(05-14-2022 08:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 03:26 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 07:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 06:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’d love to see them use their massive tv revenue money to pay a guy that then sits out their bowl game or playoff appearance. Nobody has yet proven where more tv rev = a higher success rate. At this point it’s just windbag speculation.

But of course nobody wants to make less than others, especially the pathetic programs littering the bottom of the Big Ten.

Lol, the new “recruiting rankings don’t matter” soapbox.


Which pro team does better, the one spending $50 million on players, or the one spending $1 million?

To me, it doesn't matter whether a school that gets way more money does better on the field and court than one that doesn't or not.

That's because in college athletics money is the bottom-line score, not winning. Winning is for fans jumping up and down and screaming. That's nice, as a Rams fan I jumped up and down and screamed when we won the Super Bowl a couple months ago. But the only reason inter-collegiate athletics exists is to make money, either directly or via donations, sponsorships, etc.

There are zero institutions in the USA that would rather be Baylor, with its recent hoops national title and NY6 bowl win, than Maryland, winning nothing, but collecting those massive B1G checks.

The checks are the measure, not results on the field.

Baloney. If money were everything, then schools would diminish their athletic departments and use the savings to create or invest in other, far more lucrative ventures than sports. Consider Harvard, for example, academically superior to any SEC or B1G institution, more influential, and far wealthier.

Schools don't do the bolded because they believe the money spent on sports gives them name-recognition that attracts students and keeps their names on the minds of the legislators (if public) that vote them money. IOWs, they think that sports is a very lucrative investment. Athletics is invested in to build your school's brand and name so as to attract resources to your school, primarily money, as money can buy all other resources.

I personally don't think it works that way, but the schools believe it.

Winning titles is only important to the institution to the extent it helps with that brand-building process. But that pales in comparison to direct monies received. Baylor won't make anything near off of winning the Fiesta Bowl that Rutgers gets from merely being in the B1G.

As JR points out, the Ivies operate on a different level. They are world-famous for their academics, which by itself attracts far more money than athletics ever can. Harvard's interest income on their endowment dwarfs all the money brought in by Alabama's football and other athletic programs, and by a mile. So they don't feel the need to leverage athletics that way. Schools that don't have that have to try and use other things, like athletics, to bring in money that can raise their prestige, the true coin-of-realm in academia.

Alabama has actually done a good job of investing football money in to academics. Its enrollment is about 12,000 students higher than when Saban took over, and the student body average GPA and ACT/SAT scores are up significantly since then as well. They have really invested in merit aid and attracting better professors.

That's what it's all about. Using the money to build prestige.

Not all of them believe that. But there is bureaucratic inertia and influential alumni.

I remember one of the UT presidents who was a true sports fan talking about being told he was going to have to support sports to keep the big money donors happy.