(07-20-2021 10:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 05:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 05:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The Big Ten announced an AD agreement that they were abandoning FCS buy games ... and obviously that would have been in part under pressure from or to make themselves more attractive to media partners ... but then walked it back to schools that had four Big Ten home games are allowed to have an FCS buy game.

They also announced a requirement to have 10 P5 games ... but then a certain set of Go5 schools were declared to be "good enough"

The end result was fewer FCS buy games per season, but IIRC not 50% fewer, and the total number of Go5 games buy games ended up not changing all that much.

Fully suspect schools in the American, Mountain West, BYU and Army-(Navy and Air Force are in the AAC & MWC)will all be considered "Good Enough" and will not be left out

Back in 2015, they said that ND, BYU, Army and Navy (which had just joined the AAC at the time of the report) would count, and that UC and UConn would be allowed.

They stated not all of the American schools would count, but Big Ten schools could apply for a school to count and the Big Ten would decide based on their recent RPI "and other factors" (I presume "other factors" is asking the media partner if a school has a big enough brand).

I haven't tracked whether any Big Ten schools have successfully{+} applied for any MWC schools to count, nor for additional AAC schools, since the policy came into effect in 2015. I'm pretty sure that all three with a mandate, the Big Ten, SEC and ACC, count ND, BYU and Army.

{+ One presumes that only successful applications would be announced.}

Ultimately, I think the practical exceptions ended up being over the past few years was that if a Big Ten school had a preexisting home-and-home series scheduled against a non-P5 school, then that would count as a P5 game. The league essentially didn't want to punish schools that already had game contracts in place (particular for road games where they'd have a large financial penalty for canceling).

So, I wouldn't assign any past designation as a permanent exception to any school outside of ND (which is clearly a P5 school despite being an independent in any event).

(07-20-2021 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 03:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is it time to SECede?

Some of us tried that once and the US Government, even though they had no legal right to do so, invaded our country and hunted us down with guns.

I've always figured there were some folks on this board who are a lot older than I am, but I never would have guessed that you're that much older, X.

(07-20-2021 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 03:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is it time to SECede?

Some of us tried that once and the US Government, even though they had no legal right to do so, invaded our country and hunted us down with guns.

Well, I'm from Virginia, but I don't think so. I've looked for the clause in the US constitution that gives a state the right to secede, and I've never been able to find it.

IIRC, this was settled during the ratification of the constitution, and by an issue brought up by a northern state: When New York was debating whether to ratify the constitution and join the USA, the sentiment in the legislature was to do so, but with a caveat that New York retains the right to leave the USA if it should so choose. They wanted a "secession clause", at least for themselves. Alexander Hamilton said that this would be tantamount to "non-ratification", as joining the union was irreversible.

There is not one that I know of---but I would suggest the Declaration of Independence--signed by many of the the same folks who brought you the US Constitution--explains why you really dont need one. That said, I tend to think a split within D1 is FAR more likely than a break with the NCAA. I think we are going to have a "high compensation" division (eventually it will be full on pay-for-play) which will represent the apex of college sports. Its existence will clear the way for "amatuer model" divisions to exist beneath it within the same NCAA structure.

(07-20-2021 09:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:48 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 07:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Any change will still allow the G5 to compete under the same rules as the P5.

As much as Alabama might complain about being in the same governance structure as "small schools," they still scheduled Southern Miss, New Mexico State, and Mercer in football this year.

Those days are numbered. Every time a P5 takes a bigger deal the networks will demand more P games. And should there be a breakaway, which is what is being set up here, only schools who commit to NIL and full scholarships/and, or/ pay for play depending upon a SCOTUS ruling on stipend caps next Summer, will be involved and then inside a closed scheduling system.

If the choice of division is a voluntary commitment (rather than an exclusive club), the AAC will be fine. The AAC will choose to pony up and play with the big boys.

As long as midwestern peers like Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa are comfortable with the pay-for-play model, Cincinnati will commit the resources necessary to stay in the same division as them.

IIRC, Cincy already socks its students with about $30 million in fees and transfers, about 43% of its overall budget, to stay within mega-horn shouting distance of those regional P5s. If the amount needed to ante up to big boy status doubles, can Cincy double the fee to $60 million? Where is that extra money going to be ponied-up from? We know that other 57% of the budget, the part that athletics actually earns via fans in the stands and media deals, isn't going to be generating much new revenue.

So I'm not sure.

Sure, there's a point beyond which UC won't be able to compete.

But the cost of not competing is far higher than $30 million for us. It's the long-term difference between transforming into Pitt or Akron.

I don't think there is any evidence that the presence or absence of "major level" football is likely to have anywhere near that impact on Cincinnati (or USF). If there is, I would love to see it.

In 1980, UC's enrollment was around 39k. Today it is around 46k. Adjusted for population it's probably lower now than then. And I'm not sure it is any better a school now than then. I'm not sure where Cincy football was in 1980.

(07-20-2021 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 03:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is it time to SECede?

Some of us tried that once and the US Government, even though they had no legal right to do so, invaded our country and hunted us down with guns.

Well, I'm from Virginia, but I don't think so. I've looked for the clause in the US constitution that gives a state the right to secede, and I've never been able to find it.

IIRC, this was settled during the ratification of the constitution, and by an issue brought up by a northern state: When New York was debating whether to ratify the constitution and join the USA, the sentiment in the legislature was to do so, but with a caveat that New York retains the right to leave the USA if it should so choose. They wanted a "secession clause", at least for themselves. Alexander Hamilton said that this would be tantamount to "non-ratification", as joining the union was irreversible.

Nor would you have been able to find anything that would prevent it.

(07-20-2021 08:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 12:46 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 07:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 09:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Any change will still allow the G5 to compete under the same rules as the P5.

As much as Alabama might complain about being in the same governance structure as "small schools," they still scheduled Southern Miss, New Mexico State, and Mercer in football this year.

Those days are numbered. Every time a P5 takes a bigger deal the networks will demand more P games. And should there be a breakaway, which is what is being set up here, only schools who commit to NIL and full scholarships/and, or/ pay for play depending upon a SCOTUS ruling on stipend caps next Summer, will be involved and then inside a closed scheduling system.

I agree and disagree with you JR.
Yes, there does need to be a separation, but in men's basketball and maybe some other olympic sports too, like women's basketball and baseball. FCS teams don't and shouldn't being playing FBS schools in men's basketball for sure (see comment on why are Alabama and Binghamton in the same division).

As for football though, the networks may want more P games, but the P teams and coaches are going to object, and given the new transfer portal, even an AD not listening to his/her athletes could be detrimental to their job in the long run. Fans love to see "David vs Goliath" matchups too!! With the transfer portal, and streaming, E$PN has finally met its match, IMHO.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

No one can make blanket statements about a FBS/FCS or non-football divide for other sports, particularly basketball. The Big East and schools like Gonzaga make more money for the men's basketball system than the G5.

There is a divide in college baskeball, just like college football, and it follows FBS/FCS lines, IMO, with a few notable exceptions:
the Big East, the Atlantic 10, the Missouri Valley Conference, the Big West, the WAC, and the West Coast Conference (the conference Gonzaga is in) are actually treated as "FBS" conferences although they have no football or FCS football. As much as I liked UMBC's upset of Virginia in the tourney, how far did they go?? Did they make it to the Sweet 16? No, they did not. The conferences I mentioned above have staying power in the NCAA tourny. The other conferences below them that are in FCS have no staying power whatsoever.

(07-20-2021 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 03:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is it time to SECede?

Some of us tried that once and the US Government, even though they had no legal right to do so, invaded our country and hunted us down with guns.

Well, I'm from Virginia, but I don't think so. I've looked for the clause in the US constitution that gives a state the right to secede, and I've never been able to find it.

IIRC, this was settled during the ratification of the constitution, and by an issue brought up by a northern state: When New York was debating whether to ratify the constitution and join the USA, the sentiment in the legislature was to do so, but with a caveat that New York retains the right to leave the USA if it should so choose. They wanted a "secession clause", at least for themselves. Alexander Hamilton said that this would be tantamount to "non-ratification", as joining the union was irreversible.

Nor would you have been able to find anything that would prevent it.

Texas vs. White 1868 - citing the Articles of Confederation. Folks tend to forget the first Constitution of the US.

I will boot any poster in this thread who derails this into a discussion of the Civil War. Cease and desist!

Times have been slow and I've allowed musings from the nearly political to chit chat that had nothing to do with OP's.

Things are picking up and no matter how cordial the derailment may or may not be the hammer is about to start falling again on thread derailments.

(07-20-2021 12:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I will boot any poster in this thread who derails this into a discussion of the Civil War. Cease and desist!

Times have been slow and I've allowed musings from the nearly political to chit chat that had nothing to do with OP's.

Things are picking up and no matter how cordial the derailment may or may not be the hammer is about to start falling again on thread derailments.

So Oregon/Oregon State football is off the topic list?

(07-20-2021 12:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 12:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I will boot any poster in this thread who derails this into a discussion of the Civil War. Cease and desist!

Times have been slow and I've allowed musings from the nearly political to chit chat that had nothing to do with OP's.

Things are picking up and no matter how cordial the derailment may or may not be the hammer is about to start falling again on thread derailments.

So Oregon/Oregon State football is off the topic list?

hardy, har, har.

There is a great forum to talk about the War Between the States, and it's definitely not here, and I'm a history buff!!!!!

JR, what do you think about pulling the America East, the A-Sun, the Big Sky, the Big South, the Colonial Athletic, the Horizon, the Ivy League, the Patriot League, the Metro Atlantic, the MEAC, the NEC, the OVC, the SoCon, the Southland, the SWAC, and the Summit out of Division and putting them in a new Division 2???

(07-20-2021 12:41 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 12:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 12:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I will boot any poster in this thread who derails this into a discussion of the Civil War. Cease and desist!

Times have been slow and I've allowed musings from the nearly political to chit chat that had nothing to do with OP's.

Things are picking up and no matter how cordial the derailment may or may not be the hammer is about to start falling again on thread derailments.

So Oregon/Oregon State football is off the topic list?

hardy, har, har.

There is a great forum to talk about the War Between the States, and it's definitely not here, and I'm a history buff!!!!!

JR, what do you think about pulling the America East, the A-Sun, the Big Sky, the Big South, the Colonial Athletic, the Horizon, the Ivy League, the Patriot League, the Metro Atlantic, the MEAC, the NEC, the OVC, the SoCon, the Southland, the SWAC, and the Summit out of Division and putting them in a new Division 2???

You mean schools that have won 26 TEAM Division 1 National Championships over the last 10 years, far more than:

Sun Belt - ZERO
C-USA - ONE
A-10 - ONE
Big West - FIVE
MVC - TWO
AAC - ZERO Current, 7 with UConn
MWC - TWO
WCC - FOUR

The A5 may get more autonomy on scholarships (and direct compensation to student-athletes), while all D1 schools can choose a la carte on which level their teams’ sports compete. For example, UConn may not want to compete in football at that the pay-for-play level…but women’s basketball could easily absorb more scholarships/compensation. If ACC schools lead the effort to increase lacrosse scholarships, then many D1 schools (including other P5 programs) may choose to get out of that arms-race. The traditional conference-based alliances may be altered.

(07-20-2021 08:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  One perpetually underrated issue in conference realignment: politics.

Also consider the legal fiduciary duties of various boards that may govern a wide range of schools (from P5 schools to Division III) and could prevent them from enacting an NCAA split.

Take the example of the University of Illinois Board of Trustees. The Board has a fiduciary duty to a high resource Big Ten school (Illinois), a low resource midmajor Division I school (UIC), and a super low resource Division II school (UIS). Can the Board fulfill its fiduciary duties to all institutions that it governs if it authorizes an NCAA split that would elevate Illinois even further but effectively relegate UIC and UIS? That's a legitimate *legal* bind for the Board.

Frankly, Illinois is a smaller example. Many other states have university boards that govern a whole lot more institutions. Look at the University of California System. Heck, Texas (the school) gets politically shackled in conference realignment matters with schools that aren't even a part of the UT System (e.g. Texas Tech), much less schools that are actually in the UT System.

That doesn't even get into the more amorphous local political considerations when larger schools try to shut out smaller schools. It's one thing to say that larger schools should get more money based on free market principles, but another matter that the larger schools can effectively relegate entire swaths of athletic department entirely.

I just think that there's so much inertia and political capital built into the NCAA structure that it's essentially "too big to fail" at this point.

To be sure, I could certainly see a whole lot more autonomy granted to the P5 as a trade-off for continued support for the NCAA structure overall. Relenting on scholarship requirements for the P5 leagues is a great example of an issue where the NCAA has really been arbitrary in its limitations - if higher resource schools can provide more scholarship opportunities to more athletes, then there shouldn't be any limitations on that front.

As most people here know, I'm no fan of the NCAA. However, I do understand that it has value if only as an organizer of national championships (outside of FBS football, of course) and a general umbrella organization. For instance, I don't think that college sports would be better off in a world where each individual sport has its own governance structure similar to how the US national teams all have separate rules and governing bodies in sending athletes to the Olympics. In that area, we have seen a whole lot of challenges to that model and frankly it just creates dozens of sport-specific bureaucracies (which in many ways is a lot less efficient than one large national multi-sport bureaucracy).

That's why I've never been one to put much stock into the NCAA splitting up. I'm a large believer in P5 power overall (and in some ways believe that it's larger than what many G5 fans give it credit for), but not a believer that the P5 would completely leave the NCAA structure entirely due to the factors I've noted here.

You've articulated several cogent arguments and they all support your last paragraph. An inescapable reality is that there are more than 1100 colleges and universities in the NCAA, and almost all of them are having their needs met pretty well. We have no reason to assume that any other organization or group of organizations would do that any better.

We often tend to think of the schools in P5 conferences as if they all had the same athletic interests. They don't. The fact is that a majority of them understand that they are prospering in the current system beyond their wildest dreams, and beyond where their own virtues and talents could take them. They are riding the coattails of the super successful few, and rightly fear that blowing up the system could end very badly for them.

And in their heart of hearts, I think those at the top of the athletics food chain understand the potential threat a breakaway might pose to their own success. Will there be change? Sure. When has there not been change? But it will be incremental and not cosmic IMO.

(07-20-2021 01:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  An inescapable reality is that there are more than 1100 colleges and universities in the NCAA, and almost all of them are having their needs met pretty well.

More than 900 of those colleges have no means of generating significant revenue from athletics, and they are getting the administration services and championships provided by the NCAA for free. Why wouldn't those colleges be happy with that?

The moneymakers in college athletics are still in the NCAA because they have wanted to preserve the façade of college-sports-as-amateurism, in order to (a) not pay athletes, and (b) to maintain the power imbalance between colleges and athletes that heavily favors the colleges.

Do the moneymakers remain in the NCAA if the NCAA can't do those things for them any more?

(07-20-2021 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 01:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  An inescapable reality is that there are more than 1100 colleges and universities in the NCAA, and almost all of them are having their needs met pretty well.

More than 900 of those colleges have no means of generating significant revenue from athletics, and they are getting the administration services and championships provided by the NCAA for free. Why wouldn't those colleges be happy with that?

The moneymakers in college athletics are still in the NCAA because they have wanted to preserve the façade of college-sports-as-amateurism, in order to (a) not pay athletes, and (b) to maintain the power imbalance between colleges and athletes that heavily favors the colleges.

Do the moneymakers remain in the NCAA if the NCAA can't do those things for them any more?

Hello!!! Anybody listening??? Plus 3!

(07-20-2021 11:58 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 03:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is it time to SECede?

Some of us tried that once and the US Government, even though they had no legal right to do so, invaded our country and hunted us down with guns.

I've always figured there were some folks on this board who are a lot older than I am, but I never would have guessed that you're that much older, X.

Ancient!

(07-20-2021 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 01:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  An inescapable reality is that there are more than 1100 colleges and universities in the NCAA, and almost all of them are having their needs met pretty well.

More than 900 of those colleges have no means of generating significant revenue from athletics, and they are getting the administration services and championships provided by the NCAA for free. Why wouldn't those colleges be happy with that?

The moneymakers in college athletics are still in the NCAA because they have wanted to preserve the façade of college-sports-as-amateurism, in order to (a) not pay athletes, and (b) to maintain the power imbalance between colleges and athletes that heavily favors the colleges.

Do the moneymakers remain in the NCAA if the NCAA can't do those things for them any more?

How many of these 'moneymakers" who would leave the NCAA do you think there are? I think the true number is smaller than you think, and a big reason why they can make so much money is because they have the others to beat up on. They may not be thriving in spite of the current system. They may be thriving because of it.

It may be that the PTB at those schools are as malevolent as you seem to suggest they are, in which case maybe it's time to say good riddance to them. I'm just not ready to accept that they are.

(07-20-2021 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 01:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  An inescapable reality is that there are more than 1100 colleges and universities in the NCAA, and almost all of them are having their needs met pretty well.

More than 900 of those colleges have no means of generating significant revenue from athletics, and they are getting the administration services and championships provided by the NCAA for free. Why wouldn't those colleges be happy with that?

The moneymakers in college athletics are still in the NCAA because they have wanted to preserve the façade of college-sports-as-amateurism, in order to (a) not pay athletes, and (b) to maintain the power imbalance between colleges and athletes that heavily favors the colleges.

Do the moneymakers remain in the NCAA if the NCAA can't do those things for them any more?

How many of these 'moneymakers" who would leave the NCAA do you think there are? I think the true number is smaller than you think, and a big reason why they can make so much money is because they have the others to beat up on. They may not be thriving in spite of the current system. They may be thriving because of it.

It may be that the PTB at those schools are as malevolent as you seem to suggest they are, in which case maybe it's time to say good riddance to them. I'm just not ready to accept that they are.

Has nothing to do with malevolence. It's primarily about money. That includes whether, once the pretense of amateurism is gone, the schools that can break off decide they want more money to pay for ever-increasing budgets at the top levels of college sports. Also, no one said they are leaving *today*. Inertia and procrastination are important in any bureaucracy.

Think of this like getting divorced after one or both people are convinced the marriage is no longer worthwhile. Maybe some people say, boom, it's over, and just file the papers. But a lot of people procrastinate, and are reluctant to actually confront the issue and tell their spouse it's over, reluctant to deal with the messiness of divorce, and on and on. Sometimes that goes on for years until the divorce papers are filed. Despite all of that, lots and lots of divorces happen every year (about 750,000/year in the US in pre-pandemic years).

In other words, when good reasons to stay married no longer exist, the fact that the divorce isn't immediate doesn't mean it won't happen eventually.

(07-20-2021 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 09:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:48 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-19-2021 07:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Those days are numbered. Every time a P5 takes a bigger deal the networks will demand more P games. And should there be a breakaway, which is what is being set up here, only schools who commit to NIL and full scholarships/and, or/ pay for play depending upon a SCOTUS ruling on stipend caps next Summer, will be involved and then inside a closed scheduling system.

If the choice of division is a voluntary commitment (rather than an exclusive club), the AAC will be fine. The AAC will choose to pony up and play with the big boys.

As long as midwestern peers like Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa are comfortable with the pay-for-play model, Cincinnati will commit the resources necessary to stay in the same division as them.

IIRC, Cincy already socks its students with about $30 million in fees and transfers, about 43% of its overall budget, to stay within mega-horn shouting distance of those regional P5s. If the amount needed to ante up to big boy status doubles, can Cincy double the fee to $60 million? Where is that extra money going to be ponied-up from? We know that other 57% of the budget, the part that athletics actually earns via fans in the stands and media deals, isn't going to be generating much new revenue.

So I'm not sure.

Sure, there's a point beyond which UC won't be able to compete.

But the cost of not competing is far higher than $30 million for us. It's the long-term difference between transforming into Pitt or Akron.

I don't think there is any evidence that the presence or absence of "major level" football is likely to have anywhere near that impact on Cincinnati (or USF). If there is, I would love to see it.

In 1980, UC's enrollment was around 39k. Today it is around 46k. Adjusted for population it's probably lower now than then. And I'm not sure it is any better a school now than then. I'm not sure where Cincy football was in 1980.

In 1980, UC was a commuter school. It was a boom time for commuter schools due to the tail end of the baby boomers and skyrocketing numbers of females entering college.

In 2021, nationwide college enrollment is declining. The only schools that are growing are large public comprehensive research schools (which includes elite sports), private schools with big-time sports (Butler, Villanova, Xavier) or super-elite private schools with multibillion dollar endowments.

In 1980, UC was the 10th largest undergrad school in the country, but 40% of students were part-time. Flagships like Ohio State and Texas and Wisconsin were at 10%.

Most of UC's 1980 peers have declining enrollment today (like Toledo, Akron, Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Many schools that were ahead of UC in 1980 are either far behind today (Miami-OH, Oberlin, Kenyon, Ohio) or have seen UC make up a lot of ground on them (Case Western, Rochester). UC's biggest advantage over those schools in the 21st century was high-quality athletics. The local schools that UC has NOT gained substantial ground on (Ohio State, Pitt, Purdue, Notre Dame, Indiana) all have high quality athletics programs.

The three people most responsible for UC's growth are coach Bob Huggins, coach Brian Kelly, and Joe Steger (president in the 90s who pioneered public-private partnerships to build dorms and converted UC into a residential campus).

(07-20-2021 04:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 09:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2021 08:48 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If the choice of division is a voluntary commitment (rather than an exclusive club), the AAC will be fine. The AAC will choose to pony up and play with the big boys.

As long as midwestern peers like Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa are comfortable with the pay-for-play model, Cincinnati will commit the resources necessary to stay in the same division as them.

IIRC, Cincy already socks its students with about $30 million in fees and transfers, about 43% of its overall budget, to stay within mega-horn shouting distance of those regional P5s. If the amount needed to ante up to big boy status doubles, can Cincy double the fee to $60 million? Where is that extra money going to be ponied-up from? We know that other 57% of the budget, the part that athletics actually earns via fans in the stands and media deals, isn't going to be generating much new revenue.

So I'm not sure.

Sure, there's a point beyond which UC won't be able to compete.

But the cost of not competing is far higher than $30 million for us. It's the long-term difference between transforming into Pitt or Akron.

I don't think there is any evidence that the presence or absence of "major level" football is likely to have anywhere near that impact on Cincinnati (or USF). If there is, I would love to see it.

In 1980, UC's enrollment was around 39k. Today it is around 46k. Adjusted for population it's probably lower now than then. And I'm not sure it is any better a school now than then. I'm not sure where Cincy football was in 1980.

In 1980, UC was a commuter school. It was a boom time for commuter schools due to the tail end of the baby boomers and skyrocketing numbers of females entering college.

In 2021, nationwide college enrollment is declining. The only schools that are growing are large public comprehensive research schools (which includes elite sports), private schools with big-time sports (Butler, Villanova, Xavier) or super-elite private schools with multibillion dollar endowments.

In 1980, UC was the 10th largest undergrad school in the country, but 40% of students were part-time. Flagships like Ohio State and Texas and Wisconsin were at 10%.

Most of UC's 1980 peers have declining enrollment today (like Toledo, Akron, Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Many schools that were ahead of UC in 1980 are either far behind today (Miami-OH, Oberlin, Kenyon, Ohio) or have seen UC make up a lot of ground on them (Case Western, Rochester). UC's biggest advantage over those schools in the 21st century was high-quality athletics. The local schools that UC has NOT gained substantial ground on (Ohio State, Pitt, Purdue, Notre Dame, Indiana) all have high quality athletics programs.

The three people most responsible for UC's growth are coach Bob Huggins, coach Brian Kelly, and Joe Steger (president in the 90s who pioneered public-private partnerships to build dorms and converted UC into a residential campus).

To be honest, there are other ways to grow into a top 50 national research university. Many of the University of California system schools were barely getting started in 1980. For example, UC San Diego is now a research powerhouse. The difference is that they invested in research faculty (rather than sports). They’re now finally investing in athletics and have moved up to D1.

Using athletics as the foundation is a risky approach…that charges the students and alumni for the start-up investment cost.