Yes, Duke would instantly find a home in either the Big Ten or SEC. INSTANTLY. I know that there are a lot of East Carolina partisans on this board, but their image of how the rest of the nation sees the pecking order in the state of North Carolina is completely warped. Getting Duke is like getting Notre Dame for a conference - they're EXTREMELY valuable even if they go 0-12 in football every year.

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

Completely agree.

Schools like TCU, Baylor, and even SMU can pick up the phone and get themselves some money if necessary. They have the wealthy alumni to do that. Others like UCF, UCONN, Memphis, etc.. have subsidized AD's who are at their limit as far as what they can raise and do already. Adding the cost of keeping up with the big boys and I simply don't see how that can be sustained.

It's really interesting looking at what schools get more/less subsidy. One trait of all the remaining g-5 schools is an extremely subsidized AD. Some over 50%. There are only a couple of P-5 Schools who receive much of a subsidy, Maryland and Rutgers.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Essentially this whole game comes down to money and you can look at which schools can raise their own money and which ones rely on other funding to run their AD. Any school with more than about 10-15% subsidy should be concerned. Schools like Rutgers who have a nearly 50 % subsidized AD will likely be the only p-5 schools to have trouble keeping up. But they have much more conference income to help than say a UConn who is already getting a nearly 40% subsidy and do not get a huge chunk of TV money like p-5 conference members do.

The only non p-5 schools I can think of who can likely raise money if necessary to keep up are SMU, BYU, and RICE. Any of those can round up a few million to cover costs like these new scholarships quite easily.

(08-19-2015 01:34 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Completely agree.

Schools like TCU, Baylor, and even SMU can pick up the phone and get themselves some money if necessary. They have the wealthy alumni to do that. Others like UCF, UCONN, Memphis, etc.. have subsidized AD's who are at their limit as far as what they can raise and do already. Adding the cost of keeping up with the big boys and I simply don't see how that can be sustained.

It's really interesting looking at what schools get more/less subsidy. One trait of all the remaining g-5 schools is an extremely subsidized AD. Some over 50%. There are only a couple of P-5 Schools who receive much of a subsidy, Maryland and Rutgers.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Essentially this whole game comes down to money and you can look at which schools can raise their own money and which ones rely on other funding to run their AD. Any school with more than about 10-15% subsidy should be concerned. Schools like Rutgers who have a nearly 50 % subsidized AD will likely be the only p-5 schools to have trouble keeping up. But they have much more conference income to help than say a UConn who is already getting a nearly 40% subsidy and do not get a huge chunk of TV money like p-5 conference members do.

The only non p-5 schools I can think of who can likely raise money if necessary to keep up are SMU, BYU, and RICE. Any of those can round up a few million to cover costs like these new scholarships quite easily.

Rutgers will also have the advantage of unprecedented exposure in the coming years so their subsidization rate should come down. I think UConn would be in that boat as well if they got the call up to a P5. I think their biggest weakness is a lack of history at the D-1 level for football. They do pretty well given how long they've been at the highest level, and if they had been around for 50 years or so then they would probably be in a much better position. They would fit nicely in the ACC actually, but who knows whether that happens.

(08-19-2015 02:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 01:34 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Completely agree.

Schools like TCU, Baylor, and even SMU can pick up the phone and get themselves some money if necessary. They have the wealthy alumni to do that. Others like UCF, UCONN, Memphis, etc.. have subsidized AD's who are at their limit as far as what they can raise and do already. Adding the cost of keeping up with the big boys and I simply don't see how that can be sustained.

It's really interesting looking at what schools get more/less subsidy. One trait of all the remaining g-5 schools is an extremely subsidized AD. Some over 50%. There are only a couple of P-5 Schools who receive much of a subsidy, Maryland and Rutgers.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Essentially this whole game comes down to money and you can look at which schools can raise their own money and which ones rely on other funding to run their AD. Any school with more than about 10-15% subsidy should be concerned. Schools like Rutgers who have a nearly 50 % subsidized AD will likely be the only p-5 schools to have trouble keeping up. But they have much more conference income to help than say a UConn who is already getting a nearly 40% subsidy and do not get a huge chunk of TV money like p-5 conference members do.

The only non p-5 schools I can think of who can likely raise money if necessary to keep up are SMU, BYU, and RICE. Any of those can round up a few million to cover costs like these new scholarships quite easily.

Rutgers will also have the advantage of unprecedented exposure in the coming years so their subsidization rate should come down. I think UConn would be in that boat as well if they got the call up to a P5. I think their biggest weakness is a lack of history at the D-1 level for football. They do pretty well given how long they've been at the highest level, and if they had been around for 50 years or so then they would probably be in a much better position. They would fit nicely in the ACC actually, but who knows whether that happens.

It's about a different mentality and approach to football IMO. It's not a coincidence that Maryland, Rutgers, UConn, all have extremely high subsidies. Nor is it a coincidence that the remaining New England schools who all fall in densely populated and wealthy states all play a low level of football conferences that nobody has heard of.

UMass is another good example of a state flagship stuck because of no fan interest even though the state boasts a huge population. Friday nights in New England in the fall do not revolve around high school football and it just continues to be an afterthought from there. Trying to change a region of people into being crazy about college football is simply not likely.

(08-19-2015 01:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, Duke would instantly find a home in either the Big Ten or SEC. INSTANTLY. I know that there are a lot of East Carolina partisans on this board, but their image of how the rest of the nation sees the pecking order in the state of North Carolina is completely warped. Getting Duke is like getting Notre Dame for a conference - they're EXTREMELY valuable even if they go 0-12 in football every year.

B1G would gladly take them. Top tier research school in a new, relatively large market.

(08-19-2015 01:34 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

Completely agree.

Schools like TCU, Baylor, and even SMU can pick up the phone and get themselves some money if necessary. They have the wealthy alumni to do that. Others like UCF, UCONN, Memphis, etc.. have subsidized AD's who are at their limit as far as what they can raise and do already. Adding the cost of keeping up with the big boys and I simply don't see how that can be sustained.

It's really interesting looking at what schools get more/less subsidy. One trait of all the remaining g-5 schools is an extremely subsidized AD. Some over 50%. There are only a couple of P-5 Schools who receive much of a subsidy, Maryland and Rutgers.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Essentially this whole game comes down to money and you can look at which schools can raise their own money and which ones rely on other funding to run their AD. Any school with more than about 10-15% subsidy should be concerned. Schools like Rutgers who have a nearly 50 % subsidized AD will likely be the only p-5 schools to have trouble keeping up. But they have much more conference income to help than say a UConn who is already getting a nearly 40% subsidy and do not get a huge chunk of TV money like p-5 conference members do.

The only non p-5 schools I can think of who can likely raise money if necessary to keep up are SMU, BYU, and RICE. Any of those can round up a few million to cover costs like these new scholarships quite easily.

I can't speak for Rutgers, but one of Maryland's reasons for the financial issues was massive spending by the previous regime. The $$$ from the B1G was one major reason for going there.

UnderArmour supports the school heavily since Plank is an alum. $$$ isn't the issue it used to be

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

You make excellent points, Frog. It IS worth noting that the schools that reportedly have had financial issues as it applied to their athletic programs were large PUBLIC universities.

IMO, the ever tightening squeeze on state budgets will have an impact on state universities. Additional revenues through tax increases will be less and less politically palatable to a public that already faces high tax burdens. In addition, IMO, the ever-increasing debt loads incurred by state governments will make raising revenues through the selling of state bonds a much more selective process. To the extent additional revenues are needed for state university budgets, I think athletics will take a back seat to critical academic needs. IMO, increasingly, state universities will have to do what privates have been doing forever - fund their athletic programs largely by themselves. Now, this will be no problem for the Ohio States's, Michigan's, and Texas' of the world (indeed, schools in this category already have massive alumni/donor $$ support). Other state universities, as we have already seen, may face choppier waters.

As an alumni/fan of a private school, I think it is rather liberating not to have to go to the state legislature, hat in hand, asking for money, or be subject to their whims. BC, has its own on-campus 44,500 seat stadium, including 65 or so luxury boxes (with a dozen facing out to both the stadium on one side and the attached basketball/hockey arena on the other side. It has a state-of-the-art attached football building, and soon will be building an indoor practice facility. It recently spent reportedly over $4M on giant video boards in each end zone that have the highest resolution in CFB. It is one of the few schools that has P5 football and basketball, and an elite hockey program. It sponsors over 30 varsity sports.

IMO, it could not possibly operate at this level as a public university in Massachusetts and relying on the state legislature for funding.

Just my 2 cents.

(08-19-2015 03:04 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 01:34 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

Completely agree.

Schools like TCU, Baylor, and even SMU can pick up the phone and get themselves some money if necessary. They have the wealthy alumni to do that. Others like UCF, UCONN, Memphis, etc.. have subsidized AD's who are at their limit as far as what they can raise and do already. Adding the cost of keeping up with the big boys and I simply don't see how that can be sustained.

It's really interesting looking at what schools get more/less subsidy. One trait of all the remaining g-5 schools is an extremely subsidized AD. Some over 50%. There are only a couple of P-5 Schools who receive much of a subsidy, Maryland and Rutgers.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Essentially this whole game comes down to money and you can look at which schools can raise their own money and which ones rely on other funding to run their AD. Any school with more than about 10-15% subsidy should be concerned. Schools like Rutgers who have a nearly 50 % subsidized AD will likely be the only p-5 schools to have trouble keeping up. But they have much more conference income to help than say a UConn who is already getting a nearly 40% subsidy and do not get a huge chunk of TV money like p-5 conference members do.

The only non p-5 schools I can think of who can likely raise money if necessary to keep up are SMU, BYU, and RICE. Any of those can round up a few million to cover costs like these new scholarships quite easily.

I can't speak for Rutgers, but one of Maryland's reasons for the financial issues was massive spending by the previous regime. The $$$ from the B1G was one major reason for going there.

UnderArmour supports the school heavily since Plank is an alum. $$$ isn't the issue it used to be

Then why does Maryland take so much subsidy to operate the AD still with B1G money and big donor money??

(08-19-2015 03:21 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

You make excellent points, Frog. It IS worth noting that the schools that reportedly have had financial issues as it applied to their athletic programs were large PUBLIC universities.

IMO, the ever tightening squeeze on state budgets will have an impact on state universities. Additional revenues through tax increases will be less and less politically palatable to a public that already faces high tax burdens. In addition, IMO, the ever-increasing debt loads incurred by state governments will make raising revenues through the selling of state bonds a much more selective process. To the extent additional revenues are needed for state university budgets, I think athletics will take a back seat to critical academic needs. IMO, increasingly, state universities will have to do what privates have been doing forever - fund their athletic programs largely by themselves. Now, this will be no problem for the Ohio States's, Michigan's, and Texas' of the world (indeed, schools in this category already have massive alumni/donor $$ support). Other state universities, as we have already seen, may face choppier waters.

As an alumni/fan of a private school, I think it is rather liberating not to have to go to the state legislature, hat in hand, asking for money, or be subject to their whims. BC, has its own on-campus 44,500 seat stadium, including 65 or so luxury boxes (with a dozen facing out to both the stadium on one side and the attached basketball/hockey arena on the other side. It has a state-of-the-art attached football building, and soon will be building an indoor practice facility. It recently spent reportedly over $4M on giant video boards in each end zone that have the highest resolution in CFB. It is one of the few schools that has P5 football and basketball, and an elite hockey program. It sponsors over 30 varsity sports.

IMO, it could not possibly operate at this level as a public university in Massachusetts and relying on the state legislature for funding.

Just my 2 cents.

UMass could if it had a real fanbase. People in Massachusetts don't care about football. between BC and UMass 50k people show up to watch football on Saturdays out of nearly 20 million people. Iowa has 120k show up for it's 2 biggest schools in a state with only 3 million people. You will notice that the schools with the nicest facilities also require the least subsidy. BC does not have the nicest anything, they are simply trying to play catchup with the big boys who do like Oregon, Bama, etc. Subsidy is for schools who do not sell enough tickets or generate enough donations to fund the AD. Essentially a fan base and culture issue. New England is the worst. Look at all those people up there and not a decent fanbase until you hit Pennsylvania. Tens of million of people who do not care about college football.

(08-19-2015 05:49 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 03:04 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 01:34 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

Completely agree.

Schools like TCU, Baylor, and even SMU can pick up the phone and get themselves some money if necessary. They have the wealthy alumni to do that. Others like UCF, UCONN, Memphis, etc.. have subsidized AD's who are at their limit as far as what they can raise and do already. Adding the cost of keeping up with the big boys and I simply don't see how that can be sustained.

It's really interesting looking at what schools get more/less subsidy. One trait of all the remaining g-5 schools is an extremely subsidized AD. Some over 50%. There are only a couple of P-5 Schools who receive much of a subsidy, Maryland and Rutgers.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Essentially this whole game comes down to money and you can look at which schools can raise their own money and which ones rely on other funding to run their AD. Any school with more than about 10-15% subsidy should be concerned. Schools like Rutgers who have a nearly 50 % subsidized AD will likely be the only p-5 schools to have trouble keeping up. But they have much more conference income to help than say a UConn who is already getting a nearly 40% subsidy and do not get a huge chunk of TV money like p-5 conference members do.

The only non p-5 schools I can think of who can likely raise money if necessary to keep up are SMU, BYU, and RICE. Any of those can round up a few million to cover costs like these new scholarships quite easily.

I can't speak for Rutgers, but one of Maryland's reasons for the financial issues was massive spending by the previous regime. The $$$ from the B1G was one major reason for going there.

UnderArmour supports the school heavily since Plank is an alum. $$$ isn't the issue it used to be

Then why does Maryland take so much subsidy to operate the AD still with B1G money and big donor money??

They were completely underwater a few years back. The B1G money is just catching them up. There was a huge story about in the Washington Post awhile back. I'm not a Terp fan by any stretch (I do live in the DC Area though), but that entire athletic program was a disaster. The biggest thing was luring gobs of money into remodeling their football stadium, and then attendance dropping off and premium seats not getting sold.

nm.

(08-19-2015 05:55 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 03:21 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

You make excellent points, Frog. It IS worth noting that the schools that reportedly have had financial issues as it applied to their athletic programs were large PUBLIC universities.

IMO, the ever tightening squeeze on state budgets will have an impact on state universities. Additional revenues through tax increases will be less and less politically palatable to a public that already faces high tax burdens. In addition, IMO, the ever-increasing debt loads incurred by state governments will make raising revenues through the selling of state bonds a much more selective process. To the extent additional revenues are needed for state university budgets, I think athletics will take a back seat to critical academic needs. IMO, increasingly, state universities will have to do what privates have been doing forever - fund their athletic programs largely by themselves. Now, this will be no problem for the Ohio States's, Michigan's, and Texas' of the world (indeed, schools in this category already have massive alumni/donor $$ support). Other state universities, as we have already seen, may face choppier waters.

As an alumni/fan of a private school, I think it is rather liberating not to have to go to the state legislature, hat in hand, asking for money, or be subject to their whims. BC, has its own on-campus 44,500 seat stadium, including 65 or so luxury boxes (with a dozen facing out to both the stadium on one side and the attached basketball/hockey arena on the other side. It has a state-of-the-art attached football building, and soon will be building an indoor practice facility. It recently spent reportedly over $4M on giant video boards in each end zone that have the highest resolution in CFB. It is one of the few schools that has P5 football and basketball, and an elite hockey program. It sponsors over 30 varsity sports.

IMO, it could not possibly operate at this level as a public university in Massachusetts and relying on the state legislature for funding.

Just my 2 cents.

UMass could if it had a real fanbase. People in Massachusetts don't care about football. between BC and UMass 50k people show up to watch football on Saturdays out of nearly 20 million people. Iowa has 120k show up for it's 2 biggest schools in a state with only 3 million people. You will notice that the schools with the nicest facilities also require the least subsidy. BC does not have the nicest anything, they are simply trying to play catchup with the big boys who do like Oregon, Bama, etc. Subsidy is for schools who do not sell enough tickets or generate enough donations to fund the AD. Essentially a fan base and culture issue. New England is the worst. Look at all those people up there and not a decent fanbase until you hit Pennsylvania. Tens of million of people who do not care about college football.

Let me ask you a question, how much time have you actually spent in the Northeast? I don't mean on a quick vacation, but extended time around these parts? You are right, the fervor for CFB around here does not match other areas, but it's not like it is non-existent. You can scoff at A BC all you want, but they have decent television ratings in the #7 media market, and one of the wealthiest, in the country. That's something that advertisers covet and is a factor in setting up regional and/or conference networks. You want to compare the Boston media market to Iowa?

I think you obviously misunderstood what I was saying. I never made the claim that BC had the "nicest" facilities (although their campus is one of the nicest). I simply said that BC, and the other privates, are able to keep up with the other programs. They are able to invest in facilities which, while maybe not the "nicest" keep them competitive with the rest of CFB (note, I said "competitive", not necessarily equal or better than the elite FB programs.). BC is a case in point. Since it came into the ACC, it had been in the top half of the Conference in wins. That's what I mean by being competitive.

(08-19-2015 10:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 05:55 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 03:21 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

You make excellent points, Frog. It IS worth noting that the schools that reportedly have had financial issues as it applied to their athletic programs were large PUBLIC universities.

IMO, the ever tightening squeeze on state budgets will have an impact on state universities. Additional revenues through tax increases will be less and less politically palatable to a public that already faces high tax burdens. In addition, IMO, the ever-increasing debt loads incurred by state governments will make raising revenues through the selling of state bonds a much more selective process. To the extent additional revenues are needed for state university budgets, I think athletics will take a back seat to critical academic needs. IMO, increasingly, state universities will have to do what privates have been doing forever - fund their athletic programs largely by themselves. Now, this will be no problem for the Ohio States's, Michigan's, and Texas' of the world (indeed, schools in this category already have massive alumni/donor $$ support). Other state universities, as we have already seen, may face choppier waters.

As an alumni/fan of a private school, I think it is rather liberating not to have to go to the state legislature, hat in hand, asking for money, or be subject to their whims. BC, has its own on-campus 44,500 seat stadium, including 65 or so luxury boxes (with a dozen facing out to both the stadium on one side and the attached basketball/hockey arena on the other side. It has a state-of-the-art attached football building, and soon will be building an indoor practice facility. It recently spent reportedly over $4M on giant video boards in each end zone that have the highest resolution in CFB. It is one of the few schools that has P5 football and basketball, and an elite hockey program. It sponsors over 30 varsity sports.

IMO, it could not possibly operate at this level as a public university in Massachusetts and relying on the state legislature for funding.

Just my 2 cents.

UMass could if it had a real fanbase. People in Massachusetts don't care about football. between BC and UMass 50k people show up to watch football on Saturdays out of nearly 20 million people. Iowa has 120k show up for it's 2 biggest schools in a state with only 3 million people. You will notice that the schools with the nicest facilities also require the least subsidy. BC does not have the nicest anything, they are simply trying to play catchup with the big boys who do like Oregon, Bama, etc. Subsidy is for schools who do not sell enough tickets or generate enough donations to fund the AD. Essentially a fan base and culture issue. New England is the worst. Look at all those people up there and not a decent fanbase until you hit Pennsylvania. Tens of million of people who do not care about college football.

Let me ask you a question, how much time have you actually spent in the Northeast? I don't mean on a quick vacation, but extended time around these parts? You are right, the fervor for CFB around here does not match other areas, but it's not like it is non-existent. You can scoff at A BC all you want, but they have decent television ratings in the #7 media market, and one of the wealthiest, in the country. That's something that advertisers covet and is a factor in setting up regional and/or conference networks. You want to compare the Boston media market to Iowa?

I think you obviously misunderstood what I was saying. I never made the claim that BC had the "nicest" facilities (although their campus is one of the nicest). I simply said that BC, and the other privates, are able to keep up with the other programs. They are able to invest in facilities which, while maybe not the "nicest" keep them competitive with the rest of CFB (note, I said "competitive", not necessarily equal or better than the elite FB programs.). BC is a case in point. Since it came into the ACC, it had been in the top half of the Conference in wins. That's what I mean by being competitive.

LOL. You sound like a UConn fan making excuses for low attendance with crap like per capita income which means nothing in this scenario.

Iowa might be a small TV markets but they actually support their teams. Huge media markets with low attendance means you are an afterthought and do not bring any real markets whatsoever. ISU on the other hand actually brings a TV market and 60k fans to watch them play. Iowa brings another 70k. And BC averages about 30k. So TV partners spend 50 million + on the 3 million people in Iowa while they likely spend less than 25 million in a state with nearly 20 million people in Massachusetts. That is what you are worth as a state as far as college football is concerned, about half what Iowa is worth.

To TV partners Iowa is worth as much as all of New England minus Rutgers. That's over 10x as many people but worth the same amount to Fox and ESPN. Hmm.

(08-19-2015 01:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 12:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem with the PAC 12, if they don't get the two crown jewel of Texas and Oklahoma? They will not add anybody from the Big 12. They will pick the top G5 schools from the MWC. I think the ACC is the one in danger than the Big 12. They have more schools that both SEC and Big 10 wants.

UNC
NCState
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

Duke is not on anybody's list. I see Duke will be left out. I could see them reform by taken West Virginia, Cincinnati, U. Conn., Temple, Navy, UCF, East Carolina and some others.

Big 12 can look more westward by adding Memphis, Tulane, Houston, Colorado State, BYU, Boise State and New Mexico.

MWC will backfill with UTEP, UTSA, SMU, Eastern Washington, North Dakota State.

Tulsa, Texas State and New Mexico State go to C-USA. C-USA will be more central centric. Add Missouri State, Northern Iowa, Lamar and Arkansas State.

AAC will take Old Dominion, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Ohio U., Old Dominion, UAB, Marshall, FIU, Georgia Southern, James Madison and Delaware.

Sun Belt will take FAU back, Coastal Carolina, Eastern Kentucky, Sam Houston State, Central Arkansas, Jackson State. Idaho gets booted.

MAC will add Illinois State, Indiana State, Youngstown State, Stony Brook and Liberty.

Besides you, who is making these lists that Duke is not on? The B1G would take Duke in a split second, as would the SEC.

Have you figured out yet how these conference networks work? The bulk of their money is made by subscribers in their footprint. The Big Ten Network has a higher subscriber fee in Ohio than it does in Georgia. The SEC Network has a higher fee in Georgia than it does in Ohio. Even as they way people watch tv shift, the cost isn't going to change for those fans in the footprint.

There are very schools worth doubling down for. Duke/UNC is one of them. Texas and a friend is another.

I really see no value at all by adding Duke or Wake Forest to any other P5 conference at all. Their football attendance sucks below 30,000, plus their TV ratings are not even up there. Not even Miami Florida's tv ratings have been down. The conference realignment has to do with football. The tv ratings value football. I do not see Duke, Kansas and Wake Forest as a value target for football ratings. East Carolina beats those three out big time. That is why the ACC does not have the TV contract yet because the like of schools of Duke, Wake and Miami have been bringing them down. Why would any other conference wants to dilute their tv contracts by adding teams that do not bring a football product on the table?

(08-19-2015 01:34 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

Completely agree.

Schools like TCU, Baylor, and even SMU can pick up the phone and get themselves some money if necessary. They have the wealthy alumni to do that. Others like UCF, UCONN, Memphis, etc.. have subsidized AD's who are at their limit as far as what they can raise and do already. Adding the cost of keeping up with the big boys and I simply don't see how that can be sustained.

It's really interesting looking at what schools get more/less subsidy. One trait of all the remaining g-5 schools is an extremely subsidized AD. Some over 50%. There are only a couple of P-5 Schools who receive much of a subsidy, Maryland and Rutgers.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Essentially this whole game comes down to money and you can look at which schools can raise their own money and which ones rely on other funding to run their AD. Any school with more than about 10-15% subsidy should be concerned. Schools like Rutgers who have a nearly 50 % subsidized AD will likely be the only p-5 schools to have trouble keeping up. But they have much more conference income to help than say a UConn who is already getting a nearly 40% subsidy and do not get a huge chunk of TV money like p-5 conference members do.

The only non p-5 schools I can think of who can likely raise money if necessary to keep up are SMU, BYU, and RICE. Any of those can round up a few million to cover costs like these new scholarships quite easily.

You might think that UCF, East Carolina, Boise State, Fresno State and East Carolina could raise the funds to keep themselves keeping up with the rest. Boise with their extra dough they are getting from their own special tv contract helps them out.

(08-20-2015 12:30 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 01:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 12:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem with the PAC 12, if they don't get the two crown jewel of Texas and Oklahoma? They will not add anybody from the Big 12. They will pick the top G5 schools from the MWC. I think the ACC is the one in danger than the Big 12. They have more schools that both SEC and Big 10 wants.

UNC
NCState
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

Duke is not on anybody's list. I see Duke will be left out. I could see them reform by taken West Virginia, Cincinnati, U. Conn., Temple, Navy, UCF, East Carolina and some others.

Big 12 can look more westward by adding Memphis, Tulane, Houston, Colorado State, BYU, Boise State and New Mexico.

MWC will backfill with UTEP, UTSA, SMU, Eastern Washington, North Dakota State.

Tulsa, Texas State and New Mexico State go to C-USA. C-USA will be more central centric. Add Missouri State, Northern Iowa, Lamar and Arkansas State.

AAC will take Old Dominion, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Ohio U., Old Dominion, UAB, Marshall, FIU, Georgia Southern, James Madison and Delaware.

Sun Belt will take FAU back, Coastal Carolina, Eastern Kentucky, Sam Houston State, Central Arkansas, Jackson State. Idaho gets booted.

MAC will add Illinois State, Indiana State, Youngstown State, Stony Brook and Liberty.

Besides you, who is making these lists that Duke is not on? The B1G would take Duke in a split second, as would the SEC.

Have you figured out yet how these conference networks work? The bulk of their money is made by subscribers in their footprint. The Big Ten Network has a higher subscriber fee in Ohio than it does in Georgia. The SEC Network has a higher fee in Georgia than it does in Ohio. Even as they way people watch tv shift, the cost isn't going to change for those fans in the footprint.

There are very schools worth doubling down for. Duke/UNC is one of them. Texas and a friend is another.

I really see no value at all by adding Duke or Wake Forest to any other P5 conference at all. Their football attendance sucks below 30,000, plus their TV ratings are not even up there. Not even Miami Florida's tv ratings have been down. The conference realignment has to do with football. The tv ratings value football. I do not see Duke, Kansas and Wake Forest as a value target for football ratings. East Carolina beats those three out big time. That is why the ACC does not have the TV contract yet because the like of schools of Duke, Wake and Miami have been bringing them down. Why would any other conference wants to dilute their tv contracts by adding teams that do not bring a football product on the table?

You still don't get it do you? They're not diluting anything.

The Big 10 Network doesn't care if my grandma watches them. They only care that she has cable and they make money off of her. They also need to fill airtime other than 13 saturdays in the fall.. More basketball games help that too.

Idk, somehow making Grandma pay for games she has no interest in watching just seems wrong. If I was Grandma, I would think about cutting the cord.

(08-19-2015 01:34 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Completely agree.

Schools like TCU, Baylor, and even SMU can pick up the phone and get themselves some money if necessary. They have the wealthy alumni to do that. Others like UCF, UCONN, Memphis, etc.. have subsidized AD's who are at their limit as far as what they can raise and do already. Adding the cost of keeping up with the big boys and I simply don't see how that can be sustained.

It's really interesting looking at what schools get more/less subsidy. One trait of all the remaining g-5 schools is an extremely subsidized AD. Some over 50%. There are only a couple of P-5 Schools who receive much of a subsidy, Maryland and Rutgers.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Essentially this whole game comes down to money and you can look at which schools can raise their own money and which ones rely on other funding to run their AD. Any school with more than about 10-15% subsidy should be concerned. Schools like Rutgers who have a nearly 50 % subsidized AD will likely be the only p-5 schools to have trouble keeping up. But they have much more conference income to help than say a UConn who is already getting a nearly 40% subsidy and do not get a huge chunk of TV money like p-5 conference members do.

The only non p-5 schools I can think of who can likely raise money if necessary to keep up are SMU, BYU, and RICE. Any of those can round up a few million to cover costs like these new scholarships quite easily.

I don't agree with the bolded. Someone on the AAC board broke down per student subsidy which put large schools like UCF in perspective. As they are a young school, their alumni base is rapidly growing and maturing. Resulting donations/contributions will see similar growth as earning potential increases. They are no where near their limit.

The other thing that needs to be looked at is the "health" of the athletic dpt. I can't speak to the other two, but Memphis is in the best shape it's been in a long time. Believe it or not, the subsidy is trending down...think it was 40% in 2012 compared to 38% in 2013 (USAToday #). It's still too high, but moving in the right direction. This can be directly attributed to new leadership. Both the AD and Pres. are committed to decreasing the reliance on subsidies. With the move from CUSA to the AAC, Memphis gained millions in revenue (As did UCF). The AD mentioned keeping the budget flat during the transition to eliminate a $1.3M transfer that had been on the books for years. (They thought it may take two years to offset, but it was gone in one.) When you look at the ticket/contribution numbers, Memphis is near the top of the G5. There was a thread on here breaking it down not too long ago with, IIRC, Memphis and Boise 1 and 2. Considering it's from a year with mediocre bball and horrid fball (2013/2014), it's hard to call that their limit.

Also, the Tigers are set to break ground on new practice facilities (bball and fball) funded by donations...not subsidies. Are they going to catch the P5? No, but they don't have to to be successful as long as scholarship limits remain intact. All schools have large donors/corporate sponsors. And, as long as FredEx keeps writing checks, the Tigers aren't going anywhere.

(08-19-2015 11:24 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 10:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 05:55 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 03:21 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

You make excellent points, Frog. It IS worth noting that the schools that reportedly have had financial issues as it applied to their athletic programs were large PUBLIC universities.

IMO, the ever tightening squeeze on state budgets will have an impact on state universities. Additional revenues through tax increases will be less and less politically palatable to a public that already faces high tax burdens. In addition, IMO, the ever-increasing debt loads incurred by state governments will make raising revenues through the selling of state bonds a much more selective process. To the extent additional revenues are needed for state university budgets, I think athletics will take a back seat to critical academic needs. IMO, increasingly, state universities will have to do what privates have been doing forever - fund their athletic programs largely by themselves. Now, this will be no problem for the Ohio States's, Michigan's, and Texas' of the world (indeed, schools in this category already have massive alumni/donor $$ support). Other state universities, as we have already seen, may face choppier waters.

As an alumni/fan of a private school, I think it is rather liberating not to have to go to the state legislature, hat in hand, asking for money, or be subject to their whims. BC, has its own on-campus 44,500 seat stadium, including 65 or so luxury boxes (with a dozen facing out to both the stadium on one side and the attached basketball/hockey arena on the other side. It has a state-of-the-art attached football building, and soon will be building an indoor practice facility. It recently spent reportedly over $4M on giant video boards in each end zone that have the highest resolution in CFB. It is one of the few schools that has P5 football and basketball, and an elite hockey program. It sponsors over 30 varsity sports.

IMO, it could not possibly operate at this level as a public university in Massachusetts and relying on the state legislature for funding.

Just my 2 cents.

UMass could if it had a real fanbase. People in Massachusetts don't care about football. between BC and UMass 50k people show up to watch football on Saturdays out of nearly 20 million people. Iowa has 120k show up for it's 2 biggest schools in a state with only 3 million people. You will notice that the schools with the nicest facilities also require the least subsidy. BC does not have the nicest anything, they are simply trying to play catchup with the big boys who do like Oregon, Bama, etc. Subsidy is for schools who do not sell enough tickets or generate enough donations to fund the AD. Essentially a fan base and culture issue. New England is the worst. Look at all those people up there and not a decent fanbase until you hit Pennsylvania. Tens of million of people who do not care about college football.

Let me ask you a question, how much time have you actually spent in the Northeast? I don't mean on a quick vacation, but extended time around these parts? You are right, the fervor for CFB around here does not match other areas, but it's not like it is non-existent. You can scoff at A BC all you want, but they have decent television ratings in the #7 media market, and one of the wealthiest, in the country. That's something that advertisers covet and is a factor in setting up regional and/or conference networks. You want to compare the Boston media market to Iowa?

I think you obviously misunderstood what I was saying. I never made the claim that BC had the "nicest" facilities (although their campus is one of the nicest). I simply said that BC, and the other privates, are able to keep up with the other programs. They are able to invest in facilities which, while maybe not the "nicest" keep them competitive with the rest of CFB (note, I said "competitive", not necessarily equal or better than the elite FB programs.). BC is a case in point. Since it came into the ACC, it had been in the top half of the Conference in wins. That's what I mean by being competitive.

LOL. You sound like a UConn fan making excuses for low attendance with crap like per capita income which means nothing in this scenario.

Iowa might be a small TV markets but they actually support their teams. Huge media markets with low attendance means you are an afterthought and do not bring any real markets whatsoever. ISU on the other hand actually brings a TV market and 60k fans to watch them play. Iowa brings another 70k. And BC averages about 30k. So TV partners spend 50 million + on the 3 million people in Iowa while they likely spend less than 25 million in a state with nearly 20 million people in Massachusetts. That is what you are worth as a state as far as college football is concerned, about half what Iowa is worth.

To TV partners Iowa is worth as much as all of New England minus Rutgers. That's over 10x as many people but worth the same amount to Fox and ESPN. Hmm.

Well, God forbid I sound like a Uconn fan :) (with apologies to my Uconn friends on this Board :) ).

I think you misunderstand my point. I am not disagreeing with you about the different levels of intensity between New England and the South, Midwest, etc. Only a fool would deny that. I am only saying that media market size does matter in the total equation.

You make the statement that because people in the Boston area don't show the same fervor (i.e., showing up to games in the same numbers) as, say, ISU fans, then media markets are meaningless. With all due respect, however, this shows a lack of understanding of our region (which is why I asked how much time you have ever spent up here). The fact is that the regions are very different. Lots more entertainment options in Boston then, say Des Moines (not to mention 4 professional sports teams). As a result, fewer people will make the commitment to go and attend games. BUT they do watch in large numbers. Maybe more passively, but the media companies don't care about that - as long as the eyeballs are there.

I attached the article below that summarized the ratings for the 2013 season. Look at the numbers. ISU had very good numbers, coming it at #32. Iowa State, less so at #69, but still OK. Look where BC came in. Mid-sized private school in the Northeast. It came in at #38. Pretty impressive. Now, you can say that high rating was due to the fact they played FSU and Clemson, among others; but so didn't UMD and other schools and they finished behind BC.

http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/4...m-missouri

(08-18-2015 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Things briefly heated up in the Big 12 due to Boren's words but filing deadlines have passed and now we wait. For some schools in the Big 12 (Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Baylor) that seems like a reason to be relieved. It well could be if they ever actually add back up to 12 schools. But for over two years they haven't, and I for one don't believe they will.

Texas doesn't want its options tied up. In 5 or 6 years the buyout on the GOR won't be much more daunting than what Maryland was asked to pay. That won't be enough to hold Texas and Oklahoma, or likely even Kansas in place. The expiration of GOR's, or their dotage when the buyouts are relatively low won't be enough to hold key components in place in the ACC either.

By waiting the Networks and Conferences can get around the little brother issue. They have time as an ally and in the case of the Big 10 and SEC the economic disparity multiplied by time is also an ally.

Why broker out the Big 12 now and have a fuss over it? Why not wait and simply take the pieces you really want?

The temptation is going to be for the Networks and Conferences to simply wait and take the key programs they desire without having to pay, or divide income with, the rest.

Instead of 64 teams in 4 conferences we could easily wind up with 54 teams in 3 conferences.

Privates are going to face a hard time in keeping up with full cost scholarships. I don't think they all will stay in the Big Time Football Game.

Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Florida State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, and Clemson can all find homes easily enough either due to market, travel crowds, or National or Regional branding.

Then there are schools that likely could travel along with the right mix: Kansas, N.C. State, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma State, Syracuse, and Duke. They add value when paired appropriately either by sports, academics, or as markets.

Everybody else is going to be in a tight spot.

Good analysis overall. Some minor quibbles:

I would put Duke in the same category with Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame. The B1G or SEC would add them in a minute if they could.

I also think you over-rate the appeal of the other schools in the "right mix" category. Yes, those schools could add value but IMO they are also all in pretty strong danger of being left behind. Kansas, as a flagship with a blue-chip basketball program, is least likely to get left behind, but NC State, GT, OK State, and Cuse would likely be in grave danger if the Big 12 or ACC were to implode.

I'd say if Big 12/ACC implosion happens, Kansas has a 75% chance of being picked up by the B1G, the others are 50-50 to get demoted to the G5 zone.