(02-15-2017 10:13 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I think it's a great idea...as long as the highest rated G5 champ still goes to the NY6 bowls

What do the 4 other champs do? This last year what did the Mountain West, American, C-USA, and Sun Belt champs do?

Start out with a 4 team playoff...it would be something that would be a little different and distinguish itself from the rest of the bowl games.

It is a stupid idea according to small thinkers. Why not try and create a better stage for the champs of these conferences? Sounds better than the stupid New Orleans and Las Vegas Bowls

The AAC champ played an ACC team. The other three champs played AAC teams.

While I'm pulling this directly out of my rear end, one thing to keep in mind -- particularly in Chicago -- is that a lot of modern northern African-American families still have roots down south, from when they escaped slavery and fled the slave states.

So there certainly can be a piece of the puzzle where a Chicagoland high school student chooses to attend the U of Alabama, on a free-ride scholarship no less, and feels like he's "going back to the roots", etc. Or maybe in some cases much more explicitly, because extended family still lives down there.

(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision.

Pure, unadulterated bunk.


That's no different than saying "if your school's library can't be revenue neutral at the absolute minimum, then it should close down!"


Stuff costs money. Nice things cost a lot of money!

That is life. There is no way to bypass this.

(02-15-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision.

Pure, unadulterated bunk.


That's no different than saying "if your school's library can't be revenue neutral at the absolute minimum, then it should close down!"


Stuff costs money. Nice things cost a lot of money!

That is life. There is no way to bypass this.

No. Wrong. The school libraries are open to all the students. College athletics sites - especially the training areas and the "student athlete" centers are NOT.

(02-15-2017 01:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  College athletics sites - especially the training areas and the "student athlete" centers are NOT.

College music and theater facilities aren't open to all students.

"If the music program or the theater program can't be revenue neutral at the absolutely minimum, then shut it down!"

Bunk.



If you want nice things, then pay for them. Stuff doesn't fall out of the sky for free!

(02-15-2017 01:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  College athletics sites - especially the training areas and the "student athlete" centers are NOT.

College music and theater facilities aren't open to all students.

"If the music program or the theater program can't be revenue neutral at the absolutely minimum, then shut it down!"

Bunk.



If you want nice things, then pay for them. Stuff doesn't fall out of the sky for free!

Wrong again. Theater and college music facilities are parts of the school(s) of fine arts who are attended by students who pay tuition. Football facilities - especially those designed to train and pamper the "student athletes" are utilized by people who are on full rides. Labs in the school of engineering are used by engineering students, chemistry labs largely by those majoring in chemistry, etc. etc. I hope by now you see the distinctions.

Let's say for the sake of argument that a few of these departments are in fact net financial losses. That's still OK because these examples further the mission of the university. Sports is not the mission of the university.

(02-15-2017 01:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  While I'm pulling this directly out of my rear end, one thing to keep in mind -- particularly in Chicago -- is that a lot of modern northern African-American families still have roots down south, from when they escaped slavery and fled the slave states.

So there certainly can be a piece of the puzzle where a Chicagoland high school student chooses to attend the U of Alabama, on a free-ride scholarship no less, and feels like he's "going back to the roots", etc. Or maybe in some cases much more explicitly, because extended family still lives down there.

Interesting theory, but yeah, it's totally coming out of your rear end because it's really the polar opposite in terms of what's happening.

Alabama is attracting disproportionately white and wealthy high ACT/SAT score out-of-state suburban kids that are paying more than in-state Alabama students but, in many cases with scholarships, are paying less than their in-state schools or neighboring out-of-state schools. Bama has really targeted that group specifically and very aggressively over the past several years. It had long been common for a lot of out-of-state Texas students to attend Bama, but what's different now is the increasing number of students from places like the NYC/NJ and Chicago regions.

(02-15-2017 12:45 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Frank wrote:

Quote:To be sure, Alabama is giving out some of the best academic scholarships to out-of-state students out of any public school anywhere. I live in a Chicago suburb that is about as prestige-college-obsessed as any place in the country, and our local high school districts have gone from sending zero people to Alabama to around 20-30 kids per year. Once again, we're NOWHERE near the South. That's just our own suburb's school districts - we're not even talking about the rest of the Chicago area. Alabama has simply stepped up its out-of-state recruitment game big-time and you see where they're suddenly getting a critical mass of students from the NYC and Chicago areas and elsewhere.

Alabama did not get that pipeline because of Saban and his program. Once Alabama went above and beyond to subsidize out of state tuition to attract out of state students - they showed up. I won't discount that a number of kids make school decisions based on college football. Although I think you would have to be a moron to make that your primary metric for where you go to school, it's a factor. I won't dispute that. What I will strongly question is how valuable a strong sports program is to the schools themselves. You made the argument that sports could be one of the distinguishing features that tips the scales in favor of one school vs another as an add on to my point about a number of degrees being commodities. Maybe in some cases that is a factor. However, I am of the opinion that costs, benefits and proximity trump sports in almost every case. IMHO, very few people would elect to eschew a liberal arts degree from a solid local school in order to pay out of state tuition just so they can go to a P5 school for the "college mystique of Saturdays". Your examples showcase Alabama and Michigan. Does that hold up for Miss St? Wash St? Do people feel that same allure for Kansas St? I'm going to say no.

That circles us back to the very first post I made in this thread. Sports may ultimately be a great marketing tool for the top 25 prominent athletic schools out there. But it breaks down for the lower level P5 who cannot compete without heavy subsidies and debt. Their bang for their buck is much much more muted. And in your example above the mighty Alabama didn't attract those 20-30 Chicago kids because of Saban's great CFB program. They went to where the financial breaks were. It wouldn't surprise me if the out of state Alabama tuition for those Chicago kids was lower than the U of I.

Oh yes, that Bama tuition is generally lower than U of I. Mizzou, Iowa and Indiana have targeted the same types of students in the Chicago area with various scholarships, too.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Your argument is generally centered on that cost in and of itself is the driving factor behind college decisions. I think it's more nuanced than that - what you're willing to pay for Harvard is going to be different than what you're willing to pay for Michigan and what you're willing to pay for Alabama and what you're willing to pay for Mississippi State. There's a difference between being a good value and being cheap.

At the same time, and maybe it's just because of where I live, but I DON'T see just a strict fixation on cost in and of itself. It's definitely a very big factor, but it's also not THE factor, or else this entire discussion is pointless and every person would be going to community colleges for their first 2 years of school. Those upper middle class suburban kids that virtually every college (whether prestigious or not) falls all over themselves to recruit because they're the ones that largely pay DO want amenities. Maybe not all of them want great football or basketball teams, but they do want SOMETHING beyond just the material that they could learn at home via an online course for free.

For the bolded, the fact is (at least in the Chicago area) is that a very large number of people DO eschew degrees from solid local schools for out-of-state P5 schools. It's not just a token amount, either - it's enough to have the state of Illinois be the #1 net exporter of college students in the entire country! Our local school districts will absolutely send more kids to Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and Missouri than they will to Illinois State and the non-flagship in-state universities this year. We see the same thing with New Jersey and California students. Forget about the University of Michigan - look at the number of out-of-state kids from Illinois and New Jersey at places like Indiana or the number of California kids that are inundating Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State instead of going to their non-flagship in-state public universities (or even eschewing their in-state flagship options). Maybe it's not their football programs specifically, but there IS something about being a "major brand name" school that can attract students in a way that others can't.

Once again, you can point to "correlation instead of causation" and I wouldn't disagree with you, but you're trying to unwrap something that's pretty tightly intertwined between top tier public universities and P5 sports. I also think you're underestimating "school spirit" overall as a pretty potent "soft" factor for the affluent kids that have legitimate choices between different schools and it's a pretty high correlation between school spirit and P5 status. It's not rocket science: when a prospective student sees current students look happy to be at a school, then that's attractive. (And believe me - I've been to plenty of places where the current students clearly don't like being there. An 18-year old can tell right away.) Being out in the real world for many years at this point, I actually don't think "school spirit" is even a soft factor. I think it's pretty important. You'll learn from the same economics or chemistry textbooks whether you go to Harvard, Alabama or a community college, but the biggest differentiator between colleges is the connections that you make. If you're at an Ivy/Ivy-caliber school, then those connections might largely be academic or placement at prestigious firms or positions. Once you get past that level, though, then I do think the schools with better "school spirit" generally have much better alumni connections. That might not give a Kansas State or Mississippi State grad a leg up over a Michigan grad, but it could certainly give them a leg up over, say, a UAB grad.

(02-15-2017 01:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision.

Pure, unadulterated bunk.


That's no different than saying "if your school's library can't be revenue neutral at the absolute minimum, then it should close down!"


Stuff costs money. Nice things cost a lot of money!

That is life. There is no way to bypass this.

No. Wrong. The school libraries are open to all the students. College athletics sites - especially the training areas and the "student athlete" centers are NOT.

This is a dumb argument. Are we also closing down the theatre that's only used by drama students? What about the physics lab an English major will never touch? How about the band auditorium? What about students who don't use the on campus clinic? What about the campus landscaping and fountains---dont they cost money to operate and maintain?

Bottom line---Services and amenities are offered as part of the student experience. They cost money. The athletic program is one of these amenities. If you dont want to pay for such things---the solution is simple---don't attend a school that offers them. If you attend a school knowing it has an FBS football program, then that's on you the student/consumer. There are higher education options available that do not have an FBS athletics program. If this is an issue for you---then attend another state sponsored schoolsthat has a minimal athletics program. Nobody is forcing kids to go to schools with FBS programs---they are doing it by choice. In fact, there's evidence that many go to FBS universities precisely because they play football at this level.

(02-15-2017 04:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision.

Pure, unadulterated bunk.


That's no different than saying "if your school's library can't be revenue neutral at the absolute minimum, then it should close down!"


Stuff costs money. Nice things cost a lot of money!

That is life. There is no way to bypass this.

No. Wrong. The school libraries are open to all the students. College athletics sites - especially the training areas and the "student athlete" centers are NOT.

This is a dumb argument. Are we also closing down the theatre that's only used by drama students? What about the physics lab an English major will never touch? How about the band auditorium? What about students who don't use the on campus clinic? What about the campus landscaping and fountains---dont they cost money to operate and maintain?

Bottom line---Services and amenities are offered as part of the student experience. They cost money. The athletic program is one of these amenities. If you dont want to pay for such things---the solution is simple---don't attend a school that offers them. If you attend a school knowing it has an FBS football program, then that's on you the student/consumer. There are higher education options available that do not have an FBS athletics program. If this is an issue for you---then attend another state sponsored schoolsthat has a minimal athletics program. Nobody is forcing kids to go to schools with FBS programs---they are doing it by choice. In fact, there's evidence that many go to FBS universities precisely because they play football at this level.

You didn't read far enough before responding. All those other examples that are exclusive use based on schools/departments are utilized students who PAID TUITION to study those disciplines. The school library is a resource used by ALL TUITION PAYING students. Contrast that with the exclusive use of athletic assets - in particular the "pleasure palaces" that have been set up for the "student athletes". Those are assets not only of extremely limited use, but used by "students" who DO NOT PAY TUITION. It's this university largesse that is paying for things that are not critical to the school mission statements. Add to that that these assets are subsidized by the school general fund and that there is a race to build bigger and better assets that result in ever increasing debt loads on the universities...it's not sustainable for the majority of P5 and all of the G5.

You and bison made some interesting strawmen. However, consider that a student can major in theater, music and fine arts. However, students CANNOT major in football, basketball, or any other major sport. That is one of the big distinctions between these examples, and I'm rather surprised that both of you do not understand the differences.

Not to jump into into y'all's war. BUT, as a Fellowship recipient, I had access to certain perks that others did not...not that they were great. Actually, they tracked our work hours, moreso than what we got. I can say that ramen noodle pizza is edible if you are hungry enough.

(02-15-2017 05:07 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 04:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  IMO if your school CANNOT run a revenue neutral AD at the absolute minimum, you do not deserve to be in the highest subdivision.

Pure, unadulterated bunk.


That's no different than saying "if your school's library can't be revenue neutral at the absolute minimum, then it should close down!"


Stuff costs money. Nice things cost a lot of money!

That is life. There is no way to bypass this.

No. Wrong. The school libraries are open to all the students. College athletics sites - especially the training areas and the "student athlete" centers are NOT.

This is a dumb argument. Are we also closing down the theatre that's only used by drama students? What about the physics lab an English major will never touch? How about the band auditorium? What about students who don't use the on campus clinic? What about the campus landscaping and fountains---dont they cost money to operate and maintain?

Bottom line---Services and amenities are offered as part of the student experience. They cost money. The athletic program is one of these amenities. If you dont want to pay for such things---the solution is simple---don't attend a school that offers them. If you attend a school knowing it has an FBS football program, then that's on you the student/consumer. There are higher education options available that do not have an FBS athletics program. If this is an issue for you---then attend another state sponsored schoolsthat has a minimal athletics program. Nobody is forcing kids to go to schools with FBS programs---they are doing it by choice. In fact, there's evidence that many go to FBS universities precisely because they play football at this level.

You didn't read far enough before responding. All those other examples that are exclusive use based on schools/departments are utilized students who PAID TUITION to study those disciplines. The school library is a resource used by ALL TUITION PAYING students. Contrast that with the exclusive use of athletic assets - in particular the "pleasure palaces" that have been set up for the "student athletes". Those are assets not only of extremely limited use, but used by "students" who DO NOT PAY TUITION. It's this university largesse that is paying for things that are not critical to the school mission statements. Add to that that these assets are subsidized by the school general fund and that there is a race to build bigger and better assets that result in ever increasing debt loads on the universities...it's not sustainable for the majority of P5 and all of the G5.

You and bison made some interesting strawmen. However, consider that a student can major in theater, music and fine arts. However, students CANNOT major in football, basketball, or any other major sport. That is one of the big distinctions between these examples, and I'm rather surprised that both of you do not understand the differences.

My point is there are lots of examples of facilities at a college that an individual shares in paying for but will never use. There are tons of research facilities that even majors in an department will never have access to. That's part of a whole different academic "arms race" that also has little to do with the actual education of most students.

I noticed you missed the most important portion of my post---If you don't want to support and pay for an FBS program---attend a school that doesn't have one. Problem solved.

If you attend a school that you know has an FBS football program---that's your own fault. There are plenty of state funded higher education options that do not have FBS programs. The reality is kids are choosing to attend those FBS schools---and many attend precisely because they are attracted by the excitement and allure these FBS programs provide.

(02-15-2017 10:55 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 10:40 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 08:39 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 08:24 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 05:10 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  No. We are FBS and that's the end of it.

I can take being unfairly excluded from our rightful place.....I cannot tolerate voluntarily accepting a 'separate but equal" system.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

While ark st. May be fbs there is an ocean of difference between ark st and p5.
It also appears most of the g5 has found their rightful place the G5.

If we all had the same playoff access...like you know...a sports league....then the gap would begin to narrow.

The P5/G5 gap is partially caused by post-season bias...so it can't be used as an excuse to maintain the bias.

Dozens of sports leagues manage to have post-season play without polls, beauty contests, or checking bank accounts. CFB can too.

Arkansas State are going to close the money gap with the University of Arkansas? How? Post season bias has nothing to do with it. The money gap does.

Sorry, you can't compete and you will never compete with the P5 or even the AAC and top of the MWC. The SBC, CUSA and majority of the MAC are not going to thrive in FBS going forward. The money is going to continue to dry up. Your choice down the road will be to find new revenue sources, drop FB or drop down to FCS. In 5 - 10 years the G5 as we know it today will not exist.

Equal access to playoffs for conference champions...like real sports...will ease the recruiting differential, which increases competitiveness, which increases interest in G5 schools, and thus increases overall parity.

Arkansas State will never be the University of Arkansas. Yet that is not a valid excuse to not seek increased parity in a sports league.

Why would you give equal access to the playoffs for the Sun Belt champ when they would finish at the bottom of almost all, if not all P5 conferences?

Moot point because it will never happen. But for the sake of argument, lets say the NCAA, or a G5 lawsuit forced the P5 conferences hand. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the P5 will immediately begin the process of leaving the NCAA, starting their own organizing body leaving the G5 behind and taking all the TV money with them. The G5 have ZERO power.

(02-15-2017 06:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:07 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 04:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Pure, unadulterated bunk.


That's no different than saying "if your school's library can't be revenue neutral at the absolute minimum, then it should close down!"


Stuff costs money. Nice things cost a lot of money!

That is life. There is no way to bypass this.

No. Wrong. The school libraries are open to all the students. College athletics sites - especially the training areas and the "student athlete" centers are NOT.

This is a dumb argument. Are we also closing down the theatre that's only used by drama students? What about the physics lab an English major will never touch? How about the band auditorium? What about students who don't use the on campus clinic? What about the campus landscaping and fountains---dont they cost money to operate and maintain?

Bottom line---Services and amenities are offered as part of the student experience. They cost money. The athletic program is one of these amenities. If you dont want to pay for such things---the solution is simple---don't attend a school that offers them. If you attend a school knowing it has an FBS football program, then that's on you the student/consumer. There are higher education options available that do not have an FBS athletics program. If this is an issue for you---then attend another state sponsored schoolsthat has a minimal athletics program. Nobody is forcing kids to go to schools with FBS programs---they are doing it by choice. In fact, there's evidence that many go to FBS universities precisely because they play football at this level.

You didn't read far enough before responding. All those other examples that are exclusive use based on schools/departments are utilized students who PAID TUITION to study those disciplines. The school library is a resource used by ALL TUITION PAYING students. Contrast that with the exclusive use of athletic assets - in particular the "pleasure palaces" that have been set up for the "student athletes". Those are assets not only of extremely limited use, but used by "students" who DO NOT PAY TUITION. It's this university largesse that is paying for things that are not critical to the school mission statements. Add to that that these assets are subsidized by the school general fund and that there is a race to build bigger and better assets that result in ever increasing debt loads on the universities...it's not sustainable for the majority of P5 and all of the G5.

You and bison made some interesting strawmen. However, consider that a student can major in theater, music and fine arts. However, students CANNOT major in football, basketball, or any other major sport. That is one of the big distinctions between these examples, and I'm rather surprised that both of you do not understand the differences.

My point is there are lots of examples of facilities at a college that an individual shares in paying for but will never use. There are tons of research facilities that even majors in an department will never have access to. That's part of a whole different academic "arms race" that also has little to do with the actual education of most students.

I noticed you missed the most important portion of my post---If you don't want to support and pay for an FBS program---attend a school that doesn't have one. Problem solved.

If you attend a school that you know has an FBS football program---that's your own fault. There are plenty of state funded higher education options that do not have FBS programs. The reality is kids are choosing to attend those FBS schools---and many attend precisely because they are attracted by the excitement and allure these FBS programs provide.

You aren't really comparing research facilities to football shrines are you? One furthers the betterment of the world and society, the other provides entertainment along the lines of the Roman Colosseum.

That said, you may be right. I have no doubt there are kids choosing schools based on the big time FB program. Of course how many of those kids are on the 7 year plan and how many are part of the almost 50% who will never graduate?

(02-15-2017 07:06 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 10:55 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 10:40 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 08:39 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 08:24 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  While ark st. May be fbs there is an ocean of difference between ark st and p5.
It also appears most of the g5 has found their rightful place the G5.

If we all had the same playoff access...like you know...a sports league....then the gap would begin to narrow.

The P5/G5 gap is partially caused by post-season bias...so it can't be used as an excuse to maintain the bias.

Dozens of sports leagues manage to have post-season play without polls, beauty contests, or checking bank accounts. CFB can too.

Arkansas State are going to close the money gap with the University of Arkansas? How? Post season bias has nothing to do with it. The money gap does.

Sorry, you can't compete and you will never compete with the P5 or even the AAC and top of the MWC. The SBC, CUSA and majority of the MAC are not going to thrive in FBS going forward. The money is going to continue to dry up. Your choice down the road will be to find new revenue sources, drop FB or drop down to FCS. In 5 - 10 years the G5 as we know it today will not exist.

Equal access to playoffs for conference champions...like real sports...will ease the recruiting differential, which increases competitiveness, which increases interest in G5 schools, and thus increases overall parity.

Arkansas State will never be the University of Arkansas. Yet that is not a valid excuse to not seek increased parity in a sports league.

Why would you give equal access to the playoffs for the Sun Belt champ when they would finish at the bottom of almost all, if not all P5 conferences?

Moot point because it will never happen. But for the sake of argument, lets say the NCAA, or a G5 lawsuit forced the P5 conferences hand. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the P5 will immediately begin the process of leaving the NCAA, starting their own organizing body leaving the G5 behind and taking all the TV money with them. The G5 have ZERO power.

Why? Because FBS is allegedly a sports league...and sports leagues do that.

If you don't do that then your sports league loses parity and begins to become boring because power and money starts adhering to an elite few who begin to dominate making it completely obvious that its not really sports but some sort of WWE ice dancing beauty contest for a few. Then people stop caring about your scripted championship and tv ratings start to drop mysteriously and people find other sports that are actually competitive and the bubble bursts and you end up like boxing did.

(02-15-2017 07:10 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 06:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:07 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 04:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  No. Wrong. The school libraries are open to all the students. College athletics sites - especially the training areas and the "student athlete" centers are NOT.

This is a dumb argument. Are we also closing down the theatre that's only used by drama students? What about the physics lab an English major will never touch? How about the band auditorium? What about students who don't use the on campus clinic? What about the campus landscaping and fountains---dont they cost money to operate and maintain?

Bottom line---Services and amenities are offered as part of the student experience. They cost money. The athletic program is one of these amenities. If you dont want to pay for such things---the solution is simple---don't attend a school that offers them. If you attend a school knowing it has an FBS football program, then that's on you the student/consumer. There are higher education options available that do not have an FBS athletics program. If this is an issue for you---then attend another state sponsored schoolsthat has a minimal athletics program. Nobody is forcing kids to go to schools with FBS programs---they are doing it by choice. In fact, there's evidence that many go to FBS universities precisely because they play football at this level.

You didn't read far enough before responding. All those other examples that are exclusive use based on schools/departments are utilized students who PAID TUITION to study those disciplines. The school library is a resource used by ALL TUITION PAYING students. Contrast that with the exclusive use of athletic assets - in particular the "pleasure palaces" that have been set up for the "student athletes". Those are assets not only of extremely limited use, but used by "students" who DO NOT PAY TUITION. It's this university largesse that is paying for things that are not critical to the school mission statements. Add to that that these assets are subsidized by the school general fund and that there is a race to build bigger and better assets that result in ever increasing debt loads on the universities...it's not sustainable for the majority of P5 and all of the G5.

You and bison made some interesting strawmen. However, consider that a student can major in theater, music and fine arts. However, students CANNOT major in football, basketball, or any other major sport. That is one of the big distinctions between these examples, and I'm rather surprised that both of you do not understand the differences.

My point is there are lots of examples of facilities at a college that an individual shares in paying for but will never use. There are tons of research facilities that even majors in an department will never have access to. That's part of a whole different academic "arms race" that also has little to do with the actual education of most students.

I noticed you missed the most important portion of my post---If you don't want to support and pay for an FBS program---attend a school that doesn't have one. Problem solved.

If you attend a school that you know has an FBS football program---that's your own fault. There are plenty of state funded higher education options that do not have FBS programs. The reality is kids are choosing to attend those FBS schools---and many attend precisely because they are attracted by the excitement and allure these FBS programs provide.

You aren't really comparing research facilities to football shrines are you? One furthers the betterment of the world and society, the other provides entertainment along the lines of the Roman Colosseum.

That said, you may be right. I have no doubt there are kids choosing schools based on the big time FB program. Of course how many of those kids are on the 7 year plan and how many are part of the almost 50% who will never graduate?

Of course he's making an equivalency between non-core "luxuries" and core functions of what a university is supposed to do. On top of that, we're talking about public universities which are extensions of state governments which is not the same as private entities making investment decisions. But the original intent of all these posts that I made are to discuss that even among the P5 schools the athletics arms race is not sustainable and that most P5 let alone G5 schools should not be in the same division as the top 25 spending institutions that can afford this level of expenditures.

(02-15-2017 02:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For the bolded, the fact is (at least in the Chicago area) is that a very large number of people DO eschew degrees from solid local schools for out-of-state P5 schools. It's not just a token amount, either - it's enough to have the state of Illinois be the #1 net exporter of college students in the entire country! Our local school districts will absolutely send more kids to Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and Missouri than they will to Illinois State and the non-flagship in-state universities this year. We see the same thing with New Jersey and California students. Forget about the University of Michigan - look at the number of out-of-state kids from Illinois and New Jersey at places like Indiana or the number of California kids that are inundating Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State instead of going to their non-flagship in-state public universities (or even eschewing their in-state flagship options). Maybe it's not their football programs specifically, but there IS something about being a "major brand name" school that can attract students in a way that others can't.

Frank what your describing is the way the kids from high income families see things. You for example were someone from a higher socioeconomic background with your father a professor. Names and prestige is everything in higher socioeconomic circles.

I once worked with a project manager who said that he went to Utah State. He then said proudly that Utah State has one of the most conservative political science departments in the country. His decision was based on perceived political environment than anything else.

Middle class kids who are not part of the well to do establishment view schools differently.

Conservative campus
Liberal campus
School with the biggest parties
Climate
Highest female to male ratio
Scenery
High school friends
Girlfriends
Too far from home
Too close to home
Offers my major
Perceived strength of the major

I just don't think athletics are too high on the list for the middle class kid who's parents watch the Super Bowl and World Series and that's it. Unless they grew up in a P5 college town so they understood what it means to have that.

(02-15-2017 09:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 02:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For the bolded, the fact is (at least in the Chicago area) is that a very large number of people DO eschew degrees from solid local schools for out-of-state P5 schools. It's not just a token amount, either - it's enough to have the state of Illinois be the #1 net exporter of college students in the entire country! Our local school districts will absolutely send more kids to Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and Missouri than they will to Illinois State and the non-flagship in-state universities this year. We see the same thing with New Jersey and California students. Forget about the University of Michigan - look at the number of out-of-state kids from Illinois and New Jersey at places like Indiana or the number of California kids that are inundating Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State instead of going to their non-flagship in-state public universities (or even eschewing their in-state flagship options). Maybe it's not their football programs specifically, but there IS something about being a "major brand name" school that can attract students in a way that others can't.

Frank what your describing is the way the kids from high income families see things. You for example were someone from a higher socioeconomic background with your father a professor. Names and prestige is everything in higher socioeconomic circles.

I once worked with a project manager who said that he went to Utah State. He then said proudly that Utah State has one of the most conservative political science departments in the country. His decision was based on perceived political environment than anything else.

Middle class kids who are not part of the well to do establishment view schools differently.

Conservative campus
Liberal campus
School with the biggest parties
Climate
Highest female to male ratio
Scenery
High school friends
Girlfriends
Too far from home
Too close to home
Offers my major
Perceived strength of the major

I just don't think athletics are too high on the list for the middle class kid who's parents watch the Super Bowl and World Series and that's it. Unless they grew up in a P5 college town so they understood what it means to have that.

You are describing those that usually flunk out thier freshman year!

(02-15-2017 09:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 02:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For the bolded, the fact is (at least in the Chicago area) is that a very large number of people DO eschew degrees from solid local schools for out-of-state P5 schools. It's not just a token amount, either - it's enough to have the state of Illinois be the #1 net exporter of college students in the entire country! Our local school districts will absolutely send more kids to Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and Missouri than they will to Illinois State and the non-flagship in-state universities this year. We see the same thing with New Jersey and California students. Forget about the University of Michigan - look at the number of out-of-state kids from Illinois and New Jersey at places like Indiana or the number of California kids that are inundating Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State instead of going to their non-flagship in-state public universities (or even eschewing their in-state flagship options). Maybe it's not their football programs specifically, but there IS something about being a "major brand name" school that can attract students in a way that others can't.

Frank what your describing is the way the kids from high income families see things. You for example were someone from a higher socioeconomic background with your father a professor. Names and prestige is everything in higher socioeconomic circles.

I once worked with a project manager who said that he went to Utah State. He then said proudly that Utah State has one of the most conservative political science departments in the country. His decision was based on perceived political environment than anything else.

Middle class kids who are not part of the well to do establishment view schools differently.

Conservative campus
Liberal campus
School with the biggest parties
Climate
Highest female to male ratio
Scenery
High school friends
Girlfriends
Too far from home
Too close to home
Offers my major
Perceived strength of the major

I just don't think athletics are too high on the list for the middle class kid who's parents watch the Super Bowl and World Series and that's it. Unless they grew up in a P5 college town so they understood what it means to have that.

I think it just matters on the state. Some like Nebraska are more focused on the college game than NFL, even middle class. Even people who never go to college have husker gear and wear it regularly. You get a red onesie with an N the first few weeks of your life. Income makes no difference.

Miko33, Rice is a G5 school that can spend money on football with any p5 school and then some every day all day pretty much forever if they wanted too, so they should be p5, so what gives ?