(04-10-2018 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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:  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.

So basically you are saying that for a 20 year span it was unusual for even the largest programs to be fully self-sufficient (start of Title IX to the rise of cable as a bidder).

I picked the 80's because I was involved in the things happening with AState and the state government and how it pushed AState to seek I-A membership. I was there when UArk had to head off a complete self-sufficiency requirement from the legislature. Heard the people from the state-owned War Memorial Stadium Commission ask for an increase in state-dollars because they were under a directive to charge UArk less to use the stadium than the commission needed per game.

(04-11-2018 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 01:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 09:56 AM)McKinney Wrote:  Here's a repost of arkstfan's post, because I think it makes a decent argument about teams that aren't self-sufficient yet.

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.

So basically you are saying that for a 20 year span it was unusual for even the largest programs to be fully self-sufficient (start of Title IX to the rise of cable as a bidder).

I picked the 80's because I was involved in the things happening with AState and the state government and how it pushed AState to seek I-A membership. I was there when UArk had to head off a complete self-sufficiency requirement from the legislature. Heard the people from the state-owned War Memorial Stadium Commission ask for an increase in state-dollars because they were under a directive to charge UArk less to use the stadium than the commission needed per game.

Yes, that and a period of 19-21% interest rates and high fuel costs and a deeply entrenched recession that the 80's would only begin to address. It was probably the worst possible period since the 60's which were basically stagnant for the first 5 years (like the 50's) and started becoming inflationary as Viet Nam and social upheaval escalated and were dealt with.

(04-08-2018 08:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 11:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  We have 13 in Ohio, probably a couple too many given poor support for a couple:

OSU
UC
Xu
Dayton
Cleveland State
Wright State
Youngstown Stare
Akron
Bowling Green
Kent State
Miami
Ohio
Toledo

All of them are also at the mid major or above level. Nobody in a starter D1 conference that takes in D2 call ups.

B1G
Big East
AAC
MAC
A10
Horizon

Attendance is decent to excellent everywhere. Miami and BG are toward the bottom in basketball attendance but they are original D1 schools with legit D1 facilities. They aren't dropping to D2. Youngstown St. has mediocre basketball support but has FB support which is too big for D2. I'm not seeing the weak link.

Wright State and Cleveland State have limited support. Look at the attached link, both have $12-13M in expenses yet garner less than $750K in ticket revenue and donations. Both schools have non-athletic financial issues as well.

http://www.cleveland.com/expo/erry-2018/...ports.html

(04-10-2018 08:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  ... I see that ugly yankee mentality has reared its ugly head in this thread.

???? Yankee mentality?

(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

Why would we assume that FBS should have 130 schools? Or any other number for that matter.

If schools were prohibited from subsidizing football and MBB, the market would take care of any perceived ills.

So how many licks does it take to get the center of a tootsie roll lollipop? Same answer for this thread, the world may never know.

(04-11-2018 06:47 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  So how many licks does it take to get the center of a tootsie roll lollipop? Same answer for this thread, the world may never know.

They were called Tootsie-pops and it took about 3 minutes of just letting it sit in your mouth and damned strong molars to crunch that puppy. Voila, you got to the tootsie roll center.

Has anyone pointed out that state borders are arbitrary?

(04-12-2018 07:15 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Has anyone pointed out that state borders are arbitrary?

And yet they're the one thing in the way of a $30,000 per year increase in tuition.

How many D1 schools in less populated areas in the states? Washington State is one that is like that. Auburn is another one. We need schools at D1 levels at the populated area centers. Texas have way too many in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. West Texas is under-served.

Arkansas larges populated areas:
Fort Smith (UAFS)
Fayetteville
Little Rock
Conway
Russellville (Arkansas Tech)
Jonesboro
Batesville (Lyon)
Pine Bluff
Hot Springs ?
Magnolia (Southern Arkansas)
Montecello (UAM)
Benton ?
Bentonville ?

Yes, I put some small cities in Arkansas, but there are smaller cities within 50 miles of these larger cities. Pullman Washington does not have the luxury of smaller cities around there that Pullman could draw people from. Arkansas have their population spread out while in Washington State, you have population in large population centers like along the I5 corridor like Bellingham, Seattle/Tacoma, Mount Vernon, Everette, Olympia, Vancouver and some eastern and central cities like Spokane/Cheney, Walla Walla, Richland/Pasco/Kennewick, Yakima, Wenatchee, Ellensburg.

Washington State and University of Idaho are too close to each other fighting for fans and athletes.

I think this is asking the wrong questions. The proper questions, in my opinion, are what should the standards be for Division I? The points under this question include: M/W sports, scholarships, attendance, and whatever else they decide. It should be based on enforceable standards.

In FBS, for example, there should be an attendance standard among others. Perhaps mandating that schools meet a 4-season average which is reviewed each year based upon the previous 4 seasons. If a school doesn't meet those standards, it is put on probation for a year to get the average up. If it still falters, then it is relegated down to FCS.

(04-11-2018 07:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2018 06:47 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  So how many licks does it take to get the center of a tootsie roll lollipop? Same answer for this thread, the world may never know.

They were called Tootsie-pops and it took about 3 minutes of just letting it sit in your mouth and damned strong molars to crunch that puppy. Voila, you got to the tootsie roll center.

For some reason my dentist kept pushing me to "go for the world record" in terms of time to the tootsie roll center. Never understood why...

(04-13-2018 11:25 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I think this is asking the wrong questions. The proper questions, in my opinion, are what should the standards be for Division I? The points under this question include: M/W sports, scholarships, attendance, and whatever else they decide. It should be based on enforceable standards.

In FBS, for example, there should be an attendance standard among others. Perhaps mandating that schools meet a 4-season average which is reviewed each year based upon the previous 4 seasons. If a school doesn't meet those standards, it is put on probation for a year to get the average up. If it still falters, then it is relegated down to FCS.

When the NCAA held on to the pretext that they might actually enforce attendance requirements, they used a two year rolling average. That way, marginal schools only had to fudge one year's numbers every other year to stay qualified. That way, a big donor could buy up a bunch of tickets for $5 a pop so the school could report its attendance on a "tickets sold or distributed" basis to meet the (already pathetically low) threshold.

If you are going to use attendance, your four year average works much better.

(04-08-2018 11:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  We have 13 in Ohio, probably a couple too many given poor support for a couple:

OSU
UC
Xu
Dayton
Cleveland State
Wright State
Youngstown Stare
Akron
Bowling Green
Kent State
Miami
Ohio
Toledo

I think they're all legit Div. I but Ohio desperately needs one or 2 more P5's ; if it required combining some schools to accomplish that I'd be all for it.

It would be pretty cool if each state had a Division One FBS football playing school. I for one miss the potential Alaska vs Delaware football rivalry on the frozen tundra in Fairbanks, or a Vermont come from behind win vs North Dakota on crisp New England fall day.

(04-13-2018 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It would be pretty cool if each state had a Division One FBS football playing school. I for one miss the potential Alaska vs Delaware football rivalry on the frozen tundra in Fairbanks, or a Vermont come from behind win vs North Dakota on crisp New England fall day.

I think some of those states are missing an opportunity by not starting their football season after the Spring thaw. Just think how many fans are already pleading for September to come around so they can watch college football again.

Of course, fans from Alaska and the Dakotas would likely be complaining that schools from warm weather states like Idaho would have an unfair advantage.

I think people forget that the population of each state depends on how many cities that are heavily populated that are spread apart. In Texas, they do need schools like West Texas A&M, Midwestern State, UTPB, Texas A&M International, Tarleton State, UT-Tyler, and Angelo State to move up to D1.

Amarillo=West Texas A&M
Wichita Falls=Midwestern State
Odessa=UTPB
Laredo=Texas A&M International
Stephensville=Tarleton State
Tyler=UTT
San Angelo=Angelo State

Those are heavy populated areas of the state, but far away enough that do not have a D1 presence. Texas is a very large state with the population wise is really spread out with a lot of open spaces far between which is mainly in the western part of the state. Dallas/Fort Worth area could lose a couple of schools from D1. You have SMU, North Texas, UTA and Baylor fighting for students. I could like to see Houston Baptist move down to D2. 4 schools in Houston is way too many as well.

No state needs anyone to move up to D-I. Some have schools that should move down. There are far too many schools in D-I already, there only because the NCAA gives them free money through their tournament.

There needs to be a much higher bar to entry than we have now.

(04-12-2018 04:47 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  How many D1 schools in less populated areas in the states? Washington State is one that is like that. Auburn is another one. We need schools at D1 levels at the populated area centers. Texas have way too many in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. West Texas is under-served.

Arkansas larges populated areas:
Fort Smith (UAFS)
Fayetteville
Little Rock
Conway
Russellville (Arkansas Tech)
Jonesboro
Batesville (Lyon)
Pine Bluff
Hot Springs ?
Magnolia (Southern Arkansas)
Montecello (UAM)
Benton ?
Bentonville ?

Yes, I put some small cities in Arkansas, but there are smaller cities within 50 miles of these larger cities. Pullman Washington does not have the luxury of smaller cities around there that Pullman could draw people from. Arkansas have their population spread out while in Washington State, you have population in large population centers like along the I5 corridor like Bellingham, Seattle/Tacoma, Mount Vernon, Everette, Olympia, Vancouver and some eastern and central cities like Spokane/Cheney, Walla Walla, Richland/Pasco/Kennewick, Yakima, Wenatchee, Ellensburg.

Washington State and University of Idaho are too close to each other fighting for fans and athletes.

Um, you do realize that Pullman, Washington, is only about 75 miles (driving) from Spokane, WA.

The distance between Pittsburgh and Penn State University is 130 miles. The distance between Penn State and Philadelphia is 190 miles. Would you consider those two cities within Penn State's region?

(04-14-2018 10:21 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 04:47 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  How many D1 schools in less populated areas in the states? Washington State is one that is like that. Auburn is another one. We need schools at D1 levels at the populated area centers. Texas have way too many in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. West Texas is under-served.

Arkansas larges populated areas:
Fort Smith (UAFS)
Fayetteville
Little Rock
Conway
Russellville (Arkansas Tech)
Jonesboro
Batesville (Lyon)
Pine Bluff
Hot Springs ?
Magnolia (Southern Arkansas)
Montecello (UAM)
Benton ?
Bentonville ?

Yes, I put some small cities in Arkansas, but there are smaller cities within 50 miles of these larger cities. Pullman Washington does not have the luxury of smaller cities around there that Pullman could draw people from. Arkansas have their population spread out while in Washington State, you have population in large population centers like along the I5 corridor like Bellingham, Seattle/Tacoma, Mount Vernon, Everette, Olympia, Vancouver and some eastern and central cities like Spokane/Cheney, Walla Walla, Richland/Pasco/Kennewick, Yakima, Wenatchee, Ellensburg.

Washington State and University of Idaho are too close to each other fighting for fans and athletes.

Um, you do realize that Pullman, Washington, is only about 75 miles (driving) from Spokane, WA.

The distance between Pittsburgh and Penn State University is 130 miles. The distance between Penn State and Philadelphia is 190 miles. Would you consider those two cities within Penn State's region?

It is a 50 mile radius that needs to count for population centers. Russellville Arkansas and Grand Junction Colorado have close to or above the 100,000 population average. Pullman only have 50,000? University of Idaho is in the exact same boat.