Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each state have?
Author Message
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #41
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 08:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Small States: No more than 2. Small is defined as more than 3 million but 5 million or less in population.
Extremely Small states: Less than 3 million in population no more than 1.
Large States: 1 for every 6 million in population.

States may choose not to provide their maximum, but no state shall exceed their maximum.

Interesting concept. I assumed for a large state that you'd subtract 5M from the population, divide that number by 6M, round that, then add two (to account for the first 5M residents). That would limit Division I to 106 teams. If instead of rounding you used a ceiling function (round up) it'd limit Division I to 121 teams.
04-08-2018 09:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,234
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 09:08 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yeah but then what about private schools, federal schools and schools close to more/less populous states? For example, NDSU helps make up for Minnesota having only one FBS school

Ask an arbitrary question and you get an arbitrary answer.
04-08-2018 09:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #43
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 09:08 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yeah but then what about private schools, federal schools and schools close to more/less populous states? For example, NDSU helps make up for Minnesota having only one FBS school

Funny enough under JRsec's concept Minnesota and Alaska would be the only states that could actually increase the number of DI schools. Minnesota would be suited for two DI teams if you rounded, or three if you rounded up.

Perhaps you could set up a system where states could lease their NCAA allotment to other states? So if Minnesota didn't want to move up two more schools to DI they could lease those spots to North Dakota, or whoever else was willing to pay.
04-08-2018 09:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #44
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 09:17 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 08:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Small States: No more than 2. Small is defined as more than 3 million but 5 million or less in population.
Extremely Small states: Less than 3 million in population no more than 1.
Large States: 1 for every 6 million in population.

States may choose not to provide their maximum, but no state shall exceed their maximum.

Interesting concept. I assumed for a large state that you'd subtract 5M from the population, divide that number by 6M, round that, then add two (to account for the first 5M residents). That would limit Division I to 106 teams. If instead of rounding you used a ceiling function (round up) it'd limit Division I to 121 teams.

Code:
ABBR    Allotment    Loss/Gain
AL            2    -7.00
AK            1    +1.00
AZ            3    -1.00
AR            2    -3.00
CA            8    -16.00
CO            3    -2.00
CT            2    -5.00
DE            1    -1.00
DC            1    -3.00
FL            5    -8.00
GA            3    -4.00
HI            1     0.00
ID            1    -2.00
IL            4    -9.00
IN            3    -7.00
IA            2    -2.00
KS            1    -2.00
KY            2    -5.00
LA            2    -10.00
ME            1     0.00
MD            3    -6.00
MA            3    -4.00
MI            3    -4.00
MN            3    +2.00
MS            1    -5.00
MO            3    -2.00
MT            1    -1.00
NE            1    -2.00
NV            1    -1.00
NH            1    -1.00
NJ            3    -5.00
NM            1    -1.00
NY            5    -17.00
NC            3    -15.00
ND            1    -1.00
OH            4    -9.00
OK            2    -2.00
OR            2    -2.00
PA            4    -10.00
RI            1    -3.00
SC            3    -9.00
SD            1    -1.00
TN            3    -9.00
TX            6    -17.00
UT            2    -4.00
VT            1     0.00
VA            3    -11.00
WA            3    -2.00
WV            1    -1.00
WI            3    -1.00
WY            1     0.00

What states should cut who?
04-08-2018 09:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,478
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 39
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #45
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
Assuming FBS should have 130 schools, then this the number of FBS schools each state should have based on 2016 population and my own rules

1 California 39M people. 8 schools
2 Texas 28M 7 schools
3 Florida 21M 6 schools
4 New York 20M 6 schools
5 Illinois 13M 5 schools
6 Pennsylvania 13M. 5 schools
7 ohio. 12M. 5 schools
8 Georgia 10M. 4 schools
9 North Carolina 10M. 4 Schools
10. Mich. 10M. 4 schools
11 New Jersey 9M. 4 schools
12 Virginia 8M. 3 schools
13 Washington 7M. 3 schools
14 Arizona 7M. 3 schools
15 Massachusetts 7M. 3 schools
16 Tenn. 7M. 3 schools
17 Indiana 7M. 3 schools
18 Missouri 6M. 2 schools
19 Maryland 6M. 2 schools
20 Wisconsin 6M. 2 schools
21 Colorado 5.5M. 2 schools
22 Minnesota 5.5M. 2 schools
23 South Carolina 4.9M 2 schools
24 Alabama 4.9M. 2 schools
25 Louisiana 4.7M 2 schools
26 Kentucky 4.4M 2 schools
27 Oregon 4.1M. 2 schools
28 Oklahoma 3.9M 2 schools
29 Connecticut 3.6M. 2 schools
— Puerto Rico 3.4M 2 schools
30 Iowa 3.1M. 2 schools
31 Utah 3.1M. 2 schools
32 Mississippi 3.0M 2 Schools
33. Ark. 2.9M. 2 schools
34 Nevada 2.9M 2 schools
35 Kansas 2.9M. 2 schools
36 New Mexico 2.1M. 1 school
37 Nebraska 1.9M 1 school
38 West Virginia 1.8M. 1 school
39 Idaho 1.6M 1 school
40 Hawaii 1.4M 1 school
41 New Hampshire 1.3M. 1 school
42 Maine 1.3M. 1 school
43 Rhode Island 1.1M. 1 school
44 Montana 1.0M. 1 school
45 Delaware 0.9M. 1 school
46 South Dakota 0.9M. 1 school
47 North Dakota 0.7M. 1 school
48 Alaska 0.7M 1 school
— District of Columbia 0.6M. 1 school
49 Vermont 0.6M. 1 school
50 Wyoming 0.6M. 1 school

States with 1 school = 16
2 schools = 19
3 schools = 6
4 schools = 4
5 schools = 3
6 schools = 2
7 schools = 1
8 schools = 1

Total FBS schools = 130
(This post was last modified: 04-08-2018 10:24 PM by goofus.)
04-08-2018 10:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,234
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 10:18 PM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming FBS should have 130 schools, then this the number of FBS schools each state should have based on 2016 population and my own rules

1 California 39M people. 8 schools
2 Texas 28M 7 schools
3 Florida 21M 6 schools
4 New York 20M 6 schools
5 Illinois 13M 5 schools
6 Pennsylvania 13M. 5 schools
7 ohio. 12M. 5 schools
8 Georgia 10M. 4 schools
9 North Carolina 10M. 4 Schools
10. Mich. 10M. 4 schools
11 New Jersey 9M. 4 schools
12 Virginia 8M. 3 schools
13 Washington 7M. 3 schools
14 Arizona 7M. 3 schools
15 Massachusetts 7M. 3 schools
16 Tenn. 7M. 3 schools
17 Indiana 7M. 3 schools
18 Missouri 6M. 2 schools
19 Maryland 6M. 2 schools
20 Wisconsin 6M. 2 schools
21 Colorado 5.5M. 2 schools
22 Minnesota 5.5M. 2 schools
23 South Carolina 4.9M 2 schools
24 Alabama 4.9M. 2 schools
25 Louisiana 4.7M 2 schools
26 Kentucky 4.4M 2 schools
27 Oregon 4.1M. 2 schools
28 Oklahoma 3.9M 2 schools
29 Connecticut 3.6M. 2 schools
— Puerto Rico 3.4M 2 schools
30 Iowa 3.1M. 2 schools
31 Utah 3.1M. 2 schools
32 Mississippi 3.0M 2 Schools
33. Ark. 2.9M. 2 schools
34 Nevada 2.9M 2 schools
35 Kansas 2.9M. 2 schools
36 New Mexico 2.1M. 1 school
37 Nebraska 1.9M 1 school
38 West Virginia 1.8M. 1 school
39 Idaho 1.6M 1 school
40 Hawaii 1.4M 1 school
41 New Hampshire 1.3M. 1 school
42 Maine 1.3M. 1 school
43 Rhode Island 1.1M. 1 school
44 Montana 1.0M. 1 school
45 Delaware 0.9M. 1 school
46 South Dakota 0.9M. 1 school
47 North Dakota 0.7M. 1 school
48 Alaska 0.7M 1 school
— District of Columbia 0.6M. 1 school
49 Vermont 0.6M. 1 school
50 Wyoming 0.6M. 1 school

States with 1 school = 16
2 schools = 19
3 schools = 6
4 schools = 4
5 schools = 3
6 schools = 2
7 schools = 1
8 schools = 1

Total FBS schools = 130

I actually had a point. Population is directly related to a state's ability to support full sports programs. I'm not looking specifically at privates but the same rule of thumb applies. If you want programs that operate in the black then each state can only support a limited number of schools successfully.

The weeding out process is already underway. If you wanted to hasten its work you would need only require minimums in the requisite number of men's and women's sports to be offered to compete at the FBS level. You would set and enforce minimum attendance requirements, set quality standards for facilities, and require a minimum endowment for athletics for memberships to be active.

Soon enough the number of schools would shrink to roughly the guidelines laid out.

What would the affect be? A higher number of quality athletes at the schools making the cut, a higher attendance at the schools offering the events. And programs that are best positioned to stay in the black.

Oh, and 1 more requirement no subsidies.

The problem with saying that the market would decide these matters is that most of the schools are state entities. So politics means that a small but vocal minority of alums from schools operating in the red and pitch a hissy fit and gutless politicians will do what gutless politicians do. They'll kick the can down the road, appropriate the funding now, and then borrow against pensions. Piss on that!
(This post was last modified: 04-08-2018 10:44 PM by JRsec.)
04-08-2018 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,762
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 82
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #47
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each state have?
Per capital income has a tremendous impact on what a school or state can offer. This in not the 30’s anymore.

North Dakota is one of the richest states now after the oil boom (and yes it is still booming in the oil field, but with more white collar job because drilling has become so much more efficient than even 5 years ago) after being one of the poorest per capita states for decades. That is reflected in even going DI and the performance.
04-08-2018 10:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rube Dali Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 448
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 12
I Root For: UST, BSU, Minn
Location: Maplewood, MN
Post: #48
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 09:40 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 09:08 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yeah but then what about private schools, federal schools and schools close to more/less populous states? For example, NDSU helps make up for Minnesota having only one FBS school

Funny enough under JRsec's concept Minnesota and Alaska would be the only states that could actually increase the number of DI schools. Minnesota would be suited for two DI teams if you rounded, or three if you rounded up.

Perhaps you could set up a system where states could lease their NCAA allotment to other states? So if Minnesota didn't want to move up two more schools to DI they could lease those spots to North Dakota, or whoever else was willing to pay.


Minnesota would more than likely forfeit those extra D-I spots rather than prop up nearby states.
04-08-2018 10:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #49
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 10:53 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Minnesota would more than likely forfeit those extra D-I spots rather than prop up nearby states.

Well it wouldn't necessarily have to be nearby states, it's Minnesota's to give up. They could sell/lease it to the highest bidder. I'm guessing if North Carolina only had three slots (and the public schools were given preference by the NC state legislature) I'll bet Wake Forest makes a bid.
04-08-2018 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,762
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 82
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #50
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 10:53 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 09:40 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 09:08 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yeah but then what about private schools, federal schools and schools close to more/less populous states? For example, NDSU helps make up for Minnesota having only one FBS school

Funny enough under JRsec's concept Minnesota and Alaska would be the only states that could actually increase the number of DI schools. Minnesota would be suited for two DI teams if you rounded, or three if you rounded up.

Perhaps you could set up a system where states could lease their NCAA allotment to other states? So if Minnesota didn't want to move up two more schools to DI they could lease those spots to North Dakota, or whoever else was willing to pay.


Minnesota would more than likely forfeit those extra D-I spots rather than prop up nearby states.
Minnesota already props up the Dakotas, as half the enrollment at those schools are Minnesotans.
04-08-2018 11:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #51
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 10:53 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Per capital income has a tremendous impact on what a school or state can offer. This in not the 30’s anymore.

North Dakota is one of the richest states now after the oil boom (and yes it is still booming in the oil field, but with more white collar job because drilling has become so much more efficient than even 5 years ago) after being one of the poorest per capita states for decades. That is reflected in even going DI and the performance.

Is a state's financial power measured best by its personal income or by GDP?
04-08-2018 11:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GiveEmTheAxe Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 330
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Stanford
Location:
Post: #52
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 10:18 PM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming FBS should have 130 schools, then this the number of FBS schools each state should have based on 2016 population and my own rules

1 California 39M people. 8 schools

So in this version of things we only need to find one CA school to bump up to FBS to join the existing 7.

If we limit ourselves to the schools that already have FCS football there are 4 options:

UC Davis - Largest enrollment in FCS, I think. Very good institutional profile (AAU) in case their new conference cares about that sort of thing. They were once an all-around athletics powerhouse in D2, but haven't been able to replicate that success in D1.

Cal Poly SLO - The Central Coast is a very cool part of the state to visit and it doesn't already have an FBS team. For a CSU, Cal Poly has a great institutional reputation. Very selective. Roughly the median CSU in enrollment, not too different from Fresno State in that sense.

Sacramento State - On the higher end of enrollment for a CSU, over 30k, which is similar to SJSU and SDSU. Currently a full member of the Big Sky, so they wouldn't have a messy situation in separating from the Big West given their recent UC vs CSU drama.

San Diego - They play non-scholarship ball currently. It might make this the most difficult option out of the four.

I have to think that the MWC would be much more likely to add a new CA member than the Pac-12. Having a fourth CA member might allow teams from the Mountain division to play in California every year, so that could be the selling point. But which option makes the most sense to join to Fresno State, SDSU, and SJSU?

For the MWC I think I'd choose Cal Poly SLO. Better to try to spark a Central Valley vs Central Coast rivalry than split the loyalties of the Central Valley that Fresno State currently enjoys.

But if it was somehow the Pac that was adding one of the four, the choice for me would be UC Davis.
04-09-2018 12:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 2,445
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 55
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #53
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 02:21 AM)McKinney Wrote:  Comparing a given state's percentage of the nation's D1 programs to their percentage of the nation's population:

These five have too many:
Louisiana
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
Tennessee

These five have too few:
California
Florida
Texas
Minnesota
Georgia

These five are closest to their "fair share":
West Virginia
Kansas
Pennsylvania
Oklahoma
New Mexico

(04-08-2018 10:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 10:18 PM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming FBS should have 130 schools, then this the number of FBS schools each state should have based on 2016 population and my own rules

1 California 39M people. 8 schools
2 Texas 28M 7 schools
3 Florida 21M 6 schools
4 New York 20M 6 schools
5 Illinois 13M 5 schools
6 Pennsylvania 13M. 5 schools
7 ohio. 12M. 5 schools
8 Georgia 10M. 4 schools
9 North Carolina 10M. 4 Schools
10. Mich. 10M. 4 schools
11 New Jersey 9M. 4 schools
12 Virginia 8M. 3 schools
13 Washington 7M. 3 schools
14 Arizona 7M. 3 schools
15 Massachusetts 7M. 3 schools
16 Tenn. 7M. 3 schools
17 Indiana 7M. 3 schools
18 Missouri 6M. 2 schools
19 Maryland 6M. 2 schools
20 Wisconsin 6M. 2 schools
21 Colorado 5.5M. 2 schools
22 Minnesota 5.5M. 2 schools
23 South Carolina 4.9M 2 schools
24 Alabama 4.9M. 2 schools
25 Louisiana 4.7M 2 schools
26 Kentucky 4.4M 2 schools
27 Oregon 4.1M. 2 schools
28 Oklahoma 3.9M 2 schools
29 Connecticut 3.6M. 2 schools
— Puerto Rico 3.4M 2 schools
30 Iowa 3.1M. 2 schools
31 Utah 3.1M. 2 schools
32 Mississippi 3.0M 2 Schools
33. Ark. 2.9M. 2 schools
34 Nevada 2.9M 2 schools
35 Kansas 2.9M. 2 schools
36 New Mexico 2.1M. 1 school
37 Nebraska 1.9M 1 school
38 West Virginia 1.8M. 1 school
39 Idaho 1.6M 1 school
40 Hawaii 1.4M 1 school
41 New Hampshire 1.3M. 1 school
42 Maine 1.3M. 1 school
43 Rhode Island 1.1M. 1 school
44 Montana 1.0M. 1 school
45 Delaware 0.9M. 1 school
46 South Dakota 0.9M. 1 school
47 North Dakota 0.7M. 1 school
48 Alaska 0.7M 1 school
— District of Columbia 0.6M. 1 school
49 Vermont 0.6M. 1 school
50 Wyoming 0.6M. 1 school

States with 1 school = 16
2 schools = 19
3 schools = 6
4 schools = 4
5 schools = 3
6 schools = 2
7 schools = 1
8 schools = 1

Total FBS schools = 130

I actually had a point. Population is directly related to a state's ability to support full sports programs. I'm not looking specifically at privates but the same rule of thumb applies. If you want programs that operate in the black then each state can only support a limited number of schools successfully.

The weeding out process is already underway. If you wanted to hasten its work you would need only require minimums in the requisite number of men's and women's sports to be offered to compete at the FBS level. You would set and enforce minimum attendance requirements, set quality standards for facilities, and require a minimum endowment for athletics for memberships to be active.

Soon enough the number of schools would shrink to roughly the guidelines laid out.

What would the affect be? A higher number of quality athletes at the schools making the cut, a higher attendance at the schools offering the events. And programs that are best positioned to stay in the black.

Oh, and 1 more requirement no subsidies.

The problem with saying that the market would decide these matters is that most of the schools are state entities. So politics means that a small but vocal minority of alums from schools operating in the red and pitch a hissy fit and gutless politicians will do what gutless politicians do. They'll kick the can down the road, appropriate the funding now, and then borrow against pensions. Piss on that!
Yeah, but what do you do about Auburn which has a high number of Georgia students?? Due to its location, I can see why Auburn is a college choice for many Georgians (and there is nothing wrong with that), but that needs to be reflected in the number of Division I programs that we have. And I’m sure Alabama has a high number of out-of-state students as well. I really don’t mind Troy, UAB, and USA being Division I FBS, because at least it seems like they can support themselves at that level. Now Alabama State & Alabama A&M are another matter, and yes, I know they are HBCU’s, but I have to wonder if they are cut out for the long haul in Division I. I really don’t know too much about Jax State other than Troy used to have a rivalry with them (came with a rivalry trophy too) and that some tornadoes damaged the campus pretty bad. They have made some noise about wanting to upgrade to FBS in the past I want to say (could be mistaken), but nothing came of it, and this was before the tornadoes!!
04-09-2018 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,340
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #54
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 11:12 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 10:53 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Per capital income has a tremendous impact on what a school or state can offer. This in not the 30’s anymore.

North Dakota is one of the richest states now after the oil boom (and yes it is still booming in the oil field, but with more white collar job because drilling has become so much more efficient than even 5 years ago) after being one of the poorest per capita states for decades. That is reflected in even going DI and the performance.

Is a state's financial power measured best by its personal income or by GDP?

Neither of which is particularly instructive about a state's ability to support a program nor a community's ability to support a program.

In the south the high level of interest in college football may well mean that an Alabama or Louisiana can (and maybe will) support more college football programs than California, New York, Pennsylvania.

I would bet it takes less population per store to support a Waffle House in Little Rock or Birmingham than it does in Portland or Seattle, I'm sure there isn't a universal ratio of population per stores that always works.
04-09-2018 08:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #55
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 10:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I actually had a point. Population is directly related to a state's ability to support full sports programs. I'm not looking specifically at privates but the same rule of thumb applies. If you want programs that operate in the black then each state can only support a limited number of schools successfully.

The weeding out process is already underway. If you wanted to hasten its work you would need only require minimums in the requisite number of men's and women's sports to be offered to compete at the FBS level. You would set and enforce minimum attendance requirements, set quality standards for facilities, and require a minimum endowment for athletics for memberships to be active.

Soon enough the number of schools would shrink to roughly the guidelines laid out.

What would the affect be? A higher number of quality athletes at the schools making the cut, a higher attendance at the schools offering the events. And programs that are best positioned to stay in the black.

Oh, and 1 more requirement no subsidies.

The problem with saying that the market would decide these matters is that most of the schools are state entities. So politics means that a small but vocal minority of alums from schools operating in the red and pitch a hissy fit and gutless politicians will do what gutless politicians do. They'll kick the can down the road, appropriate the funding now, and then borrow against pensions. Piss on that!

Here's a repost of arkstfan's post, because I think it makes a decent argument about teams that aren't self-sufficient yet.

(04-09-2018 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 07:09 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Institutions which aren't self sufficient should scale back spending or drop to a more reasonable division instead of spending millions of dollars of student money to lose in the first round of the NCAA tournament or play in the Frisco Bowl in a good year.

So Kanasas State long ago should have scaled back their athletic spending or joined a more financially compatible conference or division?

They are eliminating their student athletic fee. But would they have ever been able to build their athletic department to the point it could operate at a high level without a fee had they not been transferring funds and charging a fee?
http://www.kctv5.com/story/37898492/kans...tudent-fee

In Arkansas, UA pulled money in from the university for decades. They used the WPA and Federal money for armories to build their first serious football stadium and basketball gym. The taxpayers paid for every inch of land their newer "paid for by private money" facilities are on and the taxpayers paid for connecting roads and utilities.

When the state legislature wanted to crack down on all the schools getting too big for their britches they ended up amending the law on how much could be transferred to support athletics to insure that UA didn't have to cut its athletic budget. Net result of the change was AState moved FCS to FBS in order to access more revenue while the state schools playing NAIA ended up moving to NCAA Division II to get a better financial deal. We lost several juco athletic departments in the process.

I find most people who don't want any fees or transfers tend to be fans of schools that built their programs on the backs of transfers and fees and eventually reached a point where they didn't need those but expect other schools to do the same in less time than their favorite team did.

I'm 100% for financial responsibility. I think when a program isn't able to self-fund from fan support even 25% of the athletic program they need to take an incredibly hard look at their budget as well as their aspirations. Even at a 50-50 split there needs to be some soul searching over whether the spending being done is likely to provide a future return that will permit less financial dependence.

But I'm really sick of the School X doesn't need any added money argument when School X subsidized athletics for more than a century.
04-09-2018 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #56
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-09-2018 08:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 11:12 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 10:53 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Per capital income has a tremendous impact on what a school or state can offer. This in not the 30’s anymore.

North Dakota is one of the richest states now after the oil boom (and yes it is still booming in the oil field, but with more white collar job because drilling has become so much more efficient than even 5 years ago) after being one of the poorest per capita states for decades. That is reflected in even going DI and the performance.

Is a state's financial power measured best by its personal income or by GDP?

Neither of which is particularly instructive about a state's ability to support a program nor a community's ability to support a program.

In the south the high level of interest in college football may well mean that an Alabama or Louisiana can (and maybe will) support more college football programs than California, New York, Pennsylvania.

I would bet it takes less population per store to support a Waffle House in Little Rock or Birmingham than it does in Portland or Seattle, I'm sure there isn't a universal ratio of population per stores that always works.

Well that's what's great about this system, states/schools that don't have enough school allotments can lease from states that have extras. I say lease because like how many representatives in congress a state has changes with population, so too would allotment.
04-09-2018 10:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 775
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 55
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #57
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 02:03 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Which states have too many?? Which states have too few?? Which are just right?? This is FBS & FCS & those schools without football- discuss please.

Here in Wisconsin we only have one school that's DI in all sports, that being UW.

There's 4 total DI in basketball:

UW
Marquette
UW-Milwaukee
UW-Green Bay

One school that's DII in basketball:

UW-Parkside

A whole bunch of DIII (or NAIA) schools.

Seems about right.
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2018 10:31 AM by BadgerMJ.)
04-09-2018 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rube Dali Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 448
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 12
I Root For: UST, BSU, Minn
Location: Maplewood, MN
Post: #58
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each state have?
If we applied the Wyoming Rule to Division I, these would be the "theoretical" number of members that would be included:

CA-68
TX-49
FL-36
NY-34
PA-22
IL-22
OH-20
GA-18
NC-18
MI-17
NJ-16
VA-15
WA-13
AZ-12(Yeah, right!)
MA-12
TN-12
IN-12
MO-11
MD-10
WI-10
CO-10
MN-10
SC-9
AL-8
LA-8
KY-8
OR-7
OK-7
CT-6
PR-6
IA-5
UT-5
AR-5
NV-5
MS-5
KS-5
NM-4
NE-3
WV-3
ID-3
HI-2
NH-2
ME-2
RI-2
MT-2
DE-2
SD-2(Barely)
ND-1
AK-1
DC-1
VT-1
WY-1

Some states obviously are oversubscribed, but I'm going to grandfather their allotments in, so that would leave about 570 schools in D-I if we used the Wyoming Rule.
04-10-2018 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrueBlueDrew Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,598
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 81
I Root For: GS Eagles
Location:
Post: #59
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
Too Many (FBS):
North Carolina
Alabama
Michigan
Ohio
Texas
Louisiana
Florida
Virginia
Tennessee
Indiana

Just Right (FBS):
Mississippi
Arkansas
Oklahoma
New Mexico
California
Oregon
Washington
Idaho
Utah
Wyoming
Kentucky
Nevada

Could Support More (FBS):
Georgia
South Carolina
Maryland
New York
Montana
Arizona
Nebraska
Wisconsin
North Dakota
Maine
Missouri
Colorado

***This is not an exhaustive list***
04-10-2018 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,234
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #60
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-09-2018 09:56 AM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 10:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I actually had a point. Population is directly related to a state's ability to support full sports programs. I'm not looking specifically at privates but the same rule of thumb applies. If you want programs that operate in the black then each state can only support a limited number of schools successfully.

The weeding out process is already underway. If you wanted to hasten its work you would need only require minimums in the requisite number of men's and women's sports to be offered to compete at the FBS level. You would set and enforce minimum attendance requirements, set quality standards for facilities, and require a minimum endowment for athletics for memberships to be active.

Soon enough the number of schools would shrink to roughly the guidelines laid out.

What would the affect be? A higher number of quality athletes at the schools making the cut, a higher attendance at the schools offering the events. And programs that are best positioned to stay in the black.

Oh, and 1 more requirement no subsidies.

The problem with saying that the market would decide these matters is that most of the schools are state entities. So politics means that a small but vocal minority of alums from schools operating in the red and pitch a hissy fit and gutless politicians will do what gutless politicians do. They'll kick the can down the road, appropriate the funding now, and then borrow against pensions. Piss on that!

Here's a repost of arkstfan's post, because I think it makes a decent argument about teams that aren't self-sufficient yet.

(04-09-2018 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 07:09 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Institutions which aren't self sufficient should scale back spending or drop to a more reasonable division instead of spending millions of dollars of student money to lose in the first round of the NCAA tournament or play in the Frisco Bowl in a good year.

So Kanasas State long ago should have scaled back their athletic spending or joined a more financially compatible conference or division?

They are eliminating their student athletic fee. But would they have ever been able to build their athletic department to the point it could operate at a high level without a fee had they not been transferring funds and charging a fee?
http://www.kctv5.com/story/37898492/kans...tudent-fee

In Arkansas, UA pulled money in from the university for decades. They used the WPA and Federal money for armories to build their first serious football stadium and basketball gym. The taxpayers paid for every inch of land their newer "paid for by private money" facilities are on and the taxpayers paid for connecting roads and utilities.

When the state legislature wanted to crack down on all the schools getting too big for their britches they ended up amending the law on how much could be transferred to support athletics to insure that UA didn't have to cut its athletic budget. Net result of the change was AState moved FCS to FBS in order to access more revenue while the state schools playing NAIA ended up moving to NCAA Division II to get a better financial deal. We lost several juco athletic departments in the process.

I find most people who don't want any fees or transfers tend to be fans of schools that built their programs on the backs of transfers and fees and eventually reached a point where they didn't need those but expect other schools to do the same in less time than their favorite team did.

I'm 100% for financial responsibility. I think when a program isn't able to self-fund from fan support even 25% of the athletic program they need to take an incredibly hard look at their budget as well as their aspirations. Even at a 50-50 split there needs to be some soul searching over whether the spending being done is likely to provide a future return that will permit less financial dependence.

But I'm really sick of the School X doesn't need any added money argument when School X subsidized athletics for more than a century.

It's a nice argument but wholly irrelevant. Do smaller trees thrive among larger ones? Not usually. Nothing in life is fair. The economic conditions that were prevalent when when schools in the 1800's were formed were quite different from those founded early in the 20th century. Many of the JR colleges and formal "Normal" colleges which had the function of training teachers but which grew into universities happened because of the GI Bill, the Pell Grant, and Baby Boomers and children of Baby Boomers at a time that consumer credit first gained a foothold in the American economy.

I find the argument that subsidies once helped athletic programs that began to emerge at our schools in the 1880's and 1890's to be specious. The economic and demographic conditions were quite different. I like that argument to the one that says because there are 500 jiffy marts in New York City we can 500 in Kalamazoo Michigan. The economic climate and demographics are so different that the argument doesn't translate.

Right now we are in a higher education recession. Automation, low paying entry level corporate jobs, and the longer work life of citizens have suppressed the ROI on an undergraduate degree. So fewer young people see a college degree as essential when trades can earn them as much or more than those low paying corporate cubicle jobs and do it with less overhead. So what we have are states which are increasing the undergraduate enrollment at their oldest and best funded schools by lowering entrance requirements and building facilities. Why? Their long range intent is to close or reduce funding to smaller duplicated institutions and to subsidize the research at the older schools through undergraduate tuition. The downsizing of higher education has begun. And while students love their schools the schools are just an entity funded in most cases by taxpayers and they will flourish and die by the market demand. It is simply more efficient to fund the larger schools and funnel the students of a state there. This cuts the number of state jobs that create huge insurance and retirement liabilities for the state, it raises the bar on the quality of instruction because more people will be seeking fewer positions, and it provides in house the funding for research deficits that are beginning to occur due to lack of funding by the state and Federal Government.

It would be great for the people if we had a huge drawback in attorneys and politicians but that isn't likely yet. But to continue to fund outmoded forms of education simply because of alumni loyalty and the dreams of their fans of becoming Big State U is a folly that plays on emotions rather than fiscal responsibility.

A state school is a government entity like the Post Office or the IRS. Yet we recognize the need to cut the bloated IRS and to have competition for the Post Office. But if good old beloved State U is threatened we treat it like a family member has been attacked rather than an attempt at efficiency in government. It's not rational.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 12:09 PM by JRsec.)
04-10-2018 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.