(06-11-2013 02:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 01:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 01:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:10 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I see. We lost a very good men's gymnastics program due to Title IX. They shoulda kept the gymnastics and cut basketball.

Clearly you guys don't get the point. Originally, I blamed all the losses of men's programs on Title IX, but the fact is as much of the blame if not more lies at the feet of the arm's race in football and basketball.

No I think it was Title IX, mostly. NIU was hardly even in the arms race back in the mid-80s (and the facilities were proof of that). Right after they put in Title IX NIU cancelled gymnastics. And even if they spend more on football or basketball, those 2 sports are the only ones that generate significant revenue.

When football expenditures are going up at a faster rate than football revenue which has been the case where do you think they get the money?

It isn't from cutting programs. We haven't cut any programs since then, and I'd have to assume that the situation with football expenditures vs. revenue has been an ongoing thing.

More of a 2000's thing. Certainly in your specific case it could have been Title IX. In the case of the Cal States they are mandated to follow the participation prong related to their student body so if the female population goes up they have to cut male athletes even if they have they money. So Title IX isn't blameless but it isn't solely responsible either as many propose or you would see the same problem in D3 and you don't.

(06-11-2013 10:12 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 09:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I am actually getting to the point that I am getting fed up with organized sports on the college and pro level, period. I never realized how much time, energy and money we waste on sports until I took a step back and tuned out for awhile. Upon doing so, I rediscovered the world where I can actually DO something instead of just sitting there watching something. I'll probably come back to watch CFB and the NFL, but honestly I don't even bother if I miss a Steelers game. In the past I used to watch the NFL draft to see what the Steelers did and how the Pitt players fared. Now I don't care. I haven't really checked to see if the Steelers signed any draft picks or how they are doing in the OTAs. My life is no worse off without professional sports or collegiate sports. OK, I'm getting off my soap box now.

Anytime I see someone trying to equate pro or college sports to the free market, I laugh to myself. It's not real. The reason why is simple. If it was a free market, anyone can participate. Even in the more difficult industries with high capital start up costs, I can still make a serious attempt to participate in those industries. I can start a car company, an airline, a software business, etc... I cannot - no matter how much I may want to - start a brand new college FB team. I have a very small chance at starting a new NFL franchise IF a majority of the existing owners voted me in to allow me to start a team if the NFL was expanding. But that's the key there about organized sports. It's not free market because anyone cannot decided to start a team. Whether it's college or the pros, the leagues dictate how many teams and where they are from. That's not free. It never will be free.

Having said all that, CFB would be smart to maintain the distinctions it has from the NFL so that it does not become NFL lite in form. However, it should adopt the NFL's financial models in capping salaries and distributing revenue. And therein lies the root of the problem with college athletics. Because what's best for college athletics is not best for the university in most cases. Very few schools can generate enough athletic money to actually fun academic endeavors. I believe OSU, Texas, Michigan and some of the SEC schools can. Almost everyone else cannot. So the only benefit is advertising. But the question becomes, is the benefit of getting exposure on TV worth the cost of maintaining athletics? I'm not so sure it's nearly as big of a deal today as it used to be in the past with the improvement in technology and the access to information we have today.

For example, PSU is in the most lucrative conference the B1G. Pitt has been in the BE for the past 10 years. But despite the major advantages the B1G had over the BE - especially including exposure of sports on TV - Both schools basically improved at the same rates in academic quality and research dollars generated. The quality of Pitt's students have improved regularly during the past 10 years and I don't buy that college sports affected that in any significant way. It's the academic advertising and research publications that has helped a lot more on that front.

It's an interesting argument, but that's not necessarily true. I could conceivably start up a for-profit online college that has athletic teams, such as Grand Canyon University that will actually be playing NCAA Division I sports next year. Is it easy? No. However, most of us here would probably have a better capability of posting courses online that would gain traction in the marketplace than trying to start up a car company to compete with GM and Toyota or attempting to create competitors to Facebook and Twitter. You could also conceivably start up pro sports leagues that compete with the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL (which people have attempted to do before with varying degrees of success). Once again, that isn't easy, but I don't find trying to start a new airline as easier. Your analogy of the limited access to buy into the NFL is akin to trying to get equity at a private company that hasn't gone public (such as Twitter) - buying within the NFL is limited, but you're not restricted from trying to form your own competing football league at all. The fact that the most powerful entities in pro and college sports are largely entrenched doesn't mean that they're much different than other powerful entities in other industries. Just because it's extremely difficult to create a sports league that's as popular as the NFL doesn't make than any less of a free market than the fact that it's extremely difficult to create a social media network that's as popular as Facebook.

There are all sorts of competitive challenges to going into industries that have higher barriers of entry. But you at least are not shut out from even trying to compete if you are trying to break into the U.S. market for making cars, selling software, etc. But you ARE barred from starting a brand new team unless you have an invite from the cartel members. Even in college sports, if you start your own university and field teams, you are not guaranteed the right to play FBS football. You have a lot of things to go through before your school could do it. U of Chicago today cannot start competing against SEC teams for a national championship. They play in different divisions of football (not sure if U of C even has FB anymore). But I could start a car company and compete against GM head to head. Granted, it's doubtful that I could do it on the scale that GM has, but the barriers to entry for a car company that focuses exclusively on a small piece of the car market is much more likely a reality than to start a brand new university to compete against Alabama in FB.

In the free market, you don't have to have the same scale to compete against large, well entrenched companies. You can easily focus on pieces of the market and compete against the bigger companies in that way. Not so when it comes to the sports industries. To your point, the best I could ever hope to do is to start a separate league. But if I don't want that and want to start a team to compete within the NFL, then I'm shut out. That is not a free market.

If college football is dropped, then college basketball would be king.

Then we'd see a realignment scenario where UConn would be one of the top programs, dictating which schools are chosen and which schools are left behind.

Good-bye Florida State. Good-bye Miami. Good-bye Boston College.