school or a sports management class to come up with updates to the study. Most of the old study is relevant and could be updated. Usually the reason outside consultants are brought in is to sell unpopular business decisions that the management wants to get flak protection for themselves. So I agree that it would look bad if we went outside for a new study. I think the issue is very clear which is how much we are willing to do to have successful football.

(12-16-2014 01:43 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Another medium to deliver this sort of message would be for an alumnus to write an op-ed for the Thresher sports section, which I assume they still occasionally solicit. Certainly less of an influential audience than Karlgaard, Leebron and Tudor, but obviously a much broader one that is targeted towards those who will potentially choose to donate their time, effort and money to Rice athletics someday.