(07-17-2020 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So Quo I resent your changing of what I said to make a trollish comment when I never stated things were equitable before TV contracts.

So just as I told you 8 years ago when you laughed, a hostile takeover of a disorganized but beloved American pass time has happened.

Not sure what I changed? Not sure we disagree about much except:

I do think that despite the immense infusion of money in to college athletics these past 20 years, the *disparities* as we fans witness them on the field have not changed much, meaning:

In 1980 ...

Alabama was a huge national brand.

Purdue was obviously of lesser stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively did not "publicly" exist.

In 2020 ...

Alabama is a huge national brand.

Purdue is obviously of less stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively ... well, I would say they are more known than in 1980.

So despite the dollar difference between these three clearly having increased in the past 40 years, the only thing that seems to have changed in terms of overall brand awareness is that .... the least of these has actually increased its profile over that time relative to the others.

And that's the main point I was trying to make, which you seemed to miss in your ire at my perceived slight (none was intended, btw), which is that no matter what anyone else is doing, no matter how powerful Alabama is, no matter what machinations ESPN engages in, no matter what is going on with the NCAA, no matter how big the B1G media deal is and how small the Sun Belt media deal is, ANY school can build its program if it leverages its own assets.

The insinuation was closer to the top of your initial remarks, but your evidence is anecdotal. Specifically nothing has changed because the top brands are the top draws and the top draws earn the most and the distance between Alabama's earnings and even those of Purdue and Arkansas State has grown significantly because branding and content multipliers are the new payday for the networks.

Gone are market footprint issues except for T3 cable networks and when future consolidation occurs it will be to multiply the number of brand on brand games. So Quo TV money didn't change the order, it just changed the gaps in the order and streaming will stress all present arrangements even more before it is over.

(07-17-2020 04:38 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 10:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If you take out the entire conference revenue distributions:

Ohio State - $160 million (210 minus 50 from Big-10)
Purdue - $60 million (110 minus 50 from Big-10)
Cincinnati - $32 million (68 minus 7 from conference minus 29 from school)
Ohio University - $14 million (35 minus 1 from conference minus 20 from school)

These numbers are obviously not 100% accurate. But the proportions between them are still ridiculous.

That's a great way to look at it, and undermines the "we're not competitive because just by bad luck, we weren't given a golden ticket to a Power conference" argument often made by fans of schools like, well, my USF.

Bottom line is, while of course the media money disparity is part of the equation, the biggest part by far is still building a large fan base willing to spend money on your program. That's the ball game.

So many G5 administrators defend pouring transfer money in to football on the basis of "it's the front porch of the university! The heart and soul! Without it enrollment would decline and we'd be doomed", etc. But truth is, if the university community really *did* think of the football team that way, as it does at some places, then that wouldn't be necessary. The existence of transfers is strong evidence that football is not as meaningful to the university community as the admins say it is.

Sometimes, you have to prime the pump. Imagine where FSU would be if they didn't fire Willie Taggart. Or where would the Longhorns be if they kept John Mackovic. But, there is a difference between "priming the pump" and deficit spending, which is something our state and national governments seem to be a fan of. At some point, you have to look at the results and make a decision. Sometimes bad decisions are made, but good ones are also made.

I agree. That's why I currently defend USF's subsidized spending of football - it can be viewed as trying to make ourselves look like a worthy candidate for invitation should a P5 upheaval occur in a few years and some P5 go looking to bring up some from the G5. Because if we do get a P5 call-up in a few years, the current deficits would have been money well spent. For many G5, like Akron, I think it obvious there is no justification, the sun has already set on their further prospects.

But as you say, that can't go on forever, that's called "throwing good money after bad". At a certain point, you have to admit the decision to run a money-losing program didn't pay off, and cut your losses. in my view, for USF that would be in about 5 years, when the CFP deal is renewed or changed.

(07-17-2020 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So Quo I resent your changing of what I said to make a trollish comment when I never stated things were equitable before TV contracts.

So just as I told you 8 years ago when you laughed, a hostile takeover of a disorganized but beloved American pass time has happened.

Not sure what I changed? Not sure we disagree about much except:

I do think that despite the immense infusion of money in to college athletics these past 20 years, the *disparities* as we fans witness them on the field have not changed much, meaning:

In 1980 ...

Alabama was a huge national brand.

Purdue was obviously of lesser stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively did not "publicly" exist.

In 2020 ...

Alabama is a huge national brand.

Purdue is obviously of less stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively ... well, I would say they are more known than in 1980.

So despite the dollar difference between these three clearly having increased in the past 40 years, the only thing that seems to have changed in terms of overall brand awareness is that .... the least of these has actually increased its profile over that time relative to the others.

And that's the main point I was trying to make, which you seemed to miss in your ire at my perceived slight (none was intended, btw), which is that no matter what anyone else is doing, no matter how powerful Alabama is, no matter what machinations ESPN engages in, no matter what is going on with the NCAA, no matter how big the B1G media deal is and how small the Sun Belt media deal is, ANY school can build its program if it leverages its own assets.

The insinuation was closer to the top of your initial remarks, but your evidence is anecdotal. Specifically nothing has changed because the top brands are the top draws and the top draws earn the most and the distance between Alabama's earnings and even those of Purdue and Arkansas State has grown significantly because branding and content multipliers are the new payday for the networks.

Gone are market footprint issues except for T3 cable networks and when future consolidation occurs it will be to multiply the number of brand on brand games. So Quo TV money didn't change the order, it just changed the gaps in the order and streaming will stress all present arrangements even more before it is over.

I agree that the raw dollar gaps, even adjusted for inflation, have clearly gotten much larger than existed 40 years ago, though not sure on a percentage basis*. But qualitatively, I think if anything the gap has narrowed slightly between the bottom school, ARKST, and the other two, because while the media dollars gap has exploded, the exposure gap has not - in 1980, Arkansas State could go years without having any of its games televised and never went to bowl games, now basically all of them are, and it regularly goes to bowl games. So the media revolution has produced exposure dividends for G5-type schools.

Also, the growth in the money gap is not just attributable to TV money. Florida got around $2m from the SEC in 1995 and $45m today, but its budget has grown from $15m in 1995 to $160m today. That's about $100m in non-TV growth. That's because of the other things I mentioned, the stuff to dramatically leverage more money from the "local" fans via hugely increased fees in areas like parking, tickets, local sponsorships, aggressive fundraising from donors, etc.

We saw that here at LSU circa 2001, after Saban was hired. He wanted to build some big new facilities, and to do that LSU decided to introduce Personal Seat Licenses and make season-ticket holders re-apply for their seats based on their ability to pay the new higher fees and prices. There was a BIG uproar from many fans, along the lines of "my family has had 40-yard line season tickets since the 1960s, and now we can't afford them anymore! LSU is pricing the "little guy" out of the stadium in favor of the Fat Cats!". Lots of that griping in the local media. It happened anyway, raising huge new sums of money.




*E.g., if today Alabama pays its coach $9m a year, Ark State pays its coach $1m a year, a 9 to 1 gap. If in 1980 Alabama paid the Bear $200,000, which I believe they did, and Arkansas State paid its coach $20,000 a year, that's a 10 to 1 gap. I'm not sure but that is possible.

(07-18-2020 07:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So Quo I resent your changing of what I said to make a trollish comment when I never stated things were equitable before TV contracts.

So just as I told you 8 years ago when you laughed, a hostile takeover of a disorganized but beloved American pass time has happened.

Not sure what I changed? Not sure we disagree about much except:

I do think that despite the immense infusion of money in to college athletics these past 20 years, the *disparities* as we fans witness them on the field have not changed much, meaning:

In 1980 ...

Alabama was a huge national brand.

Purdue was obviously of lesser stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively did not "publicly" exist.

In 2020 ...

Alabama is a huge national brand.

Purdue is obviously of less stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively ... well, I would say they are more known than in 1980.

So despite the dollar difference between these three clearly having increased in the past 40 years, the only thing that seems to have changed in terms of overall brand awareness is that .... the least of these has actually increased its profile over that time relative to the others.

And that's the main point I was trying to make, which you seemed to miss in your ire at my perceived slight (none was intended, btw), which is that no matter what anyone else is doing, no matter how powerful Alabama is, no matter what machinations ESPN engages in, no matter what is going on with the NCAA, no matter how big the B1G media deal is and how small the Sun Belt media deal is, ANY school can build its program if it leverages its own assets.

The insinuation was closer to the top of your initial remarks, but your evidence is anecdotal. Specifically nothing has changed because the top brands are the top draws and the top draws earn the most and the distance between Alabama's earnings and even those of Purdue and Arkansas State has grown significantly because branding and content multipliers are the new payday for the networks.

Gone are market footprint issues except for T3 cable networks and when future consolidation occurs it will be to multiply the number of brand on brand games. So Quo TV money didn't change the order, it just changed the gaps in the order and streaming will stress all present arrangements even more before it is over.

I agree that the raw dollar gaps, even adjusted for inflation, have clearly gotten much larger than existed 40 years ago, though not sure on a percentage basis*. But qualitatively, I think if anything the gap has narrowed slightly between the bottom school, ARKST, and the other two, because while the media dollars gap has exploded, the exposure gap has not - in 1980, Arkansas State could go years without having any of its games televised and never went to bowl games, now basically all of them are, and it regularly goes to bowl games. So the media revolution has produced exposure dividends for G5-type schools.

Also, the growth in the money gap is not just attributable to TV money. Florida got around $2m from the SEC in 1995 and $45m today, but its budget has grown from $15m in 1995 to $160m today. That's about $100m in non-TV growth. That's because of the other things I mentioned, the stuff to dramatically leverage more money from the "local" fans via hugely increased fees in areas like parking, tickets, local sponsorships, aggressive fundraising from donors, etc.

We saw that here at LSU circa 2001, after Saban was hired. He wanted to build some big new facilities, and to do that LSU decided to introduce Personal Seat Licenses and make season-ticket holders re-apply for their seats based on their ability to pay the new higher fees and prices. There was a BIG uproar from many fans, along the lines of "my family has had 40-yard line season tickets since the 1960s, and now we can't afford them anymore! LSU is pricing the "little guy" out of the stadium in favor of the Fat Cats!". Lots of that griping in the local media. It happened anyway, raising huge new sums of money.




*E.g., if today Alabama pays its coach $9m a year, Ark State pays its coach $1m a year, a 9 to 1 gap. If in 1980 Alabama paid the Bear $200,000, which I believe they did, and Arkansas State paid its coach $20,000 a year, that's a 10 to 1 gap. I'm not sure but that is possible.

Well Alabama and Purdue have the funds to make up those extra costs. Arkansas St. has to subsidize to make up that extra cost. So the burden on those trying to keep up gets bigger and bigger.

(07-18-2020 07:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So Quo I resent your changing of what I said to make a trollish comment when I never stated things were equitable before TV contracts.

So just as I told you 8 years ago when you laughed, a hostile takeover of a disorganized but beloved American pass time has happened.

Not sure what I changed? Not sure we disagree about much except:

I do think that despite the immense infusion of money in to college athletics these past 20 years, the *disparities* as we fans witness them on the field have not changed much, meaning:

In 1980 ...

Alabama was a huge national brand.

Purdue was obviously of lesser stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively did not "publicly" exist.

In 2020 ...

Alabama is a huge national brand.

Purdue is obviously of less stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively ... well, I would say they are more known than in 1980.

So despite the dollar difference between these three clearly having increased in the past 40 years, the only thing that seems to have changed in terms of overall brand awareness is that .... the least of these has actually increased its profile over that time relative to the others.

And that's the main point I was trying to make, which you seemed to miss in your ire at my perceived slight (none was intended, btw), which is that no matter what anyone else is doing, no matter how powerful Alabama is, no matter what machinations ESPN engages in, no matter what is going on with the NCAA, no matter how big the B1G media deal is and how small the Sun Belt media deal is, ANY school can build its program if it leverages its own assets.

The insinuation was closer to the top of your initial remarks, but your evidence is anecdotal. Specifically nothing has changed because the top brands are the top draws and the top draws earn the most and the distance between Alabama's earnings and even those of Purdue and Arkansas State has grown significantly because branding and content multipliers are the new payday for the networks.

Gone are market footprint issues except for T3 cable networks and when future consolidation occurs it will be to multiply the number of brand on brand games. So Quo TV money didn't change the order, it just changed the gaps in the order and streaming will stress all present arrangements even more before it is over.

I agree that the raw dollar gaps, even adjusted for inflation, have clearly gotten much larger than existed 40 years ago, though not sure on a percentage basis*. But qualitatively, I think if anything the gap has narrowed slightly between the bottom school, ARKST, and the other two, because while the media dollars gap has exploded, the exposure gap has not - in 1980, Arkansas State could go years without having any of its games televised and never went to bowl games, now basically all of them are, and it regularly goes to bowl games. So the media revolution has produced exposure dividends for G5-type schools.

Also, the growth in the money gap is not just attributable to TV money. Florida got around $2m from the SEC in 1995 and $45m today, but its budget has grown from $15m in 1995 to $160m today. That's about $100m in non-TV growth. That's because of the other things I mentioned, the stuff to dramatically leverage more money from the "local" fans via hugely increased fees in areas like parking, tickets, local sponsorships, aggressive fundraising from donors, etc.

We saw that here at LSU circa 2001, after Saban was hired. He wanted to build some big new facilities, and to do that LSU decided to introduce Personal Seat Licenses and make season-ticket holders re-apply for their seats based on their ability to pay the new higher fees and prices. There was a BIG uproar from many fans, along the lines of "my family has had 40-yard line season tickets since the 1960s, and now we can't afford them anymore! LSU is pricing the "little guy" out of the stadium in favor of the Fat Cats!". Lots of that griping in the local media. It happened anyway, raising huge new sums of money.




*E.g., if today Alabama pays its coach $9m a year, Ark State pays its coach $1m a year, a 9 to 1 gap. If in 1980 Alabama paid the Bear $200,000, which I believe they did, and Arkansas State paid its coach $20,000 a year, that's a 10 to 1 gap. I'm not sure but that is possible.

Well in the case of Florida larger schools with more alumni, larger filled venues, and usually more wealthier donors, make more.

Now the interesting debate would be over quality of play going up with extra resources. I think the quality of college football play in the late 70's and 80's was better than today. Today's lines are bigger, but for the most part not better. Coachability of players has some to do with it, but the linemen of the 70's and 80's had to not only block at the line of scrimmage but down field. They played more downs by far. Today's 6'5'' 350lb linemen are rotated every few plays and seldom get 10 yards past the scrimmage line. I don't think the skill positions have changed much and it's hard to tell about DB's since they have so many restrictions against them.

But as to the gaps in revenue, it's only going to get worse as networks jockey for weekly high content games in quantity.

(07-18-2020 11:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 07:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So Quo I resent your changing of what I said to make a trollish comment when I never stated things were equitable before TV contracts.

So just as I told you 8 years ago when you laughed, a hostile takeover of a disorganized but beloved American pass time has happened.

Not sure what I changed? Not sure we disagree about much except:

I do think that despite the immense infusion of money in to college athletics these past 20 years, the *disparities* as we fans witness them on the field have not changed much, meaning:

In 1980 ...

Alabama was a huge national brand.

Purdue was obviously of lesser stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively did not "publicly" exist.

In 2020 ...

Alabama is a huge national brand.

Purdue is obviously of less stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively ... well, I would say they are more known than in 1980.

So despite the dollar difference between these three clearly having increased in the past 40 years, the only thing that seems to have changed in terms of overall brand awareness is that .... the least of these has actually increased its profile over that time relative to the others.

And that's the main point I was trying to make, which you seemed to miss in your ire at my perceived slight (none was intended, btw), which is that no matter what anyone else is doing, no matter how powerful Alabama is, no matter what machinations ESPN engages in, no matter what is going on with the NCAA, no matter how big the B1G media deal is and how small the Sun Belt media deal is, ANY school can build its program if it leverages its own assets.

The insinuation was closer to the top of your initial remarks, but your evidence is anecdotal. Specifically nothing has changed because the top brands are the top draws and the top draws earn the most and the distance between Alabama's earnings and even those of Purdue and Arkansas State has grown significantly because branding and content multipliers are the new payday for the networks.

Gone are market footprint issues except for T3 cable networks and when future consolidation occurs it will be to multiply the number of brand on brand games. So Quo TV money didn't change the order, it just changed the gaps in the order and streaming will stress all present arrangements even more before it is over.

I agree that the raw dollar gaps, even adjusted for inflation, have clearly gotten much larger than existed 40 years ago, though not sure on a percentage basis*. But qualitatively, I think if anything the gap has narrowed slightly between the bottom school, ARKST, and the other two, because while the media dollars gap has exploded, the exposure gap has not - in 1980, Arkansas State could go years without having any of its games televised and never went to bowl games, now basically all of them are, and it regularly goes to bowl games. So the media revolution has produced exposure dividends for G5-type schools.

Also, the growth in the money gap is not just attributable to TV money. Florida got around $2m from the SEC in 1995 and $45m today, but its budget has grown from $15m in 1995 to $160m today. That's about $100m in non-TV growth. That's because of the other things I mentioned, the stuff to dramatically leverage more money from the "local" fans via hugely increased fees in areas like parking, tickets, local sponsorships, aggressive fundraising from donors, etc.

We saw that here at LSU circa 2001, after Saban was hired. He wanted to build some big new facilities, and to do that LSU decided to introduce Personal Seat Licenses and make season-ticket holders re-apply for their seats based on their ability to pay the new higher fees and prices. There was a BIG uproar from many fans, along the lines of "my family has had 40-yard line season tickets since the 1960s, and now we can't afford them anymore! LSU is pricing the "little guy" out of the stadium in favor of the Fat Cats!". Lots of that griping in the local media. It happened anyway, raising huge new sums of money.




*E.g., if today Alabama pays its coach $9m a year, Ark State pays its coach $1m a year, a 9 to 1 gap. If in 1980 Alabama paid the Bear $200,000, which I believe they did, and Arkansas State paid its coach $20,000 a year, that's a 10 to 1 gap. I'm not sure but that is possible.

Well in the case of Florida larger schools with more alumni, larger filled venues, and usually more wealthier donors, make more.

Now the interesting debate would be over quality of play going up with extra resources. I think the quality of college football play in the late 70's and 80's was better than today. Today's lines are bigger, but for the most part not better. Coachability of players has some to do with it, but the linemen of the 70's and 80's had to not only block at the line of scrimmage but down field. They played more downs by far. Today's 6'5'' 350lb linemen are rotated every few plays and seldom get 10 yards past the scrimmage line. I don't think the skill positions have changed much and it's hard to tell about DB's since they have so many restrictions against them.

But as to the gaps in revenue, it's only going to get worse as networks jockey for weekly high content games in quantity.

There was definitely more consistent effort. They are emphasizing strength and speed and ignoring stamina. I was watching a Texas 2005 game on LHN a couple months ago and all the downfield blocking stood out to me. Now Texas has had some poorly coached teams, especially under Strong, but I had forgotten teams actually did that! A lot of players on most teams take plays "off." And linemen are out of breath on a 10 play drive.

(07-18-2020 11:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 11:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 07:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not sure what I changed? Not sure we disagree about much except:

I do think that despite the immense infusion of money in to college athletics these past 20 years, the *disparities* as we fans witness them on the field have not changed much, meaning:

In 1980 ...

Alabama was a huge national brand.

Purdue was obviously of lesser stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively did not "publicly" exist.

In 2020 ...

Alabama is a huge national brand.

Purdue is obviously of less stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively ... well, I would say they are more known than in 1980.

So despite the dollar difference between these three clearly having increased in the past 40 years, the only thing that seems to have changed in terms of overall brand awareness is that .... the least of these has actually increased its profile over that time relative to the others.

And that's the main point I was trying to make, which you seemed to miss in your ire at my perceived slight (none was intended, btw), which is that no matter what anyone else is doing, no matter how powerful Alabama is, no matter what machinations ESPN engages in, no matter what is going on with the NCAA, no matter how big the B1G media deal is and how small the Sun Belt media deal is, ANY school can build its program if it leverages its own assets.

The insinuation was closer to the top of your initial remarks, but your evidence is anecdotal. Specifically nothing has changed because the top brands are the top draws and the top draws earn the most and the distance between Alabama's earnings and even those of Purdue and Arkansas State has grown significantly because branding and content multipliers are the new payday for the networks.

Gone are market footprint issues except for T3 cable networks and when future consolidation occurs it will be to multiply the number of brand on brand games. So Quo TV money didn't change the order, it just changed the gaps in the order and streaming will stress all present arrangements even more before it is over.

I agree that the raw dollar gaps, even adjusted for inflation, have clearly gotten much larger than existed 40 years ago, though not sure on a percentage basis*. But qualitatively, I think if anything the gap has narrowed slightly between the bottom school, ARKST, and the other two, because while the media dollars gap has exploded, the exposure gap has not - in 1980, Arkansas State could go years without having any of its games televised and never went to bowl games, now basically all of them are, and it regularly goes to bowl games. So the media revolution has produced exposure dividends for G5-type schools.

Also, the growth in the money gap is not just attributable to TV money. Florida got around $2m from the SEC in 1995 and $45m today, but its budget has grown from $15m in 1995 to $160m today. That's about $100m in non-TV growth. That's because of the other things I mentioned, the stuff to dramatically leverage more money from the "local" fans via hugely increased fees in areas like parking, tickets, local sponsorships, aggressive fundraising from donors, etc.

We saw that here at LSU circa 2001, after Saban was hired. He wanted to build some big new facilities, and to do that LSU decided to introduce Personal Seat Licenses and make season-ticket holders re-apply for their seats based on their ability to pay the new higher fees and prices. There was a BIG uproar from many fans, along the lines of "my family has had 40-yard line season tickets since the 1960s, and now we can't afford them anymore! LSU is pricing the "little guy" out of the stadium in favor of the Fat Cats!". Lots of that griping in the local media. It happened anyway, raising huge new sums of money.




*E.g., if today Alabama pays its coach $9m a year, Ark State pays its coach $1m a year, a 9 to 1 gap. If in 1980 Alabama paid the Bear $200,000, which I believe they did, and Arkansas State paid its coach $20,000 a year, that's a 10 to 1 gap. I'm not sure but that is possible.

Well in the case of Florida larger schools with more alumni, larger filled venues, and usually more wealthier donors, make more.

Now the interesting debate would be over quality of play going up with extra resources. I think the quality of college football play in the late 70's and 80's was better than today. Today's lines are bigger, but for the most part not better. Coachability of players has some to do with it, but the linemen of the 70's and 80's had to not only block at the line of scrimmage but down field. They played more downs by far. Today's 6'5'' 350lb linemen are rotated every few plays and seldom get 10 yards past the scrimmage line. I don't think the skill positions have changed much and it's hard to tell about DB's since they have so many restrictions against them.

But as to the gaps in revenue, it's only going to get worse as networks jockey for weekly high content games in quantity.

There was definitely more consistent effort. They are emphasizing strength and speed and ignoring stamina. I was watching a Texas 2005 game on LHN a couple months ago and all the downfield blocking stood out to me. Now Texas has had some poorly coached teams, especially under Strong, but I had forgotten teams actually did that! A lot of players on most teams take plays "off." And linemen are out of breath on a 10 play drive.

Well the game has evolved, like all sports, in a more specialized direction - the positions that emphasize size have gotten bigger and thus slower, those that emphasize speed, faster and usually smaller. Teams like the Redskins and Raiders of the early 1980s pioneered this - I remember something John Madden said about the Redskins of that time, something along the lines of "they have more big guys, and more little guys, than other teams".

In the 1960s the size gap between players wasn't nearly so pronounced. Now you look at a Left Tackle and Left Cornerback and it's hard to believe they play the same sport.

(07-18-2020 12:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 11:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 11:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 07:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The insinuation was closer to the top of your initial remarks, but your evidence is anecdotal. Specifically nothing has changed because the top brands are the top draws and the top draws earn the most and the distance between Alabama's earnings and even those of Purdue and Arkansas State has grown significantly because branding and content multipliers are the new payday for the networks.

Gone are market footprint issues except for T3 cable networks and when future consolidation occurs it will be to multiply the number of brand on brand games. So Quo TV money didn't change the order, it just changed the gaps in the order and streaming will stress all present arrangements even more before it is over.

I agree that the raw dollar gaps, even adjusted for inflation, have clearly gotten much larger than existed 40 years ago, though not sure on a percentage basis*. But qualitatively, I think if anything the gap has narrowed slightly between the bottom school, ARKST, and the other two, because while the media dollars gap has exploded, the exposure gap has not - in 1980, Arkansas State could go years without having any of its games televised and never went to bowl games, now basically all of them are, and it regularly goes to bowl games. So the media revolution has produced exposure dividends for G5-type schools.

Also, the growth in the money gap is not just attributable to TV money. Florida got around $2m from the SEC in 1995 and $45m today, but its budget has grown from $15m in 1995 to $160m today. That's about $100m in non-TV growth. That's because of the other things I mentioned, the stuff to dramatically leverage more money from the "local" fans via hugely increased fees in areas like parking, tickets, local sponsorships, aggressive fundraising from donors, etc.

We saw that here at LSU circa 2001, after Saban was hired. He wanted to build some big new facilities, and to do that LSU decided to introduce Personal Seat Licenses and make season-ticket holders re-apply for their seats based on their ability to pay the new higher fees and prices. There was a BIG uproar from many fans, along the lines of "my family has had 40-yard line season tickets since the 1960s, and now we can't afford them anymore! LSU is pricing the "little guy" out of the stadium in favor of the Fat Cats!". Lots of that griping in the local media. It happened anyway, raising huge new sums of money.




*E.g., if today Alabama pays its coach $9m a year, Ark State pays its coach $1m a year, a 9 to 1 gap. If in 1980 Alabama paid the Bear $200,000, which I believe they did, and Arkansas State paid its coach $20,000 a year, that's a 10 to 1 gap. I'm not sure but that is possible.

Well in the case of Florida larger schools with more alumni, larger filled venues, and usually more wealthier donors, make more.

Now the interesting debate would be over quality of play going up with extra resources. I think the quality of college football play in the late 70's and 80's was better than today. Today's lines are bigger, but for the most part not better. Coachability of players has some to do with it, but the linemen of the 70's and 80's had to not only block at the line of scrimmage but down field. They played more downs by far. Today's 6'5'' 350lb linemen are rotated every few plays and seldom get 10 yards past the scrimmage line. I don't think the skill positions have changed much and it's hard to tell about DB's since they have so many restrictions against them.

But as to the gaps in revenue, it's only going to get worse as networks jockey for weekly high content games in quantity.

There was definitely more consistent effort. They are emphasizing strength and speed and ignoring stamina. I was watching a Texas 2005 game on LHN a couple months ago and all the downfield blocking stood out to me. Now Texas has had some poorly coached teams, especially under Strong, but I had forgotten teams actually did that! A lot of players on most teams take plays "off." And linemen are out of breath on a 10 play drive.

Well the game has evolved, like all sports, in a more specialized direction - the positions that emphasize size have gotten bigger and thus slower, those that emphasize speed, faster and usually smaller. Teams like the Redskins and Raiders of the early 1980s pioneered this - I remember something John Madden said about the Redskins of that time, something along the lines of "they have more big guys, and more little guys, than other teams".

In the 1960s the size gap between players wasn't nearly so pronounced. Now you look at a Left Tackle and Left Cornerback and it's hard to believe they play the same sport.

The Texas 1969 national champs only had one starting lineman over 210 pounds. They had one 275 lb tackle. Perfect size for the wishbone of the time.

Looking at the revenue numbers, I wonder if certain schools at the upper end of the revenue numbers realize they can make crazy money even if they're merely good and not elite in football and have no incentive to get better. I'm talking particularly about Texas, but there are a few others.

(07-16-2020 05:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Memphis revenue from basketball is much more significant than even that of Houston, Temple and Cincy (as in double). They are a Major in Basketball, top 20 in budget and only a bit lower in revenue.

Football the are upper middle of the American.

The decision was finally made to put money into fball...which raised the profile.

(07-22-2020 11:08 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Looking at the revenue numbers, I wonder if certain schools at the upper end of the revenue numbers realize they can make crazy money even if they're merely good and not elite in football and have no incentive to get better. I'm talking particularly about Texas, but there are a few others.

Texas will get their media money regardless but there's no doubt pressure from their donors who want a return on their investment so to speak.

(07-16-2020 05:32 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  James Madison to the AAC? Imagine if they had D1A FB money.

If I remember correctly, James Madison students pay an extra $2,500-$3,000/year in tuition bump to reach that level. The Commonwealth of Virginia state government had to put a cap on what a university can pass to its students.