Wow. 55,000 showing up for a non SEC game with just a little success has you completely unnerved. You know if we were truly a BB school the Fourm would be full. Even with bad teams.

(11-25-2015 08:40 AM)dcg141 Wrote:  Wow. 55,000 showing up for a non SEC game with just a little success has you completely unnerved. You know if we were truly a BB school the Fourm would be full. Even with bad teams.

You don't understand Memphis. Money is such that many people will not spend money to watch a team lose badly and glibly respond with "well, we need to invest in football to get into the Big 12". I , nor anyone else, should expect any losing athletic team to draw sellouts (College or Pro). Memphis demographics don't support that.

Also, keep in mind when Memphis B-ball was winning, with Cal and even with Finch, the people who were going didn't necessarily reflect the demographics of Memphis in general. Yes, they were Memphians, but the crowd did not reflect the demographic distribution of the city. Many of the programs most invested people probably could never afford a ticket, yet the felt a connection like the richest donor. The team represented all of Memphis when not too much else could. So, to gauge what the B-ball team means to the city goes deeper than who and how many show up for the games. This about more than money.

55K for Navy was wonderful. I really think if we won that game, Fuente would have probably stayed, because it couldn't get any better for Memphis Football than that and they really showed that there is a ceiling for Memphis football and it is way short of elite college football status. Fuente realized that, I just wonder when will many football-first people here begin to see that. Memphis is not a small, rural college town that will hang its hopes on a football program who's ceiling is the Miami Beach or Birmingham Bowl like it will on a team of B-ball players who's ceiling can be a national championship (as a program, not under Pastner, of course).

I just see the bigger and better picture here with what Memphis athletics means to this city. It has never been and can never be driven by the greed of college football TV money, but by what the Basketball team means and represents to the whole city.

Only way Fuente was going to stay was if we were in one of the Big 5 conferences. Since nothing has happened, there was nothing we could have done.

(11-25-2015 08:56 AM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 08:40 AM)dcg141 Wrote:  Wow. 55,000 showing up for a non SEC game with just a little success has you completely unnerved. You know if we were truly a BB school the Fourm would be full. Even with bad teams.

You don't understand Memphis. Money is such that many people will not spend money to watch a team lose badly and glibly respond with "well, we need to invest in football to get into the Big 12". I , nor anyone else, should expect any losing athletic team to draw sellouts (College or Pro). Memphis demographics don't support that.

Also, keep in mind when Memphis B-ball was winning, with Cal and even with Finch, the people who were going didn't necessarily reflect the demographics of Memphis in general. Yes, they were Memphians, but the crowd did not reflect the demographic distribution of the city. Many of the programs most invested people probably could never afford a ticket, yet the felt a connection like the richest donor. The team represented all of Memphis when not too much else could. So, to gauge what the B-ball team means to the city goes deeper than who and how many show up for the games. This about more than money.

55K for Navy was wonderful. I really think if we won that game, Fuente would have probably stayed, because it couldn't get any better for Memphis Football than that and they really showed that there is a ceiling for Memphis football and it is way short of elite college football status. Fuente realized that, I just wonder when will many football-first people here begin to see that. Memphis is not a small, rural college town that will hang its hopes on a football program who's ceiling is the Miami Beach or Birmingham Bowl like it will on a team of B-ball players who's ceiling can be a national championship (as a program, not under Pastner, of course).

I just see the bigger and better picture here with what Memphis athletics means to this city. It has never been and can never be driven by the greed of college football TV money, but by what the Basketball team means and represents to the whole city.

Memphis demographics mesh with football BETTER than basketball. Less games, lower price point. It's why the NFL here has always been a no brainer and the NBA was a much higher risk.

But to your main point, you want college sports to be something "more than what it is" (personally I would use the Finch teams of the seventies as a better exemplar of that ideal than the Cal team of 2008, but whatever). Therefore Memphis needs to be a basketball school. The bad news is there AREN'T basketball and football schools. There is P5 and G5. I know it hasn't yet gutted basketball because of the tournament, etc. but it is happening...and in a few short years could happen over night as the NCAA becomes the NIT. If we aren't going to be P5, we will not be able to keep up in basketball either. Look at it this way, to have sustainable success in basketball is locked in a room. The key to the door of that room is football. Also a big pronouncement: bet anyone 100 dollars a P5 team wins the NCAA TOURNAMENT this year? Takers?

(11-25-2015 09:33 AM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  Memphis demographics mesh with football BETTER than basketball. Less games, lower price point. It's why the NFL here has always been a no brainer and the NBA was a much higher risk.

But to your main point, you want college sports to be something "more than what it is" (personally I would use the Finch teams of the seventies as a better exemplar of that ideal than the Cal team of 2008, but whatever). Therefore Memphis needs to be a basketball school. The bad news is there AREN'T basketball and football schools. There is P5 and G5. I know it hasn't yet gutted basketball because of the tournament, etc. but it is happening...and in a few short years could happen over night as the NCAA becomes the NIT. If we aren't going to be P5, we will not be able to keep up in basketball either. Look at it this way, to have sustainable success in basketball is locked in a room. The key to the door of that room is football. Also a big pronouncement: bet anyone 100 dollars a P5 team wins the NCAA TOURNAMENT this year? Takers?

If the demographics mesh better with football, then why has the NFL never been successful here (or pro football of any kind for that matter)? The Grizz have thrived only since they have been winning, which speaks to the financials in the city (we can't afford to spend money on a losing team). I referenced Finch going to MSU as a symbol of what the team means to the city. The reference to Cal was about who actually had the money to attend games vs. how much the team represented the whole city. So I get your point, the Finch teams in the 70's (and I say the 80's and 90's) are a great representation of what the B-ball program means to the whole city.

In terms of what P5/G5 means to college athletics, I disagree. not being in the P5 doesn't mean NIT. There is nothing in the TV deals that would indicate that these P5 conferences will start their own b-ball tourney. They make over $1 Billion a year with what they have now. A move to create their own B-ball tourney would be strictly a greed move that the Universities are weary of even now with football in many circles (look at the Northwestern and O'Bannon lawsuits).

I agree that the NCAA will itself look vastly different in, say, 10 to 20 years. Amateurism will really become redefined. But I don't think the money will become even more concentrated in the P5 as much as it will trickle down more from the adults to the student/athletes. That is why the doomsday talk of being left out of the P5 makes no sense to me. If we were talking strictly about amateur teams not affiliated with institutions of higher learning, then you may have a point. But colleges and universities, though less now than they should, cannot and are not primarily motivated by money only in athletics. They have to consider the contribution athletics has to the overall learning environment of the schools themselves. So, all of these money moves strictly for money sake, and buying out multi-million dollar contracts by boosters will begin to come under serious scrutiny, mainly by accrediting agencies. Money can't drive academic institutions' decision making concerning structures and alignments/affiliations, lest they lose academic integrity. This may not mean much for the football-first crowd here, but trust it means a whole lot to college presidents and provosts, boards of regents and accrediting agencies.

Football is the steak, basketball is the lumpy mashed potatoes.

(11-25-2015 11:07 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Football is the steak, basketball is the lumpy mashed potatoes.

True but we can't make steak out of rat meat overnight. We have to keep our lumpy mashed potatoes really good, gourmet quality lumpy mashed potatoes while we are cooking the steak or else we have nothing.

The only reason to care about getting into a P5 conference is to limit the financial losses from football. There are only 20 college football programs in the black, I will never live to see Memphis football in the black. The enormous revenue provided by college football is only surpassed by one thing, the even more enormous expense. Basketball is usually in the black even at small schools because it's expense footprint is so small.

I'm for all investing in football in order to improve the football program AND improve the conference situation, but everyone should be looking at the situation correctly. I want the school to be in a P5 conference, if for nothing else, to improve the image of the school. I'm starting to worry that our perceived academics are more of a problem than how much is spent on football.

Either that or coach Fuente wants the ability to shoot supper from his front porch. I have a hard time believing that Roanoke VA, can economically out bid Memphis for a football coach. Of course you could save money on groceries.

Well, you either invest in football or drop it. Finally the powers that be understood that and made their decision. We are going to retain CJF at 3 mil or go out and pay someone else that money. That's not changing and if you are not on board with that you are essentially advocating dropping football.

(11-25-2015 12:14 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  Well, you either invest in football or drop it. Finally the powers that be understood that and made their decision. We are going to retain CJF at 3 mil or go out and pay someone else that money. That's not changing and if you are not on board with that you are essentially advocating dropping football.

I would hope not. You gotta prove you are worth 3 mill. A DC or OC needs to prove he can be a HC a couple of years before you write the big contract.

So, all schools who are not in P5 conferences are going to be dropping football? I don't think so.

It is about marketing the schools by conference and providing an economic counterbalance to the enormous expense of college football. I agree the stakes are high, and the football investment in Memphis is the correct move, but exaggeration during a discussion is counterproductive.

(11-25-2015 11:15 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 11:07 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Football is the steak, basketball is the lumpy mashed potatoes.

True but we can't make steak out of rat meat overnight. We have to keep our lumpy mashed potatoes really good, gourmet quality lumpy mashed potatoes while we are cooking the steak or else we have nothing.

Some people just don't get this

(11-25-2015 12:28 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  So, all schools who are not in P5 conferences are going to be dropping football? I don't think so.

It is about marketing the schools by conference and providing an economic counterbalance to the enormous expense of college football. I agree the stakes are high, and the football investment in Memphis is the correct move, but exaggeration during a discussion is counterproductive.

We went for years and invested nothing in football. The team could not even practice when it rained wo using local high school fields. We still do not have the expense of a stadium. You guys are acting like we have leveraged the farm here. Spending money on football has already paid off. Big time FB boosters have stepped up to the plate. If you guys want a new BB coach you need to get all the Mike Rose's to step up and do the same.

(11-25-2015 12:51 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 12:28 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  So, all schools who are not in P5 conferences are going to be dropping football? I don't think so.

It is about marketing the schools by conference and providing an economic counterbalance to the enormous expense of college football. I agree the stakes are high, and the football investment in Memphis is the correct move, but exaggeration during a discussion is counterproductive.

We went for years and invested nothing in football. The team could not even practice when it rained wo using local high school fields. We still do not have the expense of a stadium. You guys are acting like we have leveraged the farm here. Spending money on football has already paid off. Big time FB boosters have stepped up to the plate. If you guys want a new BB coach you need to get all the Mike Rose's to step up and do the same.

A MEN, BROTHA. This could not be overstated.

(11-25-2015 12:51 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 12:28 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  So, all schools who are not in P5 conferences are going to be dropping football? I don't think so.

It is about marketing the schools by conference and providing an economic counterbalance to the enormous expense of college football. I agree the stakes are high, and the football investment in Memphis is the correct move, but exaggeration during a discussion is counterproductive.

We went for years and invested nothing in football. The team could not even practice when it rained wo using local high school fields. We still do not have the expense of a stadium. You guys are acting like we have leveraged the farm here. Spending money on football has already paid off. Big time FB boosters have stepped up to the plate. If you guys want a new BB coach you need to get all the Mike Rose's to step up and do the same.

I don't disagree with your comment. I said it is the right move. I just don't like people implying that football will some how provide an excess of money to the athletic department. That will never happen. It is about improving conference affiliation so that we can limit the losses from football. Football will always lose money at Memphis, what we need to do is increase revenue to lower the inevitable losses.

Pastner is still there because that's what the money that calls the shots wants. You want a new coach you need to talk to them and quit blaming football.

Not blaming football. It is what it is.

This has NOTHING to do with who the basketball coach is or how well the team does. It doesn't matter how good the basketball team is, if it did we would already be in a P5 conference. Again most basketball teams are in the black, there just isn't much expense.

(11-25-2015 01:22 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  Not blaming football. It is what it is.

This has NOTHING to do with who the basketball coach is or how well the team does. It doesn't matter how good the basketball team is, if it did we would already be in a P5 conference. Again most basketball teams are in the black, there just isn't much expense.

Accounting wise, Athletic Departments are never going to be in the black, until you start factoring in, ancillary revenue and increase in applicants. Its not a question of improving the bottom line as much as it is a serious boost to the university. It affects everything from number of students to number of alumni, to alumni giving.

I think it is safe to say, that most on this board and most in the City would LOVE to see the University grow in Academic Stature and to shake off the mid major or "commuter" school label. Athletics, like it or not is VERY much a means to this end. And by Athletics, I mean football. A school ALREADY in a P5 has the luxury of being a basketball school (KY, KS, Duke), the rest do not. And the inequality gap between the P5 and G5 is growing. Again, i will bet anyone on this board 100 dollars that the winner of the NCAA is a P5 school? takers?

And I am not saying that the choice is shutter basketball and concentrate only on Football, nor am I saying that if 450 is correct and there is money there to fire Pastner, hire a new coach, and keep football going, and have money left over for potential re-alignment costs, that we shouldn't do all of that. My point is that I disagree with 450's assertion AND if we have to choose between the latter two options we take our lumps with Pastner out of financial necessity.

Agree with most of what you posted.

Football is going to lose money no matter what. It will lose LESS money if we are in a P5 conference.
Have to spend money to lose less.

Basketball is almost irrelevant, basketball cannot make enough to fund football wwith or without a P5 conference invite.

(11-25-2015 02:39 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  Agree with most of what you posted.

Football is going to lose money no matter what. It will lose LESS money if we are in a P5 conference.
Have to spend money to lose less.

Basketball is almost irrelevant, basketball cannot make enough to fund football wwith or without a P5 conference invite.

I agree that football, big time college football, is expensive and ultimately not as profitable as many on here believe. I think ESPN or Forbes did a study in 2013 showing that only like 6 or 7 football programs were in the black, regardless of conference affiliation. My argument is that in order to have a truly competitive football program at Memphis consistently would require an investment that is not sustainable in a market like Memphis. Most of the reason why football is such a money pit is that it is driven by fan bases in communities that are obsessed with college football. Those communities are typically rural college towns where prominent alumni use their money to wear the programs like jewelry and trophies. Meanwhile, the mostly rural fan bases live vicariously through the programs (Alabama, Auburn, UT, Texas, Oregon, etc.). That ain't Memphis.

Alignment with the P5 conferences to mitigate loses in football assumes that keeping the investment in football as it is cannot be an option. I argue that Memphis is in a great position for what it is. Why chance all of that to play the money pit P5 game? To do this at the expense of basketball makes no sense in Memphis. Why believe that Memphis couldn't continue to improve in football and sustain nationally prominent to relevant basketball program while in the AAC? All of the ingredients for a successful conference is right there, if but the conference schools continue to grow and bet better.