(06-17-2009 01:44 PM)COHUSKIE Wrote:  My first thought was to attack NIJ because for the most part he/she looks to know but really does not know much of anything. However, look at the other side of the argument. Going to FCS might not be bad at all, in fact it could prove to be better in the long run both money wise and recognition wise. Why?

1) You would have few teams left at the BCS level. We all know that you will have the same teams time and time again playing for the championship. Like limited supply and choice it has a limited life. Sooner rather than later people will get tired of seeing Oklahoma, Ohio State, USC and Florida playing in the championship game over and over.

2) Alot of teams would be classified as FCS and some good teams at that. The competition will be better and more pure than the prima donna's of the BCS. You could have a cinderella story almost every year.

3) You can not create a playoff and a good size one at that. If you find a great brain to market it, it could be bigger and draw more fans and sponsors overall than the BCS will be able to. You could then have a true National Champion at the FCS level instead of the mythical, computer and subjective opinion champion that the BCS crowns.

4) You create a policy that no FCS team plays a BCS team. Make the FCS brand just as if not more intriquing than the BCS brand which is already tarnished. Market it as the only true Series than crowns only a true champion in the spirit of fair and open competition to all its members.

In 5 years or so you could have more people paying attention to the FCS than the BCS because there are a whole bunch more people who went to, have their kids going to or have in their community a university that would be branded FCS.

So goodbye prima donna's of the BCS, I think it would work out fine in the end.

Excellent points. I do believe we will see further separation of the BCS schools and the rest of us, and that MAC schools will get dropped down to the FCS level. But as you point out that doesn't have to be the end of the world. In fact, it could be a wonderful opportunity to play an exciting brand of football and establish some legitimate geographical rivals. Plus no more of this false competition to be like the BCS schools. We can't compete with the financially, so to hell with it. Let them do their thing and we can do our thing. And I bet you would see NIU football stay as popular as it is today too.

Quote:In 5 years or so you could have more people paying attention to the FCS than the BCS because there are a whole bunch more people who went to, have their kids going to or have in their community a university that would be branded FCS.

Oh come on, nobody can actually believe that. You think FCS, made up of little schools and directional school, would more popular than the Ohio State's, USC's, Florida's, Texas', Michigan's, and so on and so forth. No. Never would happen.

(06-17-2009 01:44 PM)COHUSKIE Wrote:  1) You would have few teams left at the BCS level. We all know that you will have the same teams time and time again playing for the championship. Like limited supply and choice it has a limited life. Sooner rather than later people will get tired of seeing Oklahoma, Ohio State, USC and Florida playing in the championship game over and over.

Not to take away from the better parts of your post, but you need to rethink the bolded above - why do you think the Yankees and Red Sox, the Bears and the Cubs, the Red Wings and the Lakers are consistently popular? Because they are a brand, not just a team. Oklahoma, Ohio State, USC and Florida are brands that will not lose their luster just because they are always playing for championships.

If anything, they will become stronger.

Any FBS school dropping to FCS would certainly be bucking the trend. I count 15 (16 if you count South Alabama) moving UP since 1989--and two of them are BCS now--UConn in 2000 and USF in 2001. I can't find one current FCS school that dropped down in the '90s. Cal State-Fullerton and Long Beach State dropped football completely in the early '90's and Wichita State in 1986. Other than that (not counting the MAC for one year in 1982) it just hasn't happened.

But its going to happen because of the economics of college football and the BCS conferences separating from the rest of the herd. You have a lot of college presidents of mid-majors across the country who are under increasing pressure to fulfill (and fund) the academic mission of their universities. That doesn't leave much room for commitment to Division I college football.

I say Division I football will be down to 75 teams within a matter of a couple years.

Look at the numbers i posted above, we made money on NIU Football.

It is not 1-A football that is causing us to lose money it is the other sports at NIU that don't make money. Though, the financial report says we didn't lose money after all expenses were paid.

Now look at 1-AA football at SIU and Ill. State. SIU lost almost $2 million on 1-AA football and ISU lost almost $1 million on football.

We would lose more money by being 1-AA.

If I do the math correctly dropping a level in college football for economic reasons does not seem to make much of an impact. The savings of 20 scholarships (at roughly $20K per year each) amounts to only $400K a year. There may some other savings from fielding a smaller team, but i'm sure the expected loss in revenue would be at least equal to the savings.

I would suspect that the right answer for schools looking to downsize due to the economy would be to drop the sport of football completely.

You don't just cut 20 scholarships, though. Title IX would mean that you would also cut a good number of women's sthletic scholarships depending on the male-female ratio of enrolled students. So you would be forced to cut a money-draining women's sport, too.

Plus, some presidents just don't like the idea of alumni and press focusing on athletics instead of academics. What they don't realise is that athletics is by far the biggest recruiting tool for prospective students you can have, in terms of getting the name of your school out there. It's like a commercial that runs 24/7 to both alumni (spurring more donations) and students.

What annoys me with the MWC is that they're demanding inclusion for themselves rather than trying to break up the BCS monopoly on all the money. If anything, the MWC and other non-AQ conferences should be asking for more of the BCS revenue. That's where the biggest stake is at. BCS schools only make up 56% of the 1-A schools yet they receive 86% of the BCS revenue. Either the NCAA or the government needs to step in and distribute that money equally. The total BCS revenue last year was $148,164,228. If non-AQ schools received our equal share of the money (44%) then we'd be looking at $65,192,260. Split among the 53 non-AQ schools and that would give us each $1,230,042 in BCS revenue. Instead, the MAC received $1,529,600 total from BCS revenue last season which only equates to $117,661 per MAC school. The MAC, CUSA, WAC, MWC, and SBC only received $19,296,000 (13%) of the total $148,164,228 in BCS revenue.

(06-17-2009 07:29 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  What annoys me with the MWC is that they're demanding inclusion for themselves rather than trying to break up the BCS monopoly on all the money. If anything, the MWC and other non-AQ conferences should be asking for more of the BCS revenue. That's where the biggest stake is at. BCS schools only make up 56% of the 1-A schools yet they receive 86% of the BCS revenue. Either the NCAA or the government needs to step in and distribute that money equally. The total BCS revenue last year was $148,164,228. If non-AQ schools received our equal share of the money (44%) then we'd be looking at $65,192,260. Split among the 53 non-AQ schools and that would give us each $1,230,042 in BCS revenue. Instead, the MAC received $1,529,600 total from BCS revenue last season which only equates to $117,661 per MAC school. The MAC, CUSA, WAC, MWC, and SBC only received $19,296,000 (13%) of the total $148,164,228 in BCS revenue.

The problem with your theory is that, based on numbers I saw for 2007, BCS schools also bring in about 82% of all athletic revenues for 1-A schools on a per-school basis. Why would the schools who bring in most of the revenue want to receive only 56-57% of it back and have the rest of it re-distributed? They wouldn't, and if you are in their shoes there is no reason to go along with that.

(06-17-2009 07:36 PM)UIHuskie Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 07:29 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  What annoys me with the MWC is that they're demanding inclusion for themselves rather than trying to break up the BCS monopoly on all the money. If anything, the MWC and other non-AQ conferences should be asking for more of the BCS revenue. That's where the biggest stake is at. BCS schools only make up 56% of the 1-A schools yet they receive 86% of the BCS revenue. Either the NCAA or the government needs to step in and distribute that money equally. The total BCS revenue last year was $148,164,228. If non-AQ schools received our equal share of the money (44%) then we'd be looking at $65,192,260. Split among the 53 non-AQ schools and that would give us each $1,230,042 in BCS revenue. Instead, the MAC received $1,529,600 total from BCS revenue last season which only equates to $117,661 per MAC school. The MAC, CUSA, WAC, MWC, and SBC only received $19,296,000 (13%) of the total $148,164,228 in BCS revenue.

The problem with your theory is that, based on numbers I saw for 2007, BCS schools also bring in about 82% of all athletic revenues for 1-A schools on a per-school basis. Why would the schools who bring in most of the revenue want to receive only 56-57% of it back and have the rest of it re-distributed? They wouldn't, and if you are in their shoes there is no reason to go along with that.

Part of the reason they bring in 82% of all athletics revenues is all the BCS revenue they are getting. Another reason is the excessive tv contracts that BCS conferences are getting. The Big Ten has a $1 billion deal with ESPN alone. That gives each BT school an additional $9.1 million per year just off the ESPN contract, not including the money they bring in from the BTN.

The tv contract also goes hand-in-hand as to your question about why BCS schools should only receive 56% of the BCS revenue. BCS schools don't need 86% of the BCS revenue. They already make way more off their tv contracts and other revenue streams. If the non-AQ conferences are truly part of the BCS system then we should receive an automatic bid and our equal share of the revenue.

The current BCS is a monopoly.

(06-17-2009 07:49 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Part of the reason they bring in 82% of all athletics revenues is all the BCS revenue they are getting. Another reason is the excessive tv contracts that BCS conferences are getting. The Big Ten has a $1 billion deal with ESPN alone. That gives each BT school an additional $9.1 million per year just off the ESPN contract, not including the money they bring in from the BTN.

The tv contract also goes hand-in-hand as to your question about why BCS schools should only receive 56% of the BCS revenue. BCS schools don't need 86% of the BCS revenue. They already make way more off their tv contracts and other revenue streams. If the non-AQ conferences are truly part of the BCS system then we should receive an automatic bid and our equal share of the revenue.

The current BCS is a monopoly.

Total athletic revenues brought in by the BCS schools (this includes the Big East basketball-only schools) in 2007 exceeded $4.2 billion. As a percentage of that, even if they got 100% of the BCS revenues, it would equate to only 3% of total athletic revenues (I realize it's different years, but you get the point). It isn't the reason for the revenue gulf, nor is it a particularly large one.

They get paid that money for TV rights because ESPN can make money off of it; there's enough demand for ad space during those time slots and events to command that much money. If there was that kind of demand for non-BCS football, the TV revenue would be at that same level. The popularity and interest is there to make those TV deals worthwhile to both sides.

I think you and I have a philosophical difference from an economics standpoint. I think we'd disagree on what a "fair" share is when somebody is bringing significantly more to the table, in terms of revenue, than somebody else is. You're essentially calling for the BCS schools to subsidize the non-BCS schools. I don't see a reason the BCS schools should want to go along with that.

Finally, I never said the BCS schools *needed* that percentage of the BCS revenue, just that, if you are them, there is no reason to give it up. I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.

(06-17-2009 08:02 PM)UIHuskie Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 07:49 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Part of the reason they bring in 82% of all athletics revenues is all the BCS revenue they are getting. Another reason is the excessive tv contracts that BCS conferences are getting. The Big Ten has a $1 billion deal with ESPN alone. That gives each BT school an additional $9.1 million per year just off the ESPN contract, not including the money they bring in from the BTN.

The tv contract also goes hand-in-hand as to your question about why BCS schools should only receive 56% of the BCS revenue. BCS schools don't need 86% of the BCS revenue. They already make way more off their tv contracts and other revenue streams. If the non-AQ conferences are truly part of the BCS system then we should receive an automatic bid and our equal share of the revenue.

The current BCS is a monopoly.

They get paid that money for TV rights because ESPN can make money off of it; there's enough demand for ad space during those time slots and events to command that much money. If there was that kind of demand for non-BCS football, the TV revenue would be at that same level. The popularity and interest is there to make those TV deals worthwhile to both sides.

I think you and I have a philosophical difference from an economics standpoint. I think we'd disagree on what a "fair" share is when somebody is bringing significantly more to the table, in terms of revenue, than somebody else is. You're essentially calling for the BCS schools to subsidize the non-BCS schools. I don't see a reason the BCS schools should want to go along with that.

Finally, I never said the BCS schools *needed* that percentage of the BCS revenue, just that, if you are them, there is no reason to give it up. I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.

The BCS system claims that the MAC and other non-AQ conferences are part of the BCS. If we comprise 44% of the BCS then we should receive 44% of the BCS revenue.

Also, how could this be construed as BCS schools subsidizing non-AQ schools? BCS schools are simply getting the BCS revenue. They didn't do anything to earn that money except show up for a BCS game that was given to them via an automatic bid. Given the history of the ACC in BCS bowls and the recent history of the BT in BCS bowls they don't even deserve those automatic bids or all that money.

Our new AD is preaching b-ball b/c there is such a smaller overhead with hoops and the conference is missing a huge opportunity to increase revenue in a sport that will operate in the black.

He didn't say anything negative regarding football. He repeatedly spoke about pumping up b-ball because that is where the MAC can make more money faster while being profitable.

I know the economy is bad and budgets are tight but if NIU football could weather the 1990's we can make it thru this.

There was a much smaller attendance and donorship to athletics, obvious lower revenues in NIU merchandise, probably no revenue thru TV/Radio back then while expenses had to have been massive playing in the Big West. I do believe the east side was built during this time with department funding only, if I recall correctly? Financially, the football program is in much better shape financially than 10-15 years ago.

Huron Dave made a pretty bold statement but had zero to back it up.

(06-17-2009 08:25 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  The BCS system claims that the MAC and other non-AQ conferences are part of the BCS. If we comprise 44% of the BCS then we should receive 44% of the BCS revenue.

Also, how could this be construed as BCS schools subsidizing non-AQ schools? BCS schools are simply getting the BCS revenue. They didn't do anything to earn that money except show up for a BCS game that was given to them via an automatic bid. Given the history of the ACC in BCS bowls and the recent history of the BT in BCS bowls they don't even deserve those automatic bids or all that money.

But a large portion of that BCS revenue coming in is the result of the BCS schools. Why do you think the BCS TV deal is so large? Why do you think those bowls are so important anyway? The Pac 10 and Big Ten have spent decades making the Rose Bowl a New Year's Day tradition; why would they want money from that game re-distributed? It is what it is, and makes money like it does, in large part because of the time and effort those two conferences spent helping stabilize and support it.

The idea of who "deserves" money has nothing to do with winning and losing, it has to do with supply and demand. There is significant demand for the ACC and Big Ten champions to participate in those games; the BCS TV revenue, as well as each conference's own TV deals, prove that. The TV people, and in turn their advertisers, don't care who wins or loses. They care who is watching, and how many there are. That's where "all that money" comes from.

If a significant portion of the money coming into the BCS is the result of the BCS schools and their fanbases and popularity, and then the money that flows into the system as a result of that is then re-distributed to schools that are not part of that core, then, IMO, that's subsidizing.

whatever...

Mortals inside the Dogpound have no say and are unable to speculate with genuine insider information and remain totally screwed having NO decision making input.

Why fret about what fans cannot control nor cannot provide any opinions which will matter.....

Like the daily impending changes at work - who really gives a final royal F?

The little guys most always continue getting the royal shaft and forever has it been.

While in management positions myself the past 20 years, I secretly align myself more often than not with the have nots.

(06-17-2009 08:33 PM)UIHuskie Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 08:25 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  The BCS system claims that the MAC and other non-AQ conferences are part of the BCS. If we comprise 44% of the BCS then we should receive 44% of the BCS revenue.

Also, how could this be construed as BCS schools subsidizing non-AQ schools? BCS schools are simply getting the BCS revenue. They didn't do anything to earn that money except show up for a BCS game that was given to them via an automatic bid. Given the history of the ACC in BCS bowls and the recent history of the BT in BCS bowls they don't even deserve those automatic bids or all that money.

But a large portion of that BCS revenue coming in is the result of the BCS schools. Why do you think the BCS TV deal is so large? Why do you think those bowls are so important anyway? The Pac 10 and Big Ten have spent decades making the Rose Bowl a New Year's Day tradition; why would they want money from that game re-distributed? It is what it is, and makes money like it does, in large part because of the time and effort those two conferences spent helping stabilize and support it.

The idea of who "deserves" money has nothing to do with winning and losing, it has to do with supply and demand. There is significant demand for the ACC and Big Ten champions to participate in those games; the BCS TV revenue, as well as each conference's own TV deals, prove that. The TV people, and in turn their advertisers, don't care who wins or loses. They care who is watching, and how many there are. That's where "all that money" comes from.

If a significant portion of the money coming into the BCS is the result of the BCS schools and their fanbases and popularity, and then the money that flows into the system as a result of that is then re-distributed to schools that are not part of that core, then, IMO, that's subsidizing.

The BCS bowl featuring Utah last season drew 40% more viewership than the BCS bowl featuring the ACC and BE champs.

I'm not seeing the demand for the ACC.

(06-17-2009 02:56 PM)7 Wrote:  

Quote:In 5 years or so you could have more people paying attention to the FCS than the BCS because there are a whole bunch more people who went to, have their kids going to or have in their community a university that would be branded FCS.

Oh come on, nobody can actually believe that. You think FCS, made up of little schools and directional school, would more popular than the Ohio State's, USC's, Florida's, Texas', Michigan's, and so on and so forth. No. Never would happen.

Well it is a theory but why not? The target market, those who went to non BCS schools will be much larger than those who did. If you can build brand loyalty to the FCS and more loyalty from alumni of those schools you would have a shot at making it a more popular series to watch. I believe people get tired of seeing the same teams win over and over. It could happen imo.

(06-17-2009 09:45 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 08:33 PM)UIHuskie Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 08:25 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  The BCS system claims that the MAC and other non-AQ conferences are part of the BCS. If we comprise 44% of the BCS then we should receive 44% of the BCS revenue.

Also, how could this be construed as BCS schools subsidizing non-AQ schools? BCS schools are simply getting the BCS revenue. They didn't do anything to earn that money except show up for a BCS game that was given to them via an automatic bid. Given the history of the ACC in BCS bowls and the recent history of the BT in BCS bowls they don't even deserve those automatic bids or all that money.

But a large portion of that BCS revenue coming in is the result of the BCS schools. Why do you think the BCS TV deal is so large? Why do you think those bowls are so important anyway? The Pac 10 and Big Ten have spent decades making the Rose Bowl a New Year's Day tradition; why would they want money from that game re-distributed? It is what it is, and makes money like it does, in large part because of the time and effort those two conferences spent helping stabilize and support it.

The idea of who "deserves" money has nothing to do with winning and losing, it has to do with supply and demand. There is significant demand for the ACC and Big Ten champions to participate in those games; the BCS TV revenue, as well as each conference's own TV deals, prove that. The TV people, and in turn their advertisers, don't care who wins or loses. They care who is watching, and how many there are. That's where "all that money" comes from.

If a significant portion of the money coming into the BCS is the result of the BCS schools and their fanbases and popularity, and then the money that flows into the system as a result of that is then re-distributed to schools that are not part of that core, then, IMO, that's subsidizing.

The BCS bowl featuring Utah last season drew 40% more viewership than the BCS bowl featuring the ACC and BE champs.

I'm not seeing the demand for the ACC.

I mean, sometimes you just blow my mind.

Put a BCS bowl between two non-undefeated BCS teams and see what happens.

You can't honestly believe half the **** you say.

(06-17-2009 03:25 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 01:44 PM)COHUSKIE Wrote:  1) You would have few teams left at the BCS level. We all know that you will have the same teams time and time again playing for the championship. Like limited supply and choice it has a limited life. Sooner rather than later people will get tired of seeing Oklahoma, Ohio State, USC and Florida playing in the championship game over and over.

Not to take away from the better parts of your post, but you need to rethink the bolded above - why do you think the Yankees and Red Sox, the Bears and the Cubs, the Red Wings and the Lakers are consistently popular? Because they are a brand, not just a team. Oklahoma, Ohio State, USC and Florida are brands that will not lose their luster just because they are always playing for championships.

If anything, they will become stronger.

They are popular in the cities they represent but for the most part hated by the smaller markets because they buy championships imo. I think the FCS brand could be more appealing as a pure brand with equal opportunity to achieve a undisputed national championship. The BCS teams may become stronger regionally but I think you could create quite a popularity among the FCS schools. People loved it when App State beat Michigan and why? Because like the Lakers, Red Sox, Yankees, etc people are tired of not only seeing them win but even more so that they and thier fans think it is a god given right for them to win and not to lose to those they consider to be lesser teams. Again just my opinion.