(04-18-2017 03:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:
(04-18-2017 03:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:
(04-18-2017 12:27 PM)miko33 Wrote: The articles apply to baseball ball parks; however, it can easily be applied to stadium projects for FB and most likely other sporting venues too.
The economic projections never pan out. How many universities screw themselves over trying to compete with the FB and BB factories who are only too happy to continue ratcheting up the costs. Out of all schools playing in the revenue sports conferences of FBS (and the main BB counterpart league), only 20 to 30 can actually afford our current levels. UMD is a mess. Rutgers is a mess. Cal-Berkeley is a mess. Vast majority of these schools playing at the highest levels are taking from the general funds to subsidize athletics.
Couple all this with the realities that 1) tuition costs continue to rise at rates higher than annual inflation, 2) states are funding public universities at lower levels than they have in decades and 3) people are wising up to false narrative that all college is good - no matter what degree choice you make.
I don't see how all of this is sustainable over the long term.
It's not sustainable for all schools. And for those which can't sustain it you need to get out and concentrate on what you can afford.
That won't deter most schools from pursuing it though. Who deserves the most blame in all this - the administrators at borderline schools that shouldn't be playing, or the fact that the system is set up to include too many schools at the top level? No doubt a significant number of schools in the existing P5 have no business being included when we're talking about the levels of commitment - financially - needed to compete.
I think the system is too inclusive based on the money we're discussing. Before you guys get your panties all wadded up, I'm including my school as one of the P5s that should not be competing financially on the levels of OSU, PSU, ND and Alabama.
Miko there might be 40 schools which can afford to compete at the highest level, maybe even fewer.
Right now the top school Texas grosses 180 million and of course puts most of that back into its sports. Consider that Georgia Tech managed just under 50 million last year and the distinction exceeds stark! I'd say there definitely needs to be an investment cutoff for a new upper tier let's say 90 million and up. Then there needs to be a cutoff for those with the investment and revenue levels that are in between 40 million and 80 million with the rest forming a third tier below the 40 million level.
What you would end up with is a much more competitive set of ranges and is somewhat more realistic.
That alone will take care of most of our realignment issues and perhaps it would reign in fan expectations while providing them with a realistic chance to win their strata.
But I guess that might occur when people quit buying cars they can't afford, or living in houses or subdivisions beyond their means, just so they can say "We're just as good as you are!" If you can't be happy being who you are then you are sucker for every dumb*** delusion and scheme that comes along.
It reminds me of a really old Beverly Hillbillies spawned joke from the 60's. A newly rich hillbilly family buys a house in the Hamptons. On a pretty Saturday afternoon their barefoot children wandered into the large yard of their neighbor and the son said to the neighbor, "Hey mister, we are just as good as you are. You have a 2 million dollar home and we have one. You have a yacht and we have one. You have a chauffeur and we have one too." The neighbor replied, "That's right son now go on back home." But the kid just stood there for a minute and then said, "Mister I think we're better than you!" The neighbor said, "I doubt that! How come you think so?" The kid replied, "We don't have no hillbillies living next to us!"
I find cars, home purchases, some clothes purchases, and college football ticket holders, especially tailgaters, generally fall into the same category.
Take care, JR