Colleges shouldn't be in the business of minor league athletics imo. Let the pro leagues take care of things with universities serving as a supplement (the MLB model is pretty solid) and shift the burden off of students.

There aren't any significant new factors that would cause FBS schools to drop football. What we see today for the G5 schools was easily foreseeable several years ago. Yet, a number of FCS schools chose to move up in class anyway, and I believe more would have if not for the NCAA's current rules that inhibit such movement.

That means the Presidents saw the financial difficulties and decided the cost was worth it for other reasons. I don't see that changing.

(11-16-2015 03:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:15 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I'll say this...I watched a little of games at Iowa State, Indiana and Miss State this past weekend. That P5 money is certainly building facilities...even if the stands aren't always full.

But you see a full house at Houston versus Memphis in a brand new stadium...

To me, that monetary divide is there to prop up the smaller programs in the P5, but that doesn't mean that G5 programs can't compete...it just means Houston isn't going to have a 55K stadium when they do. P5 schools are building facilities even if they don't have to...because they have the cash from the TV contracts.

So the disparity is there, but as long as scholarship limits remain in place, there are plenty of good football players to go around and play good football. THE KEY TO G5 IS KEEPING THE SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS. There is already banter about increasing them because of injuries...that's not why the P5 wants to increase them. P5 schools want those good players to be sitting on their benches...increasing scholarship limits doesn't help the players (as P5 will want you to believe with their stipends), it only helps the biggest schools.

I really don't think the scholarships are the key, because the smaller P5 schools don't want it either. Schools like the WSU or Vandy's know that they would lose better players to the USC's or Alabama's that they get now due to the limit.

The real key that has already passed and what was fought against is the autonomous benefits. The COA and other benefits was the key for quite a few G5 school to compete against the P5. But since that has passed, it will be only a matter of time before quite a few G5 schools decide they can't keep offering COA, food, training tables, insurance..etc and entertain the move to FCS or dropping football altogether.

Well scholarship limits really are a key, too, tho-- they allow the P5 to take more of the best players and leave the G5 with even slimmer pickings. Thus, reducing the chance of getting beat...which may counter the split threat if they need those pesky G5 to fill out a schedule.

The CoA & bennies---- that's something the NCAA kept a kinda lid on for years, obviously that accounts for a fair amount of 'busting the budget' G5's are experiencing and will continue to..

As for the smaller P5--they really don't rate in this. The money isn't there for them by and large, b/c it isn't generated by them, by and large. There are exceptions, and it depends what a conference netty keys in on at different times of the year. The BTN shows a lot of hoops in winter, but much of that footprint has Long been hoops-centric as well as fball-centric. Unlike the SEC, by comparison which hasn't always been bigger on hoops than even baseball. But that can change in a hurry.

It's the Big dogs who generate much of that, however, the little dogs get to feed by association. But their wants/needs are going to be dictated by what the Big Dogs want. If Big Dog really wants more players on their bench--that Will happen.

(11-16-2015 12:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  http://chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-s...table_2014

It seems to me that there is a growing divide between students on heavy loans and the ADs/Presidents that are looking to keep up the pace in the athletics race. The amount of money required to get ahead of other programs keeps increasing, and with the disappearance of buy games there may come a time where certain programs have to give up.

With what disappearance of buy games?

The MAC has seen the Big Ten move to (1) 9 conference games and (2) requiring one P5 "peer" (which isn't always actually P5 for the schools where their actual "peers" is in the overlap between the weakest P5 schools and the stronger Go5 schools), and (3) agreeing to stop contracting FCS games. (1) and (2) reduces OOC non-P5 games available, but (3) increases the share going to the Go5, and (1) means that almost all of those Go5 games scheduled will be buy games, as most schools will schedule their P5 "peer" H&H to offset the 5H/4H alternation of their conference schedule and will schedule two Go5 buy games to have 7 home games ... including schools that previously would have signed 2-1 or 3-1 contracts with Go5 schools to save the cost of a buy game (or, in MSU's case, as a favor to in-state Go5 FBS schools, to try to attract support as 'the P5 school in Michigan that cares more about the state').

If the SEC drops the "an FCS school for everyone" scheduling strategy, then I'd expect that the ACC would do so too, to keep up, but if they did so, that would be more buy games for Go5 schools, not fewer.

(11-17-2015 12:25 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  http://chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-s...table_2014

It seems to me that there is a growing divide between students on heavy loans and the ADs/Presidents that are looking to keep up the pace in the athletics race. The amount of money required to get ahead of other programs keeps increasing, and with the disappearance of buy games there may come a time where certain programs have to give up.

With what disappearance of buy games?

The MAC has seen the Big Ten move to (1) 9 conference games and (2) requiring one P5 "peer" (which isn't always actually P5 for the schools where their actual "peers" is in the overlap between the weakest P5 schools and the stronger Go5 schools), and (3) agreeing to stop contracting FCS games. (1) and (2) reduces OOC non-P5 games available, but (3) increases the share going to the Go5, and (1) means that almost all of those Go5 games scheduled will be buy games, as most schools will schedule their P5 "peer" H&H to offset the 5H/4H alternation of their conference schedule and will schedule two Go5 buy games to have 7 home games ... including schools that previously would have signed 2-1 or 3-1 contracts with Go5 schools to save the cost of a buy game (or, in MSU's case, as a favor to in-state Go5 FBS schools, to try to attract support as 'the P5 school in Michigan that cares more about the state').

If the SEC drops the "an FCS school for everyone" scheduling strategy, then I'd expect that the ACC would do so too, to keep up, but if they did so, that would be more buy games for Go5 schools, not fewer.

There might be fewer buy games. One side effect of the increasing price of buy games has been that some P5 teams who don't sell 90,000 tickets for games against G5 opponents have been signing home/home deals with some G5 teams. Good for fans of the G5 team who want to get some quality home games, but not so good for their team's bottom line because they would net more from two buy games than they do from a 2-game home/home series in which they don't get $$$ for the road game and only get their own gate revenue from the home game.

Indiana, for example, is playing a 4-game home/home series with FIU. If FIU was instead playing 4 buy games at places like Florida State or Alabama, they'd be cashing 4 million-dollar checks. Instead, FIU's only revenue from the 4-game series is whatever they net from their 2 home games. FIU's stadium only seats about 20,000, so their net will be small even if they sell out both games. They won't make anywhere near the $4 million or more they'd get from playing 4 buy games instead of the 4-game home/home series.

(11-16-2015 11:29 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:15 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I'll say this...I watched a little of games at Iowa State, Indiana and Miss State this past weekend. That P5 money is certainly building facilities...even if the stands aren't always full.

But you see a full house at Houston versus Memphis in a brand new stadium...

To me, that monetary divide is there to prop up the smaller programs in the P5, but that doesn't mean that G5 programs can't compete...it just means Houston isn't going to have a 55K stadium when they do. P5 schools are building facilities even if they don't have to...because they have the cash from the TV contracts.

So the disparity is there, but as long as scholarship limits remain in place, there are plenty of good football players to go around and play good football. THE KEY TO G5 IS KEEPING THE SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS. There is already banter about increasing them because of injuries...that's not why the P5 wants to increase them. P5 schools want those good players to be sitting on their benches...increasing scholarship limits doesn't help the players (as P5 will want you to believe with their stipends), it only helps the biggest schools.

I really don't think the scholarships are the key, because the smaller P5 schools don't want it either. Schools like the WSU or Vandy's know that they would lose better players to the USC's or Alabama's that they get now due to the limit.

The real key that has already passed and what was fought against is the autonomous benefits. The COA and other benefits was the key for quite a few G5 school to compete against the P5. But since that has passed, it will be only a matter of time before quite a few G5 schools decide they can't keep offering COA, food, training tables, insurance..etc and entertain the move to FCS or dropping football altogether.

Well scholarship limits really are a key, too, tho-- they allow the P5 to take more of the best players and leave the G5 with even slimmer pickings. Thus, reducing the chance of getting beat...which may counter the split threat if they need those pesky G5 to fill out a schedule.

The CoA & bennies---- that's something the NCAA kept a kinda lid on for years, obviously that accounts for a fair amount of 'busting the budget' G5's are experiencing and will continue to..

As for the smaller P5--they really don't rate in this. The money isn't there for them by and large, b/c it isn't generated by them, by and large. There are exceptions, and it depends what a conference netty keys in on at different times of the year. The BTN shows a lot of hoops in winter, but much of that footprint has Long been hoops-centric as well as fball-centric. Unlike the SEC, by comparison which hasn't always been bigger on hoops than even baseball. But that can change in a hurry.

It's the Big dogs who generate much of that, however, the little dogs get to feed by association. But their wants/needs are going to be dictated by what the Big Dogs want. If Big Dog really wants more players on their bench--that Will happen.

Not all good players go to the P5 schools. They want to go to a school where they can start away that is winning like the front runners in the G5 and some of the best FCS schools that can beat P5 and G5 schools.

(11-17-2015 01:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  There might be fewer buy games. One side effect of the increasing price of buy games has been that some P5 teams who don't sell 90,000 tickets for games against G5 opponents have been signing home/home deals with some G5 teams. ...

Indiana, for example, is playing a 4-game home/home series with FIU.

But Indiana playing some H&H series with Go5 schools is not a decrease in buy games for the Go5 ... Indiana was already doing that, and also regularly scheduling FCS schools. 2014 they played in Bowling Green, Ohio. 2012 they played UMass in Gillette. 2011 they played UNT in Denton, Texas. 2010 they played in Bowling Green, Kentucky (I wonder how many other P5 schools have played away in both Bowling Greens in the same decade?) In 2009 they played in Akron.

If there's a trend there, it's already come to Bloomington in the Naughties or earlier and has already become well-entrenched.

(11-16-2015 11:29 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:15 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I'll say this...I watched a little of games at Iowa State, Indiana and Miss State this past weekend. That P5 money is certainly building facilities...even if the stands aren't always full.

But you see a full house at Houston versus Memphis in a brand new stadium...

To me, that monetary divide is there to prop up the smaller programs in the P5, but that doesn't mean that G5 programs can't compete...it just means Houston isn't going to have a 55K stadium when they do. P5 schools are building facilities even if they don't have to...because they have the cash from the TV contracts.

So the disparity is there, but as long as scholarship limits remain in place, there are plenty of good football players to go around and play good football. THE KEY TO G5 IS KEEPING THE SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS. There is already banter about increasing them because of injuries...that's not why the P5 wants to increase them. P5 schools want those good players to be sitting on their benches...increasing scholarship limits doesn't help the players (as P5 will want you to believe with their stipends), it only helps the biggest schools.

I really don't think the scholarships are the key, because the smaller P5 schools don't want it either. Schools like the WSU or Vandy's know that they would lose better players to the USC's or Alabama's that they get now due to the limit.

The real key that has already passed and what was fought against is the autonomous benefits. The COA and other benefits was the key for quite a few G5 school to compete against the P5. But since that has passed, it will be only a matter of time before quite a few G5 schools decide they can't keep offering COA, food, training tables, insurance..etc and entertain the move to FCS or dropping football altogether.

Well scholarship limits really are a key, too, tho-- they allow the P5 to take more of the best players and leave the G5 with even slimmer pickings. Thus, reducing the chance of getting beat...which may counter the split threat if they need those pesky G5 to fill out a schedule.

The CoA & bennies---- that's something the NCAA kept a kinda lid on for years, obviously that accounts for a fair amount of 'busting the budget' G5's are experiencing and will continue to..

As for the smaller P5--they really don't rate in this. The money isn't there for them by and large, b/c it isn't generated by them, by and large. There are exceptions, and it depends what a conference netty keys in on at different times of the year. The BTN shows a lot of hoops in winter, but much of that footprint has Long been hoops-centric as well as fball-centric. Unlike the SEC, by comparison which hasn't always been bigger on hoops than even baseball. But that can change in a hurry.

It's the Big dogs who generate much of that, however, the little dogs get to feed by association. But their wants/needs are going to be dictated by what the Big Dogs want. If Big Dog really wants more players on their bench--that Will happen.

I am under the impression that the lower P5 don't want the limit increase. It what has made the lower P5 schools competitive besides the G5 type of schools. Increasing that limit hurts them a lot also.

Found a link regarding the scholarship limit reduction and by they way increased the requirements to be D1.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/10/sports...asons.html

Two key quotes:
"The quality of the game will be affected; how much, only time will tell," said Gary Gibbs, the football coach at the University of Oklahoma. "It disturbs me."

Other coaches said the reductions would strengthen college football and encourage parity. "It will make our competition better," said George Perles, the football coach and athletic director at Michigan State University. "The competition will be more even because the top schools would have had those athletes who are affected by the reduction."


I think we have found out that the reduction actually strengthened college football.

(11-16-2015 09:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  There aren't any significant new factors that would cause FBS schools to drop football. What we see today for the G5 schools was easily foreseeable several years ago. Yet, a number of FCS schools chose to move up in class anyway, and I believe more would have if not for the NCAA's current rules that inhibit such movement.

That means the Presidents saw the financial difficulties and decided the cost was worth it for other reasons. I don't see that changing.

I agree entirely.

(11-16-2015 11:51 PM)sportsrankings Wrote:  If football and basketball are the most important sports driving the P5, why give scholarships to the other men's sports? If you have 98 scholarship between football and basketball, have 4 Men Sports without scholarships, and have enough scholarships to meet the Title IX requirement for the women's sports. Cost savings right there.

To be FBS, your athletic department has to sponsor a minimum number of varsity sports teams (with another minimum number being female teams) and has to provide a minimum total number of full scholarship equivalencies across the teams.

That's why.

(11-17-2015 01:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 12:25 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  http://chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-s...table_2014

It seems to me that there is a growing divide between students on heavy loans and the ADs/Presidents that are looking to keep up the pace in the athletics race. The amount of money required to get ahead of other programs keeps increasing, and with the disappearance of buy games there may come a time where certain programs have to give up.

With what disappearance of buy games?

The MAC has seen the Big Ten move to (1) 9 conference games and (2) requiring one P5 "peer" (which isn't always actually P5 for the schools where their actual "peers" is in the overlap between the weakest P5 schools and the stronger Go5 schools), and (3) agreeing to stop contracting FCS games. (1) and (2) reduces OOC non-P5 games available, but (3) increases the share going to the Go5, and (1) means that almost all of those Go5 games scheduled will be buy games, as most schools will schedule their P5 "peer" H&H to offset the 5H/4H alternation of their conference schedule and will schedule two Go5 buy games to have 7 home games ... including schools that previously would have signed 2-1 or 3-1 contracts with Go5 schools to save the cost of a buy game (or, in MSU's case, as a favor to in-state Go5 FBS schools, to try to attract support as 'the P5 school in Michigan that cares more about the state').

If the SEC drops the "an FCS school for everyone" scheduling strategy, then I'd expect that the ACC would do so too, to keep up, but if they did so, that would be more buy games for Go5 schools, not fewer.

There might be fewer buy games. One side effect of the increasing price of buy games has been that some P5 teams who don't sell 90,000 tickets for games against G5 opponents have been signing home/home deals with some G5 teams. Good for fans of the G5 team who want to get some quality home games, but not so good for their team's bottom line because they would net more from two buy games than they do from a 2-game home/home series in which they don't get $$$ for the road game and only get their own gate revenue from the home game.

Indiana, for example, is playing a 4-game home/home series with FIU. If FIU was instead playing 4 buy games at places like Florida State or Alabama, they'd be cashing 4 million-dollar checks. Instead, FIU's only revenue from the 4-game series is whatever they net from their 2 home games. FIU's stadium only seats about 20,000, so their net will be small even if they sell out both games. They won't make anywhere near the $4 million or more they'd get from playing 4 buy games instead of the 4-game home/home series.

This could be true, but I can't see it causing any current (or future) G5 team to drop the sport.

Getting a P5 as a home game is definitely a source of pride for these programs.

They'll scrap together the cash they need to survive, at some level, via donors, athletics fees from students and even plain old subsidy from the school, if need be.


If you want nice things, you gotta pay for them.

G5 schools aren't dropping football. The CFP money increased for ALL G5 schools over the BCS money. Significantly. Just nothing like the P5 is getting. That is why FCS schools wanted to become FBS. More money is there, they just have to figure out where to budget it. And those schools know the exposure for the college is worth the cost of FBS. And it will help with their other sports...and you will see the difference between FBS schools and non FBS schools (like the Big East, MVC, Big West) down the line.

The key to competing in the G5 is to compete WITHIN your conference....not to compete with P5. Certainly the American is best set up to compete with the P5 over the long run, it plays in relatively large facilities in mostly major cities. No one is going to cancel their programs...the FCS is the biggest loser here...they are losing many of their best programs, who are taking more and more student athletes with them. The transfer rules are the only thing they have going for them in terms of quality...see Vad Lee from JMU.

(11-17-2015 10:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:51 PM)sportsrankings Wrote:  If football and basketball are the most important sports driving the P5, why give scholarships to the other men's sports? If you have 98 scholarship between football and basketball, have 4 Men Sports without scholarships, and have enough scholarships to meet the Title IX requirement for the women's sports. Cost savings right there.

To be FBS, your athletic department has to sponsor a minimum number of varsity sports teams (with another minimum number being female teams) and has to provide a minimum total number of full scholarship equivalencies across the teams.

That's why.

As far as I can tell, the FBS requirement for scholarship equivalents is that you must give at least 200 of them. If you give 98 for football and MBB combined, and 102 for all women's sports, it seems you would meet that test and also satisfy Title IX.

But that would suggest that schools don't really care if they win in the other men's sports, and I just don't believe that's the case - especially for schools in P5 conferences.

(11-17-2015 11:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 10:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:51 PM)sportsrankings Wrote:  If football and basketball are the most important sports driving the P5, why give scholarships to the other men's sports? If you have 98 scholarship between football and basketball, have 4 Men Sports without scholarships, and have enough scholarships to meet the Title IX requirement for the women's sports. Cost savings right there.

To be FBS, your athletic department has to sponsor a minimum number of varsity sports teams (with another minimum number being female teams) and has to provide a minimum total number of full scholarship equivalencies across the teams.

That's why.

As far as I can tell, the FBS requirement for scholarship equivalents is that you must give at least 200 of them. If you give 98 for football and MBB combined, and 102 for all women's sports, it seems you would meet that test and also satisfy Title IX.

But that would suggest that schools don't really care if they win in the other men's sports, and I just don't believe that's the case - especially for schools in P5 conferences.

Good point, thanks.

Conferences might have their own minimum scholarship requirements for each sport. Or at least, minimum expectations.

If you're not even trying in four other men's sports ... they may not approve of that.

(11-17-2015 11:33 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  G5 schools aren't dropping football. The CFP money increased for ALL G5 schools over the BCS money. Significantly. Just nothing like the P5 is getting. That is why FCS schools wanted to become FBS. More money is there, they just have to figure out where to budget it. And those schools know the exposure for the college is worth the cost of FBS. And it will help with their other sports...and you will see the difference between FBS schools and non FBS schools (like the Big East, MVC, Big West) down the line.

The difference between the MAC and MVC in revenue is about $5 million dollars when you add in CFP, TV Deal, Marketing Deals and guarantee games. What was at one time a questionable move for a MAC school to be FBS over FCS is a no brainer.

G5 schools have convinced their BOT's to approve market rate salaries. The big athletic schools and private schools never had a problem with this. At the mid major schools it was a problem when they only paid their school president $200,000. Ohio's highest paid employee is the men's basketball coach and that is saying something with a president earning 10% more every year.

Stage 1 of the mid-major arms race is the BOT approving a student fee. Stage 2 is BOT supporting institutional funds for Olympic Sports. Stage 3 is the creation of a donor club for FB/BB improvements. Stage 4 is BOT approval of market rate salaries. G5 schools have advanced stage administrative support.

What's also ignored is the local economic impact of home FB/BB games for a small market school. For a school with average G5 attendance it adds $10 million to the local economy.

Where a president of an elite school is thinking about competing with the top schools in research, a president of a lower tier school is going to be interested in the school's local economic impact and athletics is important.

Let's get real, money really isn't an issue for G5 schools. Anti-Sports Professors love to make you think it is, because they wish they were getting the money that is going towards football for themselves, but it really isn't an issue.

UMass for example, the football budget is LESS than 1% of the entire university budget. That's right, LESS than 1%. But you wouldn't know that because of all the crying/whining/lying that the Anti-Sports professors love to spew in the media.

(11-17-2015 02:06 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  Let's get real, money really isn't an issue for G5 schools. Anti-Sports Professors love to make you think it is, because they wish they were getting the money that is going towards football for themselves, but it really isn't an issue.

UMass for example, the football budget is LESS than 1% of the entire university budget. That's right, LESS than 1%. But you wouldn't know that because of all the crying/whining/lying that the Anti-Sports professors love to spew in the media.

Athletics, particularly football and men's basketball, is defacto part of the marketing of the university to prospective undergraduates.

Some people don't like that, but it is a fact.

(11-17-2015 11:33 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  The key to competing in the G5 is to compete WITHIN your conference....not to compete with P5. Certainly the American is best set up to compete with the P5 over the long run, it plays in relatively large facilities in mostly major cities. No one is going to cancel their programs...the FCS is the biggest loser here...they are losing many of their best programs, who are taking more and more student athletes with them. The transfer rules are the only thing they have going for them in terms of quality...see Vad Lee from JMU.

Before to be a respected G5 program you had to look like a P5. Build a 60,000 seat stadium like BYU and get ND to play you at home. Be as part of the establishment as possible.

The way college football is set up now, if you are a conference championship level program in the G5 you are a NY6 bowl contender. This is going to change recruiting to a level playing field against second division P5 programs that are buried below a mountain of elite programs. Instead of just Boise State, Utah and TCU serious contenders for an NY6 in the new system its going to be 10-15 schools (2-3 per conference) that can contend.

What then is a better ratio for NY6 competition; 2 schools out of 14 in the ACC (Florida State, Clemson) or 12 schools out of 60 in the G5? In many ways a G5 can have it better by paying smaller salaries, smaller facilities for the same reward.

Its impossible to make they playoff unless a school is a giant Heisman factory. For a second tier P5 school the playoff is out of reach. G5 programs if they were to join a P5 would be second tier. They would still do it for the money but its not a prerequisite for recruiting as it was in the 90's when VT moved into the Big East.

(11-17-2015 02:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 02:06 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  Let's get real, money really isn't an issue for G5 schools. Anti-Sports Professors love to make you think it is, because they wish they were getting the money that is going towards football for themselves, but it really isn't an issue.

UMass for example, the football budget is LESS than 1% of the entire university budget. That's right, LESS than 1%. But you wouldn't know that because of all the crying/whining/lying that the Anti-Sports professors love to spew in the media.

Athletics, particularly football and men's basketball, is defacto part of the marketing of the university to prospective undergraduates.

Some people don't like that, but it is a fact.

And an even more important marketing tool - not less - in an era of declining applications and enrollments. That is the critical issue college presidents are facing, not the size of their athletics budgets.

(11-17-2015 02:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 02:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 02:06 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  Let's get real, money really isn't an issue for G5 schools. Anti-Sports Professors love to make you think it is, because they wish they were getting the money that is going towards football for themselves, but it really isn't an issue.

UMass for example, the football budget is LESS than 1% of the entire university budget. That's right, LESS than 1%. But you wouldn't know that because of all the crying/whining/lying that the Anti-Sports professors love to spew in the media.

Athletics, particularly football and men's basketball, is defacto part of the marketing of the university to prospective undergraduates.

Some people don't like that, but it is a fact.

And an even more important marketing tool - not less - in an era of declining applications and enrollments. That is the critical issue college presidents are facing, not the size of their athletics budgets.

It depends where a school is on the food chain.