Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

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

Posts: 275
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #61
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

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?

What about the states where their economies don't function so much on blue collar and trade work? According to this it seems the top 10 blue collar states are Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Alabama, Michigan, Kentucky, Wyoming, Arkansas, Mississippi, and North Dakota. I could see those states de-emphasizing the smaller directional schools where applicable. But what about the white collar states that still depend on higher education? Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and Massachusetts.

(04-10-2018 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

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.

What about the old and large State U's that the state governments will direct resources at in your theory, but currently aren't true powers in Division I.

The schools I can think of that fit this profile would be Boise State, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Buffalo, New Mexico, Nevada/UNLV, Temple, UCF, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, USF, Colorado State, and San Diego State. And there may be more that I'm not thinking of. There's other states too that aren't represented well in Division I (like Hawaii and Wyoming), but I don't think they'll have that consolidation influx like you're talking about because they don't really have any other state schools to consolidate... and they also may be in areas where the options of trade schools may be more enticing.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 12:45 PM by McKinney.)
04-10-2018 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,246
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #62
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 12:40 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

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?

What about the states where their economies don't function so much on blue collar and trade work? According to this it seems the top 10 blue collar states are Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Alabama, Michigan, Kentucky, Wyoming, Arkansas, Mississippi, and North Dakota. I could see those states de-emphasizing the smaller directional schools where applicable. But what about the white collar states that still depend on higher education? Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and Massachusetts.

(04-10-2018 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

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.

What about the old and large State U's that the state governments will direct resources at in your theory, but currently aren't true powers in Division I.

The schools I can think of that fit this profile would be Boise State, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Buffalo, New Mexico, Nevada/UNLV, Temple, UCF, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, USF, Colorado State, and San Diego State. And there may be more that I'm not thinking of. There's other states too that aren't represented well in Division I (like Hawaii and Wyoming), but I don't think they'll have that consolidation influx like you're talking about because they don't really have any other state schools to consolidate... and they also may be in areas where the options of trade schools may be more enticing.

To your first quote most of those job require little more than an associates degree in computer science since the vast majority of them are record keeping positions. If the job agrees with you and you want to advance then you can invest in a couple of more years for a degree in a field where advancement is possible. The problem for most young folks is that they don't know what the advancing areas are until they are in the field.

As to the schools of course it would help schools like Boise, Buffalo, Nevada, and New Mexico. Those are state universities that from lesser populated areas (Buffalo excepted) where concentrations of state funds would help them to grow. Memphis, USF, Houston, Cincinnati are however examples of schools in states where there are many state funded schools already. If their economy can support them then fine. If not then fine. I suspect that Houston and South / Central Florida would have the easiest path in. Memphis and Cincinnati not so much. But Memphis could benefit tremendously from the consolidation of the publics in Tennessee if funds were just funneled to UT and Memphis. You have Middle Tennessee, ETSU, and a multiple of privates of which Vanderbilt is the most notable. Ohio is full of schools other than OSU. Cincinnati has a higher profile than some. But the point of my remarks was not single out a school or schools but to say that state schools function at the behest of the needs of the state and are funded by the taxpayers. If they can't support an athletic program outside of the donations and ticket sales and any TV money they may generate then pursuing sports is bad business for the taxpayer. If they are self sustaining then fine. When it comes to education however it becomes a matter of efficiency and mission as defined by the state.
04-10-2018 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Online
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,351
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #63
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(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.


Hahaha the 1880s?

Show me proof of 10 I-A schools that made solely on self-generated income each year 1980-1989.
04-10-2018 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,246
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #64
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 01:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(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.


Hahaha the 1880s?

Show me proof of 10 I-A schools that made solely on self-generated income each year 1980-1989.

An interesting time frame to select there Judge. The effect of the OU/UGA vs the NCAA case had not happened for part of it and the realization of revenue from TV over and above the previous NCAA rationing of air time made quite a difference. Many of them are in the black now that they aren't shackled to supporting all of the member schools of the NCAA off of the back of football.

The NCAA itself is a bureaucratic parasite on the back of these schools. Now they bankroll 70 million a year for the 1 billion dollars worth of self perpetuating endowment funds. Why? Because they can't siphon football revenue anymore.

Well the basketball teat is going to dry up too!

The bottom line is that it is much easier to operate in the black if you aren't having to subsidize somebody or something else. And quite frankly we can add another issue to the red ink of the 1980's which you cite. Let's try Title IX in the 70's. When popular sports were forced by the Feds to support female sports or succumb it did drive the red ink of the early 80's up. TV revenues really started to kick in with contracts signed in the early 90's but a 7 year lag in college sports contracts playing catch up isn't unusual.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 01:37 PM by JRsec.)
04-10-2018 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 275
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #65
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To your first quote most of those job require little more than an associates degree in computer science since the vast majority of them are record keeping positions. If the job agrees with you and you want to advance then you can invest in a couple of more years for a degree in a field where advancement is possible. The problem for most young folks is that they don't know what the advancing areas are until they are in the field.

Ok that's fair, that was probably a bad source. Here's the states with the largest shares of employment in occupations that typically require a bachelor's degree from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (May 2013).

Code:
     %Jobs      #Jobs      Wage
DC    32.2      214,640    92,340
MA    22.7      740,620    79,470
VA    22.3      808,730    76,360
MD    22.0      557,570    77,710
CT    21.7      354,330    78,880
WA    21.0      593,320    75,190
CA    20.3    2,989,710    79,680
CO    20.2      463,740    69,400
NY    19.6    1,688,300    78,900
DE    19.4       79,820    72,930

https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/a...d-jobs.htm

(04-10-2018 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As to the schools of course it would help schools like Boise, Buffalo, Nevada, and New Mexico. Those are state universities that from lesser populated areas (Buffalo excepted) where concentrations of state funds would help them to grow.

Makes sense.

(04-10-2018 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Memphis, USF, Houston, Cincinnati are however examples of schools in states where there are many state funded schools already. If their economy can support them then fine. If not then fine. I suspect that Houston and South / Central Florida would have the easiest path in. Memphis and Cincinnati not so much. But Memphis could benefit tremendously from the consolidation of the publics in Tennessee if funds were just funneled to UT and Memphis. You have Middle Tennessee, ETSU, and a multiple of privates of which Vanderbilt is the most notable. Ohio is full of schools other than OSU. Cincinnati has a higher profile than some. But the point of my remarks was not single out a school or schools but to say that state schools function at the behest of the needs of the state and are funded by the taxpayers. If they can't support an athletic program outside of the donations and ticket sales and any TV money they may generate then pursuing sports is bad business for the taxpayer. If they are self sustaining then fine. When it comes to education however it becomes a matter of efficiency and mission as defined by the state.

How extreme would the environment have to be for a large state like Ohio to only be able to support The Ohio State University?
04-10-2018 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Online
Cards Prognosticater
*

Posts: 26,574
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1039
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #66
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
I think its each State and its citizens business not ours. 07-coffee3
04-10-2018 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,230
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #67
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 01:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think its each State and its citizens business not ours. 07-coffee3

That and how popular a particular sport is in a given area. Is it really that surprising that universities located in or near fball or bball or hockey hotbeds draw and perform well?
04-10-2018 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 275
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #68
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 02:02 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 01:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think its each State and its citizens business not ours. 07-coffee3

That and how popular a particular sport is in a given area. Is it really that surprising that universities located in or near fball or bball or hockey hotbeds draw and perform well?

I just think it's curious that South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Indiana, Virginia, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, and Georgia can sponsor multiple public big time athletics programs while also depending on the federal government's dime (they all receive more in federal funds than they pay in taxes).

Maybe get your state's **** together before playing football, just my two cents. 07-coffee3

[Image: 966724856.jpg]
[Image: cf89185a3.jpg]
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc...rs/361668/
04-10-2018 02:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,246
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #69
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 01:49 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To your first quote most of those job require little more than an associates degree in computer science since the vast majority of them are record keeping positions. If the job agrees with you and you want to advance then you can invest in a couple of more years for a degree in a field where advancement is possible. The problem for most young folks is that they don't know what the advancing areas are until they are in the field.

Ok that's fair, that was probably a bad source. Here's the states with the largest shares of employment in occupations that typically require a bachelor's degree from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (May 2013).

Code:
     %Jobs      #Jobs      Wage
DC    32.2      214,640    92,340
MA    22.7      740,620    79,470
VA    22.3      808,730    76,360
MD    22.0      557,570    77,710
CT    21.7      354,330    78,880
WA    21.0      593,320    75,190
CA    20.3    2,989,710    79,680
CO    20.2      463,740    69,400
NY    19.6    1,688,300    78,900
DE    19.4       79,820    72,930

https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/a...d-jobs.htm

(04-10-2018 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As to the schools of course it would help schools like Boise, Buffalo, Nevada, and New Mexico. Those are state universities that from lesser populated areas (Buffalo excepted) where concentrations of state funds would help them to grow.

Makes sense.

(04-10-2018 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Memphis, USF, Houston, Cincinnati are however examples of schools in states where there are many state funded schools already. If their economy can support them then fine. If not then fine. I suspect that Houston and South / Central Florida would have the easiest path in. Memphis and Cincinnati not so much. But Memphis could benefit tremendously from the consolidation of the publics in Tennessee if funds were just funneled to UT and Memphis. You have Middle Tennessee, ETSU, and a multiple of privates of which Vanderbilt is the most notable. Ohio is full of schools other than OSU. Cincinnati has a higher profile than some. But the point of my remarks was not single out a school or schools but to say that state schools function at the behest of the needs of the state and are funded by the taxpayers. If they can't support an athletic program outside of the donations and ticket sales and any TV money they may generate then pursuing sports is bad business for the taxpayer. If they are self sustaining then fine. When it comes to education however it becomes a matter of efficiency and mission as defined by the state.

How extreme would the environment have to be for a large state like Ohio to only be able to support The Ohio State University?

As to the states you listed they are more heavily oriented toward the financial industry. I would think that not only would they require an undergraduate in business but MBA's and CPA's as well.

As to your very last question about Ohio. It would take a global depression of epic proportions before the state of Ohio could only afford support for the Ohio State University.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 02:37 PM by JRsec.)
04-10-2018 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrueBlueDrew Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,600
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 81
I Root For: GS Eagles
Location:
Post: #70
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 02:21 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 02:02 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 01:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think its each State and its citizens business not ours. 07-coffee3

That and how popular a particular sport is in a given area. Is it really that surprising that universities located in or near fball or bball or hockey hotbeds draw and perform well?

I just think it's curious that South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Indiana, Virginia, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, and Georgia can sponsor multiple public big time athletics programs while also depending on the federal government's dime (they all receive more in federal funds than they pay in taxes).

Maybe get your state's **** together before playing football, just my two cents. 07-coffee3

[Image: 966724856.jpg]
[Image: cf89185a3.jpg]
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc...rs/361668/
[Image: giphy-downsized-large.gif]
04-10-2018 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,246
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #71
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 02:21 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 02:02 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 01:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think its each State and its citizens business not ours. 07-coffee3

That and how popular a particular sport is in a given area. Is it really that surprising that universities located in or near fball or bball or hockey hotbeds draw and perform well?

I just think it's curious that South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Indiana, Virginia, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, and Georgia can sponsor multiple public big time athletics programs while also depending on the federal government's dime (they all receive more in federal funds than they pay in taxes).

Maybe get your state's **** together before playing football, just my two cents. 07-coffee3

[Image: 966724856.jpg]
[Image: cf89185a3.jpg]
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc...rs/361668/

Well, that could be because those earmarked funds range from water projects, to manufacturing incentives to programs for the impoverished. Thanks to the death of small privately owned business in most of the smaller more rural counties due to an influx of corporate chain stores there is now a dichotomy between the formally educated and their earning power and those living with Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowes, and name your burger brand jobs.

There's a big difference between earmarked Federal funds and Federal Research Grants. The former is the product of politics, and hopefully the latter is still a universal priority for the betterment of life.
04-10-2018 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 275
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #72
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 02:33 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  [Image: giphy-downsized-large.gif]

I disagree. I see a lot of states where their people are in financial trouble, and yet somehow their residents also have enough money to blow it on football. Now perhaps the people who are spending thousands and thousands of dollars on tickets and donations to their state's multiple public power programs aren't the same people on food stamps... I'm not trying to imply that. But maybe if some of those donations went towards taxes instead of being written off, their fellow residents and their own state government wouldn't have to rely on the federal government. Obviously football isn't the crux of this problem, but I do think it's a good symptom.

I know in Massachusetts our social philosophy is liberal, but our fiscal policy is scrupulous. Everything the state spends money on and every tax loophole is highly criticized, if only because we're notoriously known for our public projects having nationally high estimates and still running over budget.

As a result we don't rely on the feds. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 04:14 PM by McKinney.)
04-10-2018 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 275
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #73
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, that could be because those earmarked funds range from water projects, to manufacturing incentives to programs for the impoverished. Thanks to the death of small privately owned business in most of the smaller more rural counties due to an influx of corporate chain stores there is now a dichotomy between the formally educated and their earning power and those living with Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowes, and name your burger brand jobs.

There's a big difference between earmarked Federal funds and Federal Research Grants. The former is the product of politics, and hopefully the latter is still a universal priority for the betterment of life.

Come on man, you don't think that's impacted Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, New York, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Massachusetts, and California?

Now those states are also home to some big cities, but they also have their fair share of rural land. Somehow they're not on the fed's dole.
04-10-2018 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,246
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #74
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 04:09 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, that could be because those earmarked funds range from water projects, to manufacturing incentives to programs for the impoverished. Thanks to the death of small privately owned business in most of the smaller more rural counties due to an influx of corporate chain stores there is now a dichotomy between the formally educated and their earning power and those living with Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowes, and name your burger brand jobs.

There's a big difference between earmarked Federal funds and Federal Research Grants. The former is the product of politics, and hopefully the latter is still a universal priority for the betterment of life.

Come on man, you don't think that's impacted Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, New York, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Massachusetts, and California?

Now those states are also home to some big cities, but they also have their fair share of rural land. Somehow they're not on the fed's dole.

They are also more affluent. We have counties in Alabama that are 70% minority and woefully under educated. They happen to meet the norms for many of the federal programs. You're the one who needs to "come on man" surely you know that every government gets more of what it subsidizes. Want illegitimate babies? Then pay moms to have them. Want kids on ritalin, or if you want to declare an epidemic of add & adhd, then subsidize the school systems to the tune of $80 for every child diagnosed as having add or adhd. It works like a charm. Never mind that over 80% of those diagnosed in the school systems as having the disorders were adolescent males now denied recess, unsupervised lunches and who experienced low impact P.E.. It's called hormonal change and high testosterone not add and adhd, both of which are real, but certainly not represented in the general population at epidemic proportions.

If you want to change which states get federal money then eliminate B.S. subsidies and we'll all be better off for it in the long run. For those who truly need assistance the non wasted subsidy money would cover them a lot better than the current system.

If you don't believe me do some research on Greece. There were taxi drivers there getting annual subsidies because they bribed doctors to say they were legally blind. Let that slowly sink in.

I once ran a family business of one of my grandparent's while they were ill. I had to round up workers every morning and although we paid more than double the minimum wage at the time most on welfare refused jobs. I had one explain very directly to me "Why should I sweat my butt off in the sun all day long for 50 dollars a day when I can stay at home and watch TV for 30 (that will somewhat reveal to you my age and yes I'm ancient).

When I turned them in for turning down a qualifying job it was the Welfare worker who blessed me out informing me that if their case loads didn't stay above a certain number they would lose a case worker.

This is the issue. Not the accountability of states. Alabama for all of its ills runs a balanced budget or we go into proration. The Feds should operate the same way. What we waste annually could go a long way to rebuilding infrastructure nationally.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018 08:09 PM by JRsec.)
04-10-2018 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 2,447
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 55
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #75
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 04:09 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, that could be because those earmarked funds range from water projects, to manufacturing incentives to programs for the impoverished. Thanks to the death of small privately owned business in most of the smaller more rural counties due to an influx of corporate chain stores there is now a dichotomy between the formally educated and their earning power and those living with Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowes, and name your burger brand jobs.

There's a big difference between earmarked Federal funds and Federal Research Grants. The former is the product of politics, and hopefully the latter is still a universal priority for the betterment of life.

Come on man, you don't think that's impacted Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, New York, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Massachusetts, and California?

Now those states are also home to some big cities, but they also have their fair share of rural land. Somehow they're not on the fed's dole.

Agree & disagree with you & JR. I agree with you in that what JR has said in his post that you quoted has impacted the state of California. In the state of California, IMO, a lot of the middle class has fled leaving either the very wealthy & affluent or the working class with a lot of low income, transient residents who actually prefer to live in the rural areas of California.
04-10-2018 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 2,447
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 55
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #76
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:09 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, that could be because those earmarked funds range from water projects, to manufacturing incentives to programs for the impoverished. Thanks to the death of small privately owned business in most of the smaller more rural counties due to an influx of corporate chain stores there is now a dichotomy between the formally educated and their earning power and those living with Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowes, and name your burger brand jobs.

There's a big difference between earmarked Federal funds and Federal Research Grants. The former is the product of politics, and hopefully the latter is still a universal priority for the betterment of life.

Come on man, you don't think that's impacted Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, New York, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Massachusetts, and California?

Now those states are also home to some big cities, but they also have their fair share of rural land. Somehow they're not on the fed's dole.

They are also more affluent. We have counties in Alabama that are 70% minority and woefully under educated. They happen to meet the norms for many of the federal programs. Your the one who needs to "come on man" surely you know that every government gets more of what it subsidizes. Want illegitimate babies then pay moms to have them. Want kids on ritalin or if you want to declare an epidemic of add & adhd then subsidize the school systems to the tune of $80 for every child diagnosed as having add or adhd. It works like a charm. Never mind that over 80% of those diagnosed in the school systems as having the disorders were adolescent males now denied recess, unsupervised lunches and who experienced low impact P.E.. It's called hormonal change and high testosterone not add and adhd, both of which are real, but certainly not represented in the general population at epidemic proportions.

If you want to change which states get federal money then eliminate B.S. subsidies and we'll all be better off for it in the long run. For those who truly need assistance the non wasted subsidy money would cover them a lot better than the current system.

If you don't believe me do some research on Greece. There were taxi drivers there getting annual subsidies because they bribed doctors to say they were legally blind. Let that slowly sink in.

I once ran a family business of one of my grandparent's while they were ill. I had to round up workers every morning and although we paid more than double the minimum wage at the time most on welfare refused jobs. I had one explain very directly to me "Why should I sweat my butt off in the sun all day long for 50 dollars a day when I can stay at home and watch TV for 30 (that will somewhat reveal to you my age and yes I'm ancient).

When I turned them in for turning down a qualifying job it was the Welfare worker who blessed me out informing me that if their case loads didn't stay above a certain number they would lose a case worker.

This is the issue. Not the accountability of states. Alabama for all of its ills runs a balanced budget or we go into proration. The Feds should operate the same way. What we waste annually could go a long way to rebuilding infrastructure nationally.

I have to agree with you on that JR. very true.
04-10-2018 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,404
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 819
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #77
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each state have?
... I see that ugly yankee mentality has reared its ugly head in this thread.
04-10-2018 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 275
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #78
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-10-2018 08:03 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They are also more affluent. We have counties in Alabama that are 70% minority and woefully under educated. They happen to meet the norms for many of the federal programs. Your the one who needs to "come on man" surely you know that every government gets more of what it subsidizes. Want illegitimate babies then pay moms to have them. Want kids on ritalin or if you want to declare an epidemic of add & adhd then subsidize the school systems to the tune of $80 for every child diagnosed as having add or adhd. It works like a charm. Never mind that over 80% of those diagnosed in the school systems as having the disorders were adolescent males now denied recess, unsupervised lunches and who experienced low impact P.E.. It's called hormonal change and high testosterone not add and adhd, both of which are real, but certainly not represented in the general population at epidemic proportions.

If you want to change which states get federal money then eliminate B.S. subsidies and we'll all be better off for it in the long run. For those who truly need assistance the non wasted subsidy money would cover them a lot better than the current system.

If you don't believe me do some research on Greece. There were taxi drivers there getting annual subsidies because they bribed doctors to say they were legally blind. Let that slowly sink in.

I once ran a family business of one of my grandparent's while they were ill. I had to round up workers every morning and although we paid more than double the minimum wage at the time most on welfare refused jobs. I had one explain very directly to me "Why should I sweat my butt off in the sun all day long for 50 dollars a day when I can stay at home and watch TV for 30 (that will somewhat reveal to you my age and yes I'm ancient).

When I turned them in for turning down a qualifying job it was the Welfare worker who blessed me out informing me that if their case loads didn't stay above a certain number they would lose a case worker.

This is the issue. Not the accountability of states. Alabama for all of its ills runs a balanced budget or we go into proration. The Feds should operate the same way. What we waste annually could go a long way to rebuilding infrastructure nationally.

I have to agree with you on that JR. very true.

Same. Good post JR. I think the same argument could be made about the subsidized loans and the resulting student debt crisis. I liked what arkstfan and otown had to say on this topic.

(04-10-2018 12:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here's the thing.

We totally screwed the pooch in funding higher education.

Politicians who didn't like that some nut wad professor would go on TV or radio or get interviewed by the newspaper and say something they didn't like wanted to improve the quality of higher education or maybe their motivation was to help kids attend private colleges or wanted to address the rising costs of education or whatever came up with an idea.

College education could be improved by competition rather than oversight.

So we began a transition in how we funded colleges. Instead of government funding two-thirds or more of the cost of a college education by directly funding state schools, they would move that money into the hand of the consumer, the student.

The student and the student's parents quit paying mostly out-of-pocket at the time of enrollment each semester and began relying on grants, broad scholarships (lottery funded in many states) and loans.

Schools needing to replace the flat or declining direct support needed to attract students. To attract students schools began replacing two to a room, bathroom and shower down the hall, dorms with apartment like dorms. They started building student unions with food courts, built big rec centers, etc., etc., and had to raise prices to fund those student attractive features.

Athletics became one of those amenities and a well liked amenity because alums liked it. We saw a new phenomena. Instead of a school being a Division II football or basketball power and then moving to Division and FCS or an FCS power moving to FBS, we started seeing schools with with no particularly notable success choosing to move because most schools their size had moved up or because they were in a large metro.

If we had stayed with a funding system where schools were relying primarily on direct funding and prices were paid out-of-pocket immediately by price sensitive consumers there would be fewer Division I schools now.

(04-10-2018 07:35 PM)otown Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:18 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and ArkSt should remember that even adjusting for inflation, the athletic dollars were really small back in the day.

For example, in 1995, not exactly ancient history, Baylor's athletic expenditures was a whopping .... $7.5 million. That's $12 million in today's money. That's the entire athletic budget, not just football.

So schools like ARK-State are squandering far more money these days than Power schools did in the past, even if the Power schools were losing money then, which hasn't been proven.


Say what you will about how wrong it is for schools to subsidize, I think what's more frightening is the amount of money that the Power schools bring in for athletics and yet they still charge what they do for students to attend.

Athletic events are one thing......... but the whole academic university structure is just as bad.

This is strictly because out of control student loan lending, both govt subsidized and private. Students can essentially take massive amounts of loans including "living expense loans." Unfortunately, a lot of these students are way too immature to manage their money. I've seen countless examples of people burning through their living expense money like its a never ending piggy bank.

Unfortunately, universities, both private/public are taking advantage of these immature students, reckless publicly backed lending, and private loans. They are getting away with it and continue to raise their tuition year in and out with no push back.
04-10-2018 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Online
Cards Prognosticater
*

Posts: 26,574
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1039
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #79
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
05-stirthepot I see you are UMass and you cannot afford football. 07-coffee3

[Image: i-feel-your-pain-brother.jpg]
04-10-2018 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Mav Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 110
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Omaha
Location:
Post: #80
RE: How many Division I programs (all sports & “basketball only”) should each stat...
(04-08-2018 04:45 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  In IL’s case, the problem isn’t too many. It’s where some are located.

EIU is one of the worst located colleges in the country. There is zero niche for them to fill - 1 hour from UofI and EIU’s vicinity in all directions may as well be uninhabited. Miracle that school’s alive.

There is no reason for two SIU’s to exist - Edwardsville exists as a makeup for the poor location of other directionals.

If one could redo the location of the directionals:
NIU - Rockford
EIU - Naperville
WIU - Quad Cities or Springfield
SIU - Edwardsville

Gets rid of some brutal college towns like Charleston and DeKalb and shifts the schools to population centers. Carbondale is actually a real nice college town that supports the Salukis well but they’re the clear exception to the rule for IL directionals.
Rockford could have had NIU when it opened, but they turned them down since they didn't want to give up the land east of the Rock River or something. That being said, it's all moot, since no one in that part of the state gives a rip about college sports, and the ones that do are by and large Wisconsin bandwagoners.

DeKalb is also an all around nicer place to be than Rockford and has a METRA connection to Chicago. Rockford just has crime.
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2018 04:35 AM by Mav.)
04-11-2018 04:32 AM
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.