Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #21
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
Football scholarships could be cut to 75 and programs would mostly be fine, the resistance is just that coaches want to keep the extra 10 scholarships as a cushion for their own recruiting mistakes.

But, if the football limit was dropped to 75 and schools just used that as an excuse to discontinue one or two women's sports, the publicity from that would be bad.

Coaches' salaries can't be capped. The NCAA lost a lawsuit several years ago over their rule capping the salary of a few football assistant coaches.

As for dropping football, there is so much misplaced pride and ego at work in those decisions, and so little accountability for the use of university money in athletics, that I see little chance that any P5 school (or for that matter, 90% of the G5 schools) would even seriously consider it, no matter how much of a financial benefit it would be to that school.
04-13-2018 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
(04-13-2018 12:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Football scholarships could be cut to 75 and programs would mostly be fine, the resistance is just that coaches want to keep the extra 10 scholarships as a cushion for their own recruiting mistakes.

But, if the football limit was dropped to 75 and schools just used that as an excuse to discontinue one or two women's sports, the publicity from that would be bad.

Coaches' salaries can't be capped. The NCAA lost a lawsuit several years ago over their rule capping the salary of a few football assistant coaches.

As for dropping football, there is so much misplaced pride and ego at work in those decisions, and so little accountability for the use of university money in athletics, that I see little chance that any P5 school (or for that matter, 90% of the G5 schools) would even seriously consider it, no matter how much of a financial benefit it would be to that school.

Necessity has always been the best motivator. With shrinking state and federal funds, with enrollment competition really just heating up, and with demand for college degrees by the consumer ebbing, and states looking at consolidation in higher education, I'd say the advent of necessity is nigh.
04-13-2018 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
Coaching salaries cannot be capped, but the Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA discussed the NCAA's purported goal of competitive balance. The court mentions capping spending or even capping donations would better achieve the goal without interfering with anti-trust.

Oh man those poor schools. They agree to cap spending at say $125 million on athletics and start pouring over the rest into the school operating budget or into the endowment.
04-13-2018 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #24
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
(04-13-2018 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 12:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Football scholarships could be cut to 75 and programs would mostly be fine, the resistance is just that coaches want to keep the extra 10 scholarships as a cushion for their own recruiting mistakes.

But, if the football limit was dropped to 75 and schools just used that as an excuse to discontinue one or two women's sports, the publicity from that would be bad.

Coaches' salaries can't be capped. The NCAA lost a lawsuit several years ago over their rule capping the salary of a few football assistant coaches.

As for dropping football, there is so much misplaced pride and ego at work in those decisions, and so little accountability for the use of university money in athletics, that I see little chance that any P5 school (or for that matter, 90% of the G5 schools) would even seriously consider it, no matter how much of a financial benefit it would be to that school.

Necessity has always been the best motivator. With shrinking state and federal funds, with enrollment competition really just heating up, and with demand for college degrees by the consumer ebbing, and states looking at consolidation in higher education, I'd say the advent of necessity is nigh.

School administrators will only see that necessity if their finances are very dire, donations are very low, and there is little or no risk of donor backlash from discontinuing football. In other words, the situation has to look like Fullerton or Long Beach when they dropped football in the early 1990s.

So look for public schools that are not the most prominent in their state, in a metro area whose fandom is dominated by more famous and more successful college football programs, with alumni and supporters who wouldn't care much if football was discontinued. I think that's consistent with my previous comment, i.e., all of those boxes would be checked by no P5 programs and only about 10% of the G5 programs.
04-13-2018 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
(04-13-2018 12:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 12:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Football scholarships could be cut to 75 and programs would mostly be fine, the resistance is just that coaches want to keep the extra 10 scholarships as a cushion for their own recruiting mistakes.

But, if the football limit was dropped to 75 and schools just used that as an excuse to discontinue one or two women's sports, the publicity from that would be bad.

Coaches' salaries can't be capped. The NCAA lost a lawsuit several years ago over their rule capping the salary of a few football assistant coaches.

As for dropping football, there is so much misplaced pride and ego at work in those decisions, and so little accountability for the use of university money in athletics, that I see little chance that any P5 school (or for that matter, 90% of the G5 schools) would even seriously consider it, no matter how much of a financial benefit it would be to that school.

Necessity has always been the best motivator. With shrinking state and federal funds, with enrollment competition really just heating up, and with demand for college degrees by the consumer ebbing, and states looking at consolidation in higher education, I'd say the advent of necessity is nigh.

School administrators will only see that necessity if their finances are very dire, donations are very low, and there is little or no risk of donor backlash from discontinuing football. In other words, the situation has to look like Fullerton or Long Beach when they dropped football in the early 1990s.

So look for public schools that are not the most prominent in their state, in a metro area whose fandom is dominated by more famous and more successful college football programs, with alumni and supporters who wouldn't care much if football was discontinued. I think that's consistent with my previous comment, i.e., all of those boxes would be checked by no P5 programs and only about 10% of the G5 programs.

The financial circumstances are getting quietly dire Wedge. I don't think the P5 will lose any schools unless the stipend cap is removed by Federal Court decision, and it may well be. Then you'll see a few state schools and a few more privates probably bow out.

As far as the general financial picture eliminating some G5 level programs I think there would be many more than 6. They just won't all happen at once. And in this case it won't begin with the abandonment of football but it may begin with some choosing to move back into the FCS before they shudder the program. I think within a decade that 20 or a few more is not improbable.
04-13-2018 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
For the purpose of cost-cutting, I think 75 for football is a fairly good number.

One of the reasons is that major programs won't have any shortage of walk-ons to fill out their rosters. A lot of schools get a nice collection of walk-ons as it is, but since there are more scholarship programs than there used to be; the depth isn't as pronounced.

If some of the football programs in lower divisions get discontinued, however, then that means there will be plenty of halfway decent players looking to continue their career even if the school doesn't give them a scholarship. At that, more and more of them will gravitate towards the P5s because if you're not going to get a scholarship then you might as well take advantage of all the other tangibles of the school you're attending and Power schools tend to offer more than FCS or G5s.

Also, they've discussed in the past allowing athletes to have 5 years of eligibility. That's always sounded like a good idea to me and it actually helps the programs as well because only the elite players will leave early for the NFL. Most of the rest will age out later and have more opportunities to contribute.
04-13-2018 02:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
From what I've seen, the rapid inflation of game guarantee revenue has hit a plateau.

There are very few schools in FBS that I'd consider a significant risk to drop football.

You have a few schools who are getting 75 cents out of every athletic dollar from the school/students. A hiccup in enrollment would put them in danger.
Less easily discerned is debt load. Athletic departments with a heavy debt load are always at risk if there is a revenue disruption.

FCS to me is the true danger zone. Touted as cost-containment football, I see more being spent on salaries and facilities than revenue would seem to suggest is viable. 23 fewer scholarships isn't a big savings, it's not "cheap" like Division II with only 36 rides in football. I see more FCS chasing revenue games.

I tend to suspect there are a number of FCS who would be open to capping scholarships in conference to 36-40. Remember the I-AAA proposal (non-scholarship football division) seemed to be on a rocket sled to approval until the commissioners of several I-AA leagues rallied votes from I-A to kill it (creating a new subclass was considered a division wide vote). The OVC supposedly had said they expected to lose up to half of their membership if I-AAA had passed.
04-13-2018 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,728
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #28
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
(04-13-2018 12:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Coaching salaries cannot be capped, but the Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA discussed the NCAA's purported goal of competitive balance. The court mentions capping spending or even capping donations would better achieve the goal without interfering with anti-trust.

Oh man those poor schools. They agree to cap spending at say $125 million on athletics and start pouring over the rest into the school operating budget or into the endowment.

This is what I'm talking about - the NCAA and the conferences don't have the authority to cap coaches salaries, but the Federal government does (or if they word it as a cap on total spending, so much the better - gives schools a chance to differentiate themselves).

The NCAA certainly does have the authority to reduce the number of scholarships - and if the cap on stipends is lifted, that would be an excellent time to do just that.

Changes to Title IX would require an act of Congress - literally - but that's not impossible, especially in the current political climate.
04-13-2018 04:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
(04-13-2018 04:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 12:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Coaching salaries cannot be capped, but the Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA discussed the NCAA's purported goal of competitive balance. The court mentions capping spending or even capping donations would better achieve the goal without interfering with anti-trust.

Oh man those poor schools. They agree to cap spending at say $125 million on athletics and start pouring over the rest into the school operating budget or into the endowment.

This is what I'm talking about - the NCAA and the conferences don't have the authority to cap coaches salaries, but the Federal government does (or if they word it as a cap on total spending, so much the better - gives schools a chance to differentiate themselves).

The NCAA certainly does have the authority to reduce the number of scholarships - and if the cap on stipends is lifted, that would be an excellent time to do just that.

Changes to Title IX would require an act of Congress - literally - but that's not impossible, especially in the current political climate.

Title IX is a different animal and relates to more than college athletics. It could be amended, but I don't see the political will to touch an issue like that at the Federal level.

You have to ask the question from the politicians' standpoint...what do they have to gain from a particular measure?

When it comes to Title IX, I can't think of anything an amendment would really accomplish unless we're talking about creating a system that allows schools to spend a disproportionate amount on men's athletic teams. Even if there was a subset that wanted to do just that, they would face backlash from a group interested in preserving as many women's sports as possible.

More than that, being that football and basketball are the only ones that really generate revenue, there's really no reason to go this route if the ultimate goal is cost-cutting.

If the goal is cost cutting then just find ways to cut an equal number of men's and women's sports. It's more economical.
04-13-2018 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,728
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #30
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
(04-13-2018 04:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 04:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 12:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Coaching salaries cannot be capped, but the Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA discussed the NCAA's purported goal of competitive balance. The court mentions capping spending or even capping donations would better achieve the goal without interfering with anti-trust.

Oh man those poor schools. They agree to cap spending at say $125 million on athletics and start pouring over the rest into the school operating budget or into the endowment.

This is what I'm talking about - the NCAA and the conferences don't have the authority to cap coaches salaries, but the Federal government does (or if they word it as a cap on total spending, so much the better - gives schools a chance to differentiate themselves).

The NCAA certainly does have the authority to reduce the number of scholarships - and if the cap on stipends is lifted, that would be an excellent time to do just that.

Changes to Title IX would require an act of Congress - literally - but that's not impossible, especially in the current political climate.

Title IX is a different animal and relates to more than college athletics. It could be amended, but I don't see the political will to touch an issue like that at the Federal level.

You have to ask the question from the politicians' standpoint...what do they have to gain from a particular measure?

When it comes to Title IX, I can't think of anything an amendment would really accomplish unless we're talking about creating a system that allows schools to spend a disproportionate amount on men's athletic teams. Even if there was a subset that wanted to do just that, they would face backlash from a group interested in preserving as many women's sports as possible.

More than that, being that football and basketball are the only ones that really generate revenue, there's really no reason to go this route if the ultimate goal is cost-cutting.

If the goal is cost cutting then just find ways to cut an equal number of men's and women's sports. It's more economical.

...OR START SPONSORING WOMEN'S FOOTBALL! 02-13-banana

[I'm kidding]
04-13-2018 04:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
(04-13-2018 04:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 04:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 04:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 12:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Coaching salaries cannot be capped, but the Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA discussed the NCAA's purported goal of competitive balance. The court mentions capping spending or even capping donations would better achieve the goal without interfering with anti-trust.

Oh man those poor schools. They agree to cap spending at say $125 million on athletics and start pouring over the rest into the school operating budget or into the endowment.

This is what I'm talking about - the NCAA and the conferences don't have the authority to cap coaches salaries, but the Federal government does (or if they word it as a cap on total spending, so much the better - gives schools a chance to differentiate themselves).

The NCAA certainly does have the authority to reduce the number of scholarships - and if the cap on stipends is lifted, that would be an excellent time to do just that.

Changes to Title IX would require an act of Congress - literally - but that's not impossible, especially in the current political climate.

Title IX is a different animal and relates to more than college athletics. It could be amended, but I don't see the political will to touch an issue like that at the Federal level.

You have to ask the question from the politicians' standpoint...what do they have to gain from a particular measure?

When it comes to Title IX, I can't think of anything an amendment would really accomplish unless we're talking about creating a system that allows schools to spend a disproportionate amount on men's athletic teams. Even if there was a subset that wanted to do just that, they would face backlash from a group interested in preserving as many women's sports as possible.

More than that, being that football and basketball are the only ones that really generate revenue, there's really no reason to go this route if the ultimate goal is cost-cutting.

If the goal is cost cutting then just find ways to cut an equal number of men's and women's sports. It's more economical.

...OR START SPONSORING WOMEN'S FOOTBALL! 02-13-banana

[I'm kidding]

When women huddle some guy is going to get hosed!
04-13-2018 05:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
(04-13-2018 04:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 12:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Coaching salaries cannot be capped, but the Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA discussed the NCAA's purported goal of competitive balance. The court mentions capping spending or even capping donations would better achieve the goal without interfering with anti-trust.

Oh man those poor schools. They agree to cap spending at say $125 million on athletics and start pouring over the rest into the school operating budget or into the endowment.

This is what I'm talking about - the NCAA and the conferences don't have the authority to cap coaches salaries, but the Federal government does (or if they word it as a cap on total spending, so much the better - gives schools a chance to differentiate themselves).

The NCAA certainly does have the authority to reduce the number of scholarships - and if the cap on stipends is lifted, that would be an excellent time to do just that.

Changes to Title IX would require an act of Congress - literally - but that's not impossible, especially in the current political climate.

Why have the Federal government cap spending?

The schools can do it.
You can cap total dollars devoted to athletic related spending or cap spending based on scholarships awarded, say $400,000 per full time equivalency. You can get "avoid" the cap by adding more sports so that might not fly.
04-13-2018 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Pac-12 drop in subscriber fees
(04-13-2018 04:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 04:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 12:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Coaching salaries cannot be capped, but the Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA discussed the NCAA's purported goal of competitive balance. The court mentions capping spending or even capping donations would better achieve the goal without interfering with anti-trust.

Oh man those poor schools. They agree to cap spending at say $125 million on athletics and start pouring over the rest into the school operating budget or into the endowment.

This is what I'm talking about - the NCAA and the conferences don't have the authority to cap coaches salaries, but the Federal government does (or if they word it as a cap on total spending, so much the better - gives schools a chance to differentiate themselves).

The NCAA certainly does have the authority to reduce the number of scholarships - and if the cap on stipends is lifted, that would be an excellent time to do just that.

Changes to Title IX would require an act of Congress - literally - but that's not impossible, especially in the current political climate.

Title IX is a different animal and relates to more than college athletics. It could be amended, but I don't see the political will to touch an issue like that at the Federal level.

You have to ask the question from the politicians' standpoint...what do they have to gain from a particular measure?

When it comes to Title IX, I can't think of anything an amendment would really accomplish unless we're talking about creating a system that allows schools to spend a disproportionate amount on men's athletic teams. Even if there was a subset that wanted to do just that, they would face backlash from a group interested in preserving as many women's sports as possible.

More than that, being that football and basketball are the only ones that really generate revenue, there's really no reason to go this route if the ultimate goal is cost-cutting.

If the goal is cost cutting then just find ways to cut an equal number of men's and women's sports. It's more economical.

Says a great deal about our country that athletics is really the most minor part of Title IX in real impact yet is far and away the most discussed part of Title IX.
04-13-2018 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.