(03-08-2019 03:39 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 02:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  North Dakota State vs Montana 1 Million viewers
North Dakota State vs Jacksonville State 1 Million viewers
North Dakota State vs James Madison 1 Million viewers

North Dakota State could take on a team like Boise State or UCF and could still get more than 1 million viewers. NDSU plays the tough FCS schools with winning records and still out draw viewers than schools like Texas State or other FBS losers.

Yea they could, because people want to watch Boise and UCF.

Also what channel were those games on? I'd bet ESPN or ESPN2. That makes a huge difference since more people have them. Also you're cherry picking the outlier of all FCS outliers, what about the TV ratings of a game between UIW and ACU?

First; the bolded part is absolutely uncalled for, disrespectful, and unsportsmanlike. Just because you don't like a school.

Without looking it up, those were probably playoff games and maybe even the FCS championship game that aired on either espn or espn2. I really do not believe any of those games got 1M viewers. How many regular season FCS vs FCS games do you see on espn or espn2 on Saturday? The Sun Belt is usually relegated to espn+, espnu, or espnnews (channels with limited access); and when the conference is shown on espn or espn2 it is a weeknight game.

(03-08-2019 08:17 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:00 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Everyone's gonna wait and see what happens to the AAC and higher conferences if there's more shuffling in a few years before realignment between the Sun Belt and CUSA happens. The situation is not that dire.

Changes in MWC and MAC membership could also impact C-USA and the Sunbelt. If the MAC had an opening or two, I think some C-USA/Sunbelt programs may have interest. Similarly, if the MWC decides to expand into the central time zone, I think they may find several candidates currently in C-USA/Sunbelt.

If the MW, MAC, or AAC had only 9 or 10 members... I don't think they would look to get back to 12.

Not that that will stop every Sun Belt and CUSA member to hope and pray they get caught up in the clouds on the way to a better conference.

(03-07-2019 08:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 07:28 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 06:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'm sure we're exploring our options.

What Joe doesn’t understand is that’s how conference realignment happens. Change does not happen due to contentment. Change is driven by the schools who are unhappy.

Conference realignment is driven by money, and either C-USA or the Sun Belt can reconfigure in any meaningful way that will generate more money for their conferences.

The unhappy programs in C-USA do not have enough votes to change the conference's line-up. Sure ODU is exploring their options. Every G5 program is doing that. The truth is ODU does not have any good options right now. Maybe they could talk the Sun Belt or MAC into an invitation, but it wouldn't add any money to their coffers, and ODU won't generate extra money for the teams of those conferences either.

Again---unhappy programs can change the line up without a vote. CUSA knows that better than anyone other than maybe the WAC. All it really takes is like minded programs that believe they would be better off in a smaller more compact conference. And to be clear---Im not suggesting that will happen anytime soon---Im just saying all it takes is for the right leadership to be in place at a few key schools and the dominoes will fall in place---with or without the cooperation of the others. It only took 5 of 16 "votes" to essentially cripple the WAC and create the MW. Frankly, the way N Texas is investing in its athletic department I wouldnt be surprised if they and several other schools that are investing heavily are one day interested in creating a more compact conference that only contains the more robust athletic departments in CUSA---with perhaps one or 2 worthy nearby SB schools.

C-USA is a conference full of programs with varying degrees of commitment. There are not enough with the right combination of funding and fan support to reform into something better. So I suspect over the next few season, you may see the same three or four teams competing for the C-USA title.

That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

(03-08-2019 04:56 PM)AZcats Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 03:39 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 02:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  North Dakota State vs Montana 1 Million viewers
North Dakota State vs Jacksonville State 1 Million viewers
North Dakota State vs James Madison 1 Million viewers

North Dakota State could take on a team like Boise State or UCF and could still get more than 1 million viewers. NDSU plays the tough FCS schools with winning records and still out draw viewers than schools like Texas State or other FBS losers.

Yea they could, because people want to watch Boise and UCF.

Also what channel were those games on? I'd bet ESPN or ESPN2. That makes a huge difference since more people have them. Also you're cherry picking the outlier of all FCS outliers, what about the TV ratings of a game between UIW and ACU?

First; the bolded part is absolutely uncalled for, disrespectful, and unsportsmanlike. Just because you don't like a school.

Without looking it up, those were probably playoff games and maybe even the FCS championship game that aired on either espn or espn2. I really do not believe any of those games got 1M viewers. How many regular season FCS vs FCS games do you see on espn or espn2 on Saturday? The Sun Belt is usually relegated to espn+, espnu, or espnnews (channels with limited access); and when the conference is shown on espn or espn2 it is a weeknight game.

Week Zero ESPN shown North Dakota State games. NDSU have been the place a couple of times ESPN was live. They were Saturday afternoon games.
Second, schools like Texas State are not shown on ESPN/2 because football would turn off the games because they lose a lot. It is not disrespectful. It is the truth. When Miami Florida was losing? ESPN do not show their games on the main channels because of low ratings.

(03-08-2019 11:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 04:56 PM)AZcats Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 03:39 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 02:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  North Dakota State vs Montana 1 Million viewers
North Dakota State vs Jacksonville State 1 Million viewers
North Dakota State vs James Madison 1 Million viewers

North Dakota State could take on a team like Boise State or UCF and could still get more than 1 million viewers. NDSU plays the tough FCS schools with winning records and still out draw viewers than schools like Texas State or other FBS losers.

Yea they could, because people want to watch Boise and UCF.

Also what channel were those games on? I'd bet ESPN or ESPN2. That makes a huge difference since more people have them. Also you're cherry picking the outlier of all FCS outliers, what about the TV ratings of a game between UIW and ACU?

First; the bolded part is absolutely uncalled for, disrespectful, and unsportsmanlike. Just because you don't like a school.

Without looking it up, those were probably playoff games and maybe even the FCS championship game that aired on either espn or espn2. I really do not believe any of those games got 1M viewers. How many regular season FCS vs FCS games do you see on espn or espn2 on Saturday? The Sun Belt is usually relegated to espn+, espnu, or espnnews (channels with limited access); and when the conference is shown on espn or espn2 it is a weeknight game.

Week Zero ESPN shown North Dakota State games. NDSU have been the place a couple of times ESPN was live. They were Saturday afternoon games.
Second, schools like Texas State are not shown on ESPN/2 because football would turn off the games because they lose a lot. It is not disrespectful. It is the truth. When Miami Florida was losing? ESPN do not show their games on the main channels because of low ratings.

Week Zero about 5 years ago when there was maybe 6 total games to choose from to watch. If losing a lot means less appearances on espn and espn2 then how do you explain all the times the razorbacks are shown on those channels. It's true, Texas State is not be very good right now; but at least they have 2 NCAA football national championships. That's more football national championships than the razorbacks. Since you believe it is not disrespectful to call someone a loser for any reason, I suppose it would be ok if someone was to say that to you.

DavidSt and his FCS obsessions

(03-08-2019 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

Pretty sure the Rice numbers are not in the USA Today report because Rice is private. In 2016-2017, Rice athletics self-generated $15.8M of the $39.1M athletic department spending, adding Rice to your uppermost tier of C-USA/Sun Belt programs.

This information is found on http://www.riceowls.com, navigating through Giving to the Owl Club and then Impact Reports.

You have UTEP in both groupings above.

(03-08-2019 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 08:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 07:28 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Joe doesn’t understand is that’s how conference realignment happens. Change does not happen due to contentment. Change is driven by the schools who are unhappy.

Conference realignment is driven by money, and either C-USA or the Sun Belt can reconfigure in any meaningful way that will generate more money for their conferences.

The unhappy programs in C-USA do not have enough votes to change the conference's line-up. Sure ODU is exploring their options. Every G5 program is doing that. The truth is ODU does not have any good options right now. Maybe they could talk the Sun Belt or MAC into an invitation, but it wouldn't add any money to their coffers, and ODU won't generate extra money for the teams of those conferences either.

Again---unhappy programs can change the line up without a vote. CUSA knows that better than anyone other than maybe the WAC. All it really takes is like minded programs that believe they would be better off in a smaller more compact conference. And to be clear---Im not suggesting that will happen anytime soon---Im just saying all it takes is for the right leadership to be in place at a few key schools and the dominoes will fall in place---with or without the cooperation of the others. It only took 5 of 16 "votes" to essentially cripple the WAC and create the MW. Frankly, the way N Texas is investing in its athletic department I wouldnt be surprised if they and several other schools that are investing heavily are one day interested in creating a more compact conference that only contains the more robust athletic departments in CUSA---with perhaps one or 2 worthy nearby SB schools.

C-USA is a conference full of programs with varying degrees of commitment. There are not enough with the right combination of funding and fan support to reform into something better. So I suspect over the next few season, you may see the same three or four teams competing for the C-USA title.

That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

How recent are your numbers? The "latest" USA Today numbers I can find are a few years old. I think some of your assumptions might not be true at this date.

Last season, North Texas generated about $10 million from large private donations to our athletic department. In my book, that is "self generated" income. Once you add in the receipts from the gates, small donations from the bulk of our fan base, and money from licensing and media, UNT is well over your arbitrary $12 million in athletic revenue.

Also, I don't think revenue is the only measure of health when considering an athletic department's financial commitment and support. I think spending is equally important. It is good if a program is generating $12 million or better per season, but if they are not investing in their programs and facilities, they will soon be at a competitive disadvantages to peer G5 programs.

Look at which G5 programs are doing the best job of getting more fans in the stands, generating new revenue streams, building and remodeling facilities, and raising salaries for their quality coaches. Those should be the stronger G5 programs moving forward.

(03-09-2019 12:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 08:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 07:28 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Conference realignment is driven by money, and either C-USA or the Sun Belt can reconfigure in any meaningful way that will generate more money for their conferences.

The unhappy programs in C-USA do not have enough votes to change the conference's line-up. Sure ODU is exploring their options. Every G5 program is doing that. The truth is ODU does not have any good options right now. Maybe they could talk the Sun Belt or MAC into an invitation, but it wouldn't add any money to their coffers, and ODU won't generate extra money for the teams of those conferences either.

Again---unhappy programs can change the line up without a vote. CUSA knows that better than anyone other than maybe the WAC. All it really takes is like minded programs that believe they would be better off in a smaller more compact conference. And to be clear---Im not suggesting that will happen anytime soon---Im just saying all it takes is for the right leadership to be in place at a few key schools and the dominoes will fall in place---with or without the cooperation of the others. It only took 5 of 16 "votes" to essentially cripple the WAC and create the MW. Frankly, the way N Texas is investing in its athletic department I wouldnt be surprised if they and several other schools that are investing heavily are one day interested in creating a more compact conference that only contains the more robust athletic departments in CUSA---with perhaps one or 2 worthy nearby SB schools.

C-USA is a conference full of programs with varying degrees of commitment. There are not enough with the right combination of funding and fan support to reform into something better. So I suspect over the next few season, you may see the same three or four teams competing for the C-USA title.

That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

How recent are your numbers? The "latest" USA Today numbers I can find are a few years old. I think some of your assumptions might not be true at this date.

Last season, North Texas generated about $10 million from large private donations to our athletic department. In my book, that is "self generated" income. Once you add in the receipts from the gates, small donations from the bulk of our fan base, and money from licensing and media, UNT is well over your arbitrary $12 million in athletic revenue.

Also, I don't think revenue is the only measure of health when considering an athletic department's financial commitment and support. I think spending is equally important. It is good if a program is generating $12 million or better per season, but if they are not investing in their programs and facilities, they will soon be at a competitive disadvantages to peer G5 programs.

Look at which G5 programs are doing the best job of getting more fans in the stands, generating new revenue streams, building and remodeling facilities, and raising salaries for their quality coaches. Those should be the stronger G5 programs moving forward.

Most recent USA Today should be the 2016-17 athletic year. The most recent athletic year closed is the 17-18 year but it takes a while for the schools to close their books, have independent audits and submit to the NCAA and then a little longer for USA Today to compile the data. I think around June they release it so it's about a year behind.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Also, donations to capital expenditures, pledges not received and contributions to endowments won't be reflected in the figures. Excuse me, shouldn't be reflected in the numbers as they are meant to reflect current year revenues and expenses. ODU reported over 16 million in contributions and pledges in 2018 but a lot of that was for building the new stadium and not included in the annual figures. When the USA Today numbers come out it will show 6.8 million in contributions received. Also, the numbers reported to the NCAA and thus USA Today are July 1-June 30 fiscal year and ODAF (Old Dominion Athletic Fund) reprted the calendar year fundraising which in 18 probably included a lot of December contributions for 2019 due to the tax law change but that is in the current fiscal year for NCAA reporting (7/1/18-6/30/19).

I think arkstfan is taking the total revenues less the subsidies in his calculation.

(03-09-2019 01:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 08:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again---unhappy programs can change the line up without a vote. CUSA knows that better than anyone other than maybe the WAC. All it really takes is like minded programs that believe they would be better off in a smaller more compact conference. And to be clear---Im not suggesting that will happen anytime soon---Im just saying all it takes is for the right leadership to be in place at a few key schools and the dominoes will fall in place---with or without the cooperation of the others. It only took 5 of 16 "votes" to essentially cripple the WAC and create the MW. Frankly, the way N Texas is investing in its athletic department I wouldnt be surprised if they and several other schools that are investing heavily are one day interested in creating a more compact conference that only contains the more robust athletic departments in CUSA---with perhaps one or 2 worthy nearby SB schools.

C-USA is a conference full of programs with varying degrees of commitment. There are not enough with the right combination of funding and fan support to reform into something better. So I suspect over the next few season, you may see the same three or four teams competing for the C-USA title.

That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

How recent are your numbers? The "latest" USA Today numbers I can find are a few years old. I think some of your assumptions might not be true at this date.

Last season, North Texas generated about $10 million from large private donations to our athletic department. In my book, that is "self generated" income. Once you add in the receipts from the gates, small donations from the bulk of our fan base, and money from licensing and media, UNT is well over your arbitrary $12 million in athletic revenue.

Also, I don't think revenue is the only measure of health when considering an athletic department's financial commitment and support. I think spending is equally important. It is good if a program is generating $12 million or better per season, but if they are not investing in their programs and facilities, they will soon be at a competitive disadvantages to peer G5 programs.

Look at which G5 programs are doing the best job of getting more fans in the stands, generating new revenue streams, building and remodeling facilities, and raising salaries for their quality coaches. Those should be the stronger G5 programs moving forward.

Most recent USA Today should be the 2016-17 athletic year. The most recent athletic year closed is the 17-18 year but it takes a while for the schools to close their books, have independent audits and submit to the NCAA and then a little longer for USA Today to compile the data. I think around June they release it so it's about a year behind.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Also, donations to capital expenditures, pledges not received and contributions to endowments won't be reflected in the figures. Excuse me, shouldn't be reflected in the numbers as they are meant to reflect current year revenues and expenses. ODU reported over 16 million in contributions and pledges in 2018 but a lot of that was for building the new stadium and not included in the annual figures. When the USA Today numbers come out it will show 6.8 million in contributions received. Also, the numbers reported to the NCAA and thus USA Today are July 1-June 30 fiscal year and ODAF (Old Dominion Athletic Fund) reported the calendar year fundraising which in 18 probably included a lot of December contributions for 2019 due to the tax law change but that is in the current fiscal year for NCAA reporting (7/1/18-6/30/19).

I think arkstfan is taking the total revenues less the subsidies in his calculation.

I agree with Side Joe, that the self generated revenue data point that Arkstfan listed is not the only way to measure the health of a athletic department, but i believe it is the data point that tells us the most, then other factors can be added in to complete the picture. i also dont like using a single year for determining which groups are more serious and similar for athletics. anyone can have a great year, with a one time large donation or something like that. so i think a rolling 4 year period of self generated revenue would paint a more accurate picture.

(03-09-2019 01:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 08:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again---unhappy programs can change the line up without a vote. CUSA knows that better than anyone other than maybe the WAC. All it really takes is like minded programs that believe they would be better off in a smaller more compact conference. And to be clear---Im not suggesting that will happen anytime soon---Im just saying all it takes is for the right leadership to be in place at a few key schools and the dominoes will fall in place---with or without the cooperation of the others. It only took 5 of 16 "votes" to essentially cripple the WAC and create the MW. Frankly, the way N Texas is investing in its athletic department I wouldnt be surprised if they and several other schools that are investing heavily are one day interested in creating a more compact conference that only contains the more robust athletic departments in CUSA---with perhaps one or 2 worthy nearby SB schools.

C-USA is a conference full of programs with varying degrees of commitment. There are not enough with the right combination of funding and fan support to reform into something better. So I suspect over the next few season, you may see the same three or four teams competing for the C-USA title.

That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

How recent are your numbers? The "latest" USA Today numbers I can find are a few years old. I think some of your assumptions might not be true at this date.

Last season, North Texas generated about $10 million from large private donations to our athletic department. In my book, that is "self generated" income. Once you add in the receipts from the gates, small donations from the bulk of our fan base, and money from licensing and media, UNT is well over your arbitrary $12 million in athletic revenue.

Also, I don't think revenue is the only measure of health when considering an athletic department's financial commitment and support. I think spending is equally important. It is good if a program is generating $12 million or better per season, but if they are not investing in their programs and facilities, they will soon be at a competitive disadvantages to peer G5 programs.

Look at which G5 programs are doing the best job of getting more fans in the stands, generating new revenue streams, building and remodeling facilities, and raising salaries for their quality coaches. Those should be the stronger G5 programs moving forward.

Most recent USA Today should be the 2016-17 athletic year. The most recent athletic year closed is the 17-18 year but it takes a while for the schools to close their books, have independent audits and submit to the NCAA and then a little longer for USA Today to compile the data. I think around June they release it so it's about a year behind.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Also, donations to capital expenditures, pledges not received and contributions to endowments won't be reflected in the figures. Excuse me, shouldn't be reflected in the numbers as they are meant to reflect current year revenues and expenses. ODU reported over 16 million in contributions and pledges in 2018 but a lot of that was for building the new stadium and not included in the annual figures. When the USA Today numbers come out it will show 6.8 million in contributions received. Also, the numbers reported to the NCAA and thus USA Today are July 1-June 30 fiscal year and ODAF (Old Dominion Athletic Fund) reprted the calendar year fundraising which in 18 probably included a lot of December contributions for 2019 due to the tax law change but that is in the current fiscal year for NCAA reporting (7/1/18-6/30/19).

I think arkstfan is taking the total revenues less the subsidies in his calculation.

In a way that data surprises me. I know S Miss had little money---but I thought their budget had grown more than it had. Also--Im impressed that LaTech does so well with a budget thats roughly the same as S Miss. I though LaTech had a bigger budget than they actually do.

The question about the Alston case could knock some FBS schools down to FCS. La.-Monroe, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Eastern Michigan and some others could be effected because they have to spend more money on the athletic departments.

(03-09-2019 07:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question about the Alston case could knock some FBS schools down to FCS. La.-Monroe, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Eastern Michigan and some others could be effected because they have to spend more money on the athletic departments.

No...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

This thread is a month old! Such staying power!

(03-09-2019 07:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question about the Alston case could knock some FBS schools down to FCS. La.-Monroe, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Eastern Michigan and some others could be effected because they have to spend more money on the athletic departments.

Why would it? Per Alston, the NCAA can no longer "cap" educational benefit. However, the decision does not require schools to provide to student athletes anything more than they are currently providing. The P5 will certainly offer more benefits to student athletes than the G5 once this shakes out. But--the P5 schools were already always the preferred choice by recruits over G5 schools---so really--its not going to make much difference for the G5 schools. Their athlete pool the G5 was fishing in remains largely the same. The biggest benefit the G5 could offer recruits to compete with P5 schools was more or quicker playing opportunities. That factor remains unchanged.

I doubt Alston, in and of itself, would force schools out of FBS.

(03-11-2019 12:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 07:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question about the Alston case could knock some FBS schools down to FCS. La.-Monroe, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Eastern Michigan and some others could be effected because they have to spend more money on the athletic departments.

Why would it? Per Alston, the NCAA can no longer "cap" educational benefit. However, the decision does not require schools to provide to student athletes anything more than they are currently providing. The P5 will certainly offer more benefits to student athletes than the G5 once this shakes out. But--the P5 schools were already always the preferred choice by recruits over G5 schools---so really--its not going to make much difference for the G5 schools. Their athlete pool the G5 was fishing in remains largely the same. The biggest benefit the G5 could offer recruits to compete with P5 schools was more or quicker playing opportunities. That factor remains unchanged.

I doubt Alston, in and of itself, would force schools out of FBS.

But the players at the G5, FCS, D2 and D3 who are also a part of the NCAA would start demanding to be equals with the P5 schools. I think the P5 are worried about because you would start losing schools from the FBS, FCS, D2 and D3 because of it. We are already seeing some G5 schools offering more to their players than some P5 schools. That is COAs. The PAC 12 could actually get further behind than the other P5 conferences since they are not getting the ratings and all that.

(03-11-2019 01:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 12:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 07:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question about the Alston case could knock some FBS schools down to FCS. La.-Monroe, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Eastern Michigan and some others could be effected because they have to spend more money on the athletic departments.

Why would it? Per Alston, the NCAA can no longer "cap" educational benefit. However, the decision does not require schools to provide to student athletes anything more than they are currently providing. The P5 will certainly offer more benefits to student athletes than the G5 once this shakes out. But--the P5 schools were already always the preferred choice by recruits over G5 schools---so really--its not going to make much difference for the G5 schools. Their athlete pool the G5 was fishing in remains largely the same. The biggest benefit the G5 could offer recruits to compete with P5 schools was more or quicker playing opportunities. That factor remains unchanged.

I doubt Alston, in and of itself, would force schools out of FBS.

But the players at the G5, FCS, D2 and D3 who are also a part of the NCAA would start demanding to be equals with the P5 schools. I think the P5 are worried about because you would start losing schools from the FBS, FCS, D2 and D3 because of it. We are already seeing some G5 schools offering more to their players than some P5 schools. That is COAs. The PAC 12 could actually get further behind than the other P5 conferences since they are not getting the ratings and all that.

They can demand all they want. Alston doesnt help them one bit on that front. In fact, thats the actual point of the lawsuit. The idea is that the schools who are making a ton of money off these kids should have to compete for their services. Free market competition means better players get better stuff. FCS players get what teams at that level are willing to pay. They arent making much money at that level---so if your fall to that level---your pay will be commiserate. Just like in real life---if you are a MIT grad working for Google---you do very well. If your working the window at Burger King---you're not going make nearly what the MIT grad at Google is making.

That why I say---the way this shook out isnt really going to change the balance of power much. I only serves to lock more into place the current balance of power.

(03-11-2019 01:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 01:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 12:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 07:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question about the Alston case could knock some FBS schools down to FCS. La.-Monroe, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Eastern Michigan and some others could be effected because they have to spend more money on the athletic departments.

Why would it? Per Alston, the NCAA can no longer "cap" educational benefit. However, the decision does not require schools to provide to student athletes anything more than they are currently providing. The P5 will certainly offer more benefits to student athletes than the G5 once this shakes out. But--the P5 schools were already always the preferred choice by recruits over G5 schools---so really--its not going to make much difference for the G5 schools. Their athlete pool the G5 was fishing in remains largely the same. The biggest benefit the G5 could offer recruits to compete with P5 schools was more or quicker playing opportunities. That factor remains unchanged.

I doubt Alston, in and of itself, would force schools out of FBS.

But the players at the G5, FCS, D2 and D3 who are also a part of the NCAA would start demanding to be equals with the P5 schools. I think the P5 are worried about because you would start losing schools from the FBS, FCS, D2 and D3 because of it. We are already seeing some G5 schools offering more to their players than some P5 schools. That is COAs. The PAC 12 could actually get further behind than the other P5 conferences since they are not getting the ratings and all that.

They can demand all they want. Alston doesnt help them one bit on that front. In fact, thats the actual point of the lawsuit. The idea is that the schools who are making a ton of money off these kids should have to compete for their services. Free market competition means better players get better stuff. FCS players get what teams at that level are willing to pay. They arent making much money at that level---so if your fall to that level---your pay will be commiserate. Just like in real life---if you are a MIT grad working for Google---you do very well. If your working the window at Burger King---you're not going make nearly what the MIT grad at Google is making.

That why I say---the way this shook out isnt really going to change the balance of power much. I only serves to lock more into place the current balance of power.

NCAA also marketed off kids who are not P5.

Colt Brennon Hawaii
Alex Smith Utah
Brett Rypian Boise State
KellEn Moore Boise State
Ian Johnson Boise State
Jarrod Zabransky Boise State
Ryan Dinwiddie Boise State
Doug Martin Boise State
Blake Bortles UCF
Daunte Culpepper UCF
McKenzie Milton UCF
Ben Roethlesberger Miami, Ohio
Chad Pennington Marshall
Ty Detmer BYU
Roger Staubach Navy
Matt Grothe USF
Paxton Lynch Memphis
Danny Wimprine Memphis
Colin K. UNR
John Dutton UNR
Dan Lefevour CMU
I could name more, plus some big names from lower levels that were award winners at the D1 for all times.
NCAA also marketed off Carson Wentz of North Dakota State and Joe Flaco of Delaware.

(03-11-2019 02:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 01:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 01:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 12:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 07:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question about the Alston case could knock some FBS schools down to FCS. La.-Monroe, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Eastern Michigan and some others could be effected because they have to spend more money on the athletic departments.

Why would it? Per Alston, the NCAA can no longer "cap" educational benefit. However, the decision does not require schools to provide to student athletes anything more than they are currently providing. The P5 will certainly offer more benefits to student athletes than the G5 once this shakes out. But--the P5 schools were already always the preferred choice by recruits over G5 schools---so really--its not going to make much difference for the G5 schools. Their athlete pool the G5 was fishing in remains largely the same. The biggest benefit the G5 could offer recruits to compete with P5 schools was more or quicker playing opportunities. That factor remains unchanged.

I doubt Alston, in and of itself, would force schools out of FBS.

But the players at the G5, FCS, D2 and D3 who are also a part of the NCAA would start demanding to be equals with the P5 schools. I think the P5 are worried about because you would start losing schools from the FBS, FCS, D2 and D3 because of it. We are already seeing some G5 schools offering more to their players than some P5 schools. That is COAs. The PAC 12 could actually get further behind than the other P5 conferences since they are not getting the ratings and all that.

They can demand all they want. Alston doesnt help them one bit on that front. In fact, thats the actual point of the lawsuit. The idea is that the schools who are making a ton of money off these kids should have to compete for their services. Free market competition means better players get better stuff. FCS players get what teams at that level are willing to pay. They arent making much money at that level---so if your fall to that level---your pay will be commiserate. Just like in real life---if you are a MIT grad working for Google---you do very well. If your working the window at Burger King---you're not going make nearly what the MIT grad at Google is making.

That why I say---the way this shook out isnt really going to change the balance of power much. I only serves to lock more into place the current balance of power.

NCAA also marketed off kids who are not P5.

Colt Brennon Hawaii
Alex Smith Utah
Brett Rypian Boise State
KellEn Moore Boise State
Ian Johnson Boise State
Jarrod Zabransky Boise State
Ryan Dinwiddie Boise State
Doug Martin Boise State
Blake Bortles UCF
Daunte Culpepper UCF
McKenzie Milton UCF
Ben Roethlesberger Miami, Ohio
Chad Pennington Marshall
Ty Detmer BYU
Roger Staubach Navy
Matt Grothe USF
Paxton Lynch Memphis
Danny Wimprine Memphis
Colin K. UNR
John Dutton UNR
Dan Lefevour CMU
I could name more, plus some big names from lower levels that were award winners at the D1 for all times.
NCAA also marketed off Carson Wentz of North Dakota State and Joe Flaco of Delaware.

That doesnt matter and thats not the purpose of Alston. Creating a free market style competition for players was the purpose of Alston. The platiffs "won" and were moderately successful in creating an environment where there will be more competetive "bidding" for players. However, players passed over by the big money programs who end up playing for FCS/D2 programs with little money will see little real difference in benefits because those programs simply have no money with which to fund additional benefits. Just like in the pros---guys in the minor leagues dont make what MLB players make because the minor league budgets are small. Thats the free market. Thats what the plaintiffs who sued the NCAA were demanding. College will be like real life. Players in the NFL will make more than players in Arena League football.

(03-11-2019 12:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 07:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question about the Alston case could knock some FBS schools down to FCS. La.-Monroe, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Eastern Michigan and some others could be effected because they have to spend more money on the athletic departments.

Why would it? Per Alston, the NCAA can no longer "cap" educational benefit. However, the decision does not require schools to provide to student athletes anything more than they are currently providing. The P5 will certainly offer more benefits to student athletes than the G5 once this shakes out. But--the P5 schools were already always the preferred choice by recruits over G5 schools---so really--its not going to make much difference for the G5 schools. Their athlete pool the G5 was fishing in remains largely the same. The biggest benefit the G5 could offer recruits to compete with P5 schools was more or quicker playing opportunities. That factor remains unchanged.

I doubt Alston, in and of itself, would force schools out of FBS.

I don't think the Alston case will drive G5's out of the FBS, but I do think it will create a separation of quality within the programs in the G5. I think Athletic departments investing in their programs and willing to pay for more of the extras that Alston will probably lead to, are going to have an even easier time signing the better G5 level recruits compared to the less affluent G5 programs.