Eagle78
1st String
Posts: 1,394
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 111
I Root For: BC
Location:
|
Waiting on GOR's to Expire Is Not Good for Deserving G5's, Privates, & Little...
(08-19-2015 11:24 PM)Okielite Wrote: (08-19-2015 10:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote: (08-19-2015 05:55 PM)Okielite Wrote: (08-19-2015 03:21 PM)Eagle78 Wrote: (08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).
Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.
You make excellent points, Frog. It IS worth noting that the schools that reportedly have had financial issues as it applied to their athletic programs were large PUBLIC universities.
IMO, the ever tightening squeeze on state budgets will have an impact on state universities. Additional revenues through tax increases will be less and less politically palatable to a public that already faces high tax burdens. In addition, IMO, the ever-increasing debt loads incurred by state governments will make raising revenues through the selling of state bonds a much more selective process. To the extent additional revenues are needed for state university budgets, I think athletics will take a back seat to critical academic needs. IMO, increasingly, state universities will have to do what privates have been doing forever - fund their athletic programs largely by themselves. Now, this will be no problem for the Ohio States's, Michigan's, and Texas' of the world (indeed, schools in this category already have massive alumni/donor $$ support). Other state universities, as we have already seen, may face choppier waters.
As an alumni/fan of a private school, I think it is rather liberating not to have to go to the state legislature, hat in hand, asking for money, or be subject to their whims. BC, has its own on-campus 44,500 seat stadium, including 65 or so luxury boxes (with a dozen facing out to both the stadium on one side and the attached basketball/hockey arena on the other side. It has a state-of-the-art attached football building, and soon will be building an indoor practice facility. It recently spent reportedly over $4M on giant video boards in each end zone that have the highest resolution in CFB. It is one of the few schools that has P5 football and basketball, and an elite hockey program. It sponsors over 30 varsity sports.
IMO, it could not possibly operate at this level as a public university in Massachusetts and relying on the state legislature for funding.
Just my 2 cents.
UMass could if it had a real fanbase. People in Massachusetts don't care about football. between BC and UMass 50k people show up to watch football on Saturdays out of nearly 20 million people. Iowa has 120k show up for it's 2 biggest schools in a state with only 3 million people. You will notice that the schools with the nicest facilities also require the least subsidy. BC does not have the nicest anything, they are simply trying to play catchup with the big boys who do like Oregon, Bama, etc. Subsidy is for schools who do not sell enough tickets or generate enough donations to fund the AD. Essentially a fan base and culture issue. New England is the worst. Look at all those people up there and not a decent fanbase until you hit Pennsylvania. Tens of million of people who do not care about college football.
Let me ask you a question, how much time have you actually spent in the Northeast? I don't mean on a quick vacation, but extended time around these parts? You are right, the fervor for CFB around here does not match other areas, but it's not like it is non-existent. You can scoff at A BC all you want, but they have decent television ratings in the #7 media market, and one of the wealthiest, in the country. That's something that advertisers covet and is a factor in setting up regional and/or conference networks. You want to compare the Boston media market to Iowa?
I think you obviously misunderstood what I was saying. I never made the claim that BC had the "nicest" facilities (although their campus is one of the nicest). I simply said that BC, and the other privates, are able to keep up with the other programs. They are able to invest in facilities which, while maybe not the "nicest" keep them competitive with the rest of CFB (note, I said "competitive", not necessarily equal or better than the elite FB programs.). BC is a case in point. Since it came into the ACC, it had been in the top half of the Conference in wins. That's what I mean by being competitive.
LOL. You sound like a UConn fan making excuses for low attendance with crap like per capita income which means nothing in this scenario.
Iowa might be a small TV markets but they actually support their teams. Huge media markets with low attendance means you are an afterthought and do not bring any real markets whatsoever. ISU on the other hand actually brings a TV market and 60k fans to watch them play. Iowa brings another 70k. And BC averages about 30k. So TV partners spend 50 million + on the 3 million people in Iowa while they likely spend less than 25 million in a state with nearly 20 million people in Massachusetts. That is what you are worth as a state as far as college football is concerned, about half what Iowa is worth.
To TV partners Iowa is worth as much as all of New England minus Rutgers. That's over 10x as many people but worth the same amount to Fox and ESPN. Hmm.
Well, God forbid I sound like a Uconn fan :) (with apologies to my Uconn friends on this Board :) ).
I think you misunderstand my point. I am not disagreeing with you about the different levels of intensity between New England and the South, Midwest, etc. Only a fool would deny that. I am only saying that media market size does matter in the total equation.
You make the statement that because people in the Boston area don't show the same fervor (i.e., showing up to games in the same numbers) as, say, ISU fans, then media markets are meaningless. With all due respect, however, this shows a lack of understanding of our region (which is why I asked how much time you have ever spent up here). The fact is that the regions are very different. Lots more entertainment options in Boston then, say Des Moines (not to mention 4 professional sports teams). As a result, fewer people will make the commitment to go and attend games. BUT they do watch in large numbers. Maybe more passively, but the media companies don't care about that - as long as the eyeballs are there.
I attached the article below that summarized the ratings for the 2013 season. Look at the numbers. ISU had very good numbers, coming it at #32. Iowa State, less so at #69, but still OK. Look where BC came in. Mid-sized private school in the Northeast. It came in at #38. Pretty impressive. Now, you can say that high rating was due to the fact they played FSU and Clemson, among others; but so didn't UMD and other schools and they finished behind BC.
http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/4...m-missouri
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2015 10:48 AM by Eagle78.)
|
|