Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
G5 Debt Mounting
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #41
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 09:20 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  College athletics were meant to give students something to do to distract from schoolwork. No matter what the demand for non students is, the students shouldnt be punished. No student should be turned away from a stadium that can hold all of them. $34/game is alot of money after paying 10s of 1000s of dollars a year to attend the school. Not only that but they put the students in the corner of the upperdeck. Most kids go to OSU for the sports and spend their Saturdays watching it in the dorm or at the bar because they didnt get selected to buy tickets.

The $34 ticket price can't IMO be called punishment because the students aren't assessed it as a required fee for attending the university, they are completely free not to pay. The fact that they eagerly want to pay means they don't regard it is over-priced in the least.

In contrast, the empty seats at places like Kent suggest that students do regard Kent football as over-priced even when nominally free, though with the hidden cost via the fee.

As for "non-students", many of these are faculty, staff, and alumni who on college campuses are certainly regarded as part of the university family. They aren't outsiders. Heck, when I was a student, i considered myself inferior to alumni, as they had graduated from the institution while i was still striving to do so. IMO they deserve to be at the front of the line. My attitude was that until i graduate, it was more their school than mine.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 09:59 AM by quo vadis.)
07-01-2018 09:58 AM
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: #42
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 09:28 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Prior to TV money infesting collegiate athletic programs with excess, living within your means was pretty much commonplace. Today it's a concept that is lost on just about everyone.

Most schools subsidized but it was basically just another arm of the university.

Bear Bryant never made more than the university president. Lower rung Division I football coach might make half what the cross-state national power head coach made, the gap might even be less than 2X. Now it is like 4X or 5X

Discussing a hire in the SEC about 5-6 years ago with a long-time college athletics administrator, specifically the salary being paid he said it was about Saban. "Nick is paid what he is worth to Alabama." He said Coach X wasn't worth what School Y was paying but they paid him that big amount because they picked the number based on what Saban makes, not on what he was worth to the school. He also contended that School Y had to pay the ridiculous amount because fans expected the bigger number because they wanted say a $3 million coach instead of a $1.5 million coach even though Coach X probably would have taken the job at $1.5 million
07-01-2018 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shox Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 883
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
Post: #43
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:33 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I think the best solution is too enact spending limits NCAA wide.

I respectfully dissent. First, it's probably anti-trust or something, wouldn't stand up in the courts.

Second, why should school X be prevented from improving itself just because school Y might bankrupt itself trying to keep up? That's school Y's problem, not X's.

Precisely! Personally I think a core of required sports for all schools (privates included) in an upper tier would do more to appropriately thin the heard and level the competitive playing field naturally than anything else. Limiting the success of another by capping their investment will never benefit the sports. Making the Alabama's of the world invest in the same number of agreed upon sports with other P5 members does. Plus it could be a tool to advance soccer and lacrosse or other such sports, as long as the selection of sports to be a core forms a baseline nationwide. Note this won't prevent niche sports for any school, but it does set minimum requirements. Then the elimination of all subsidies finishes out the natural division.

I actually like this idea a lot. A couple sticking points though...What do you do with the Big East. I actually think this would create a true P6 and the American would bring on Boise, BYU, CSU, UNLV, and Air Force football to form a western wing. Kind of makes the Shockers an oddball though.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 12:03 PM by Shox.)
07-01-2018 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #44
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  For most of my adult life, most colleges who had football teams among other sports all ran deficits. This was uniformly justified by all those schools by the argument that underwriting sports was a marketing expense that benefited the university as a whole.

Now that some of those schools are bringing in more cash than any of them ever imagined possible, it seems that they feel like that's no longer a valid argument. Instead, they (or at least their fans) argue that those who don't have that cash should curtail this marketing expense and drop down in class - to thin the herd, as it were.

I've never known a business whose success was improved by reducing its advertising budget. Does it work differently for schools?


That is a problem that the fans have to face. It depends on who they want to drop down.

As fanbase goes, they do have budgets as well. PAC 12 fans would love the MWC and Big Sky schools be at the FBS level. Why? There are a lack of schools out west. Yeah, they would love to travel to go and see their team play Florida State in Florida, but how many fans could afford the travel? You do see the PAC 12 teams schedule away games at MWC schools. If Portland State, Sacramento State, Cal. Poly, UC-Davis, Weber State, Montana and Montana State and maybe throw in Northern Arizona? PAC 12 fanbase would travel to those cities in the footprint. The money would help boats local economy, and would stay inside the PAC 12 footprint. I would throw Eastern Washington in as well. Some of these schools need to upgrade their stadiums to hold the people, but we could see the economy will grow in the non-P5 cities. Those cities are very important to those states as well.

Now, we can look back and see what can be done. I suggested placing schools in 4 tiers at D1.
Tier 1 and 2 schools will be FBS.
Tier 3 would be high FCS.
Tier 4 would be low FCS, high D2 and non-scholarships.

This way, you can have schools in places for the fanbase travel wise on the west coast, southern plains and northern plains.
07-01-2018 12:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #45
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 07:38 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:33 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I think the best solution is too enact spending limits NCAA wide.

I respectfully dissent. First, it's probably anti-trust or something, wouldn't stand up in the courts.

Second, why should school X be prevented from improving itself just because school Y might bankrupt itself trying to keep up? That's school Y's problem, not X's.

The pro leagues have salary caps...why couldn't the NCAA teams collectively agree to some spending parameters? Ultimately, excess profits above a predetermined threshold should be plowed back into the academic side.

I'm not a lawyer so maybe am dead wrong, but seems to me the same logic that prevented the NCAA collectively from forcing all schools to sign on to a common TV deal would prevent enforcement of a cap on athletic spending.

Plus, there's the "why" aspect as well: If school Y spends itself silly trying to keep up with X, that's a problem for Y, not X.

That's because IMO, the notion of holding back X to make it easier for Y kind of goes against American values. Here's a strange analogy: I've never been a KISS fan, but about 10 years ago i read an official biography of the band and one incident they relate has stuck with me. Early on, before they became nationally famous, Kiss was playing a local show at a small club and they still were experimenting with the garish costumes and stage show. So they hired a camera man to film them so they could review the performance, the audience reactions, see what worked and what didn't, etc. Later, when the band was reviewing the tape, Ace Frehley complained that Gene Simmons - the one who spit blood and breathed fire and all that - was hogging too much camera time and audience attention on his side of the stage, and he asked Simmons if he could tone his act down so that, he, Ace would get his fair share of the spotlight and fan attention on his side.

IIRC Simmons said that his knee-jerk reaction was a feeling of friendship and collegiality and was about to tell Ace something like "sure, sorry about that, I'll tone it down" when another thought crossed his mind: How will the band be made stronger if I start to act less entertaining on stage while Ace doesn't do anything different on his side? That might make Ace feel better about himself and create more comity in the band because attention has been equalized, but the act as a whole will be less engaging and we could lose fans. So instead what Gene said was (paraphrasing) "Ace, instead of me toning my act down, how about if you figure out some new entertaining things to do on your side so that you will earn that spotlight and attention? That's what will make the band stronger". In our vernacular of today, Gene was telling Ace to stop complaining about Gene's game and up his own game.

So similarly, it won't help college football if the cutting-edge programs are artificially 'capped' so as to make things easier on those behind. What's best is if those behind up their games so as to merit the money and attention that the leading programs are getting.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 12:50 PM by quo vadis.)
07-01-2018 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pervis_Griffith Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,925
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #46
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 07:38 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:33 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I think the best solution is too enact spending limits NCAA wide.

I respectfully dissent. First, it's probably anti-trust or something, wouldn't stand up in the courts.

Second, why should school X be prevented from improving itself just because school Y might bankrupt itself trying to keep up? That's school Y's problem, not X's.

The pro leagues have salary caps...why couldn't the NCAA teams collectively agree to some spending parameters? Ultimately, excess profits above a predetermined threshold should be plowed back into the academic side.


The attempt to limit money in political campaigns only resulted in an explosion of money in political campaigns.

I think any attempt to cap spending on collegiate athletics would have a similar result.

However ...

I do wonder ... if you remove the tax exempt status of collegiate athletics, would there be a slowing down of the run-away-train that is spending on college sports? Schools would probably shift the revenue streams from athletic departments to the university .... but I bet that would be more effective than trying to put a spending cap in place.
07-01-2018 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #47
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 12:01 PM)Shox Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:33 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I think the best solution is too enact spending limits NCAA wide.

I respectfully dissent. First, it's probably anti-trust or something, wouldn't stand up in the courts.

Second, why should school X be prevented from improving itself just because school Y might bankrupt itself trying to keep up? That's school Y's problem, not X's.

Precisely! Personally I think a core of required sports for all schools (privates included) in an upper tier would do more to appropriately thin the heard and level the competitive playing field naturally than anything else. Limiting the success of another by capping their investment will never benefit the sports. Making the Alabama's of the world invest in the same number of agreed upon sports with other P5 members does. Plus it could be a tool to advance soccer and lacrosse or other such sports, as long as the selection of sports to be a core forms a baseline nationwide. Note this won't prevent niche sports for any school, but it does set minimum requirements. Then the elimination of all subsidies finishes out the natural division.

I actually like this idea a lot. A couple sticking points though...What do you do with the Big East. I actually think this would create a true P6 and the American would bring on Boise, BYU, CSU, UNLV, and Air Force football to form a western wing. Kind of makes the Shockers an oddball though.

You would permit ABF conferences (All But Football). They would be paid accordingly but there is no reason they can't participate at this level.
07-01-2018 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #48
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 10:13 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It might sound harsh, but for the G5, there is no catching up. The game ended in 2013. The amount of revenue being distributed by the P5 is in a completely different universe than what the G5 is currently earning. With each passing year, that distance grows wider and more substantial. In the past several years, P5 programs are earning 30, 40 or even 50 times as much as G5 schools in television revenue alone. They are pumping those funds back into the school, the athletic programs and other ways to support the school. With no expansion for the next several years, we are looking at ten years of dramatically unequal revenue distribution - which will have created two official divisions within FBS. It is no longer a race, it is a marathon to see how long until members of the G5 concede defeat and throw in the towel, or financially collapse due to the rising astronomical costs it takes in order to just compete with the P5. It is a losing game no matter how it is played.

Even if the AAC somehow gets a true tweener designation with its new TV deal, it still is on the outside looking in and once again playing catch up. The P5 will never let a new conference into their club (heck, they destroyed the Big East in order to lower the numbers to share with), and they certainly not let an outsider piggy-back of their revenues. A select few programs might get called up within the decade, but using and leveraging student fees and taxpayer money for most of these schools to better compete against the P5 goes against many of these university's missions. No one wants to be the first out, but it is inevitable - the only question is when does that happen. Frankly, an official split within the FBS (P5/G5) will end up saving many of these schools a substantial amount of money as well as the inevitable heartbreak that will be caused once the door is shut officially.


You do have some G5 schools distancing themselves from the rest of the others as well staying in lock step with the P5. They are the top schools in the AAC and MWC. The schools that I am seeing that are falling behind the most are schools like Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU (still playing catchup after the death penalty) and La.-Monroe. We are seeing FCS schools improving their facilities faster than those 5. ODU is out doing some of the lower rung AAC schools which is why they are one of the favorites for the next expansion by the AAC. It seems that both Cincinnati and East Carolina still drew larger crowds even if they are having losing seasons. AAC and C-USA seems to be too spread apart as they are which are actually causing money issues.
07-01-2018 01:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #49
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 01:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  You do have some G5 schools distancing themselves from the rest of the others as well staying in lock step with the P5.

Let's look at one of those schools ... Memphis:

Five years ago (2012), Memphis revenue was $46m, Tennessee was $102m.

Last year, Memphis revenue was $48m, Tennessee was $148m.

So in the last five years, the gap has grown from $56m to $100m. And those were years in which Tennessee was disappointing on the football field while Memphis was on the upswing.

That doesn't look like "keeping up".... 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 04:07 PM by quo vadis.)
07-01-2018 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,176
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #50
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
To back up quo vadis, there has been an explosion of deficit spending in the AAC, especially by Houston, Cincy and UConn (yikes!)

At Uconn the loss of the Big East power status has been devastating, as media revenues have dropped while the school has binged to be the only G5 budget ahead of ANY P5 budgets (49 among the 52 reporting public P5 schools). Transfers from the Institution (tax payer education dollars) has exploded from $6m in 2010 and $6.3m in 2011 to $17.3m in 2014, $17.9m in 2015, $27m in 2016 and $33.9m in 2017.Donations run about 40% of a power conference and gate is less than half. Worse the majority of both donations and gate are from Basketball, making the P5 chase dubious.

At Houston a calculated decision seems to have been made 11 years ago and jumped support from $2.3m to the $17.6m the last few years (it's a step to a flat level). Again gate and donations are only about 1/3rd or 1/4th of most P5 schools. (They do have $8m in student fees helping). It just doesn't look like a P5 school, and $160m in education dollar transfers the last decade is massive (it could have funded a new department with 1,000 students; UConn is worse 2,000 student slots could be paid for with the current transfer rate).

Cincinnati is has now been running at over $25m a year transferred the last four years.

A typical P5 runs $15-25m in athletic donations. No AAC or MWC school is close to that, most are in the $4-8m range.

Note, the schools with larger donations and student fees, such as Bowling Green, Old Dominion, South Florida (they have also trimmed spending) Central Florida, Ohio, FIU, and East Carolina (they appear topped out, with small donation and gate, but large student fees ... my guess is their attendance is mostly "free" students and locals paying next to nothing -- they lack the ability to generate P5 gate and donations) are in better shape to sustain.

As a whole in 2017-18 the 57 public G5 schools (not counting the academies) claimed $2,141,854,714 in revenue ($37,576,398 per school), but 33.4% ($724,296,312 or $12,706,953 per school) of that was transferred from the parent Institution. That is a huge drain of money. But worse this is more than triple what it was a decade ago. This is an additional 1/2 Billion dollars to subsidize G5 compared to 10 years ago. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 06:48 PM by Stugray2.)
07-01-2018 02:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,320
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #51
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  For most of my adult life, most colleges who had football teams among other sports all ran deficits. This was uniformly justified by all those schools by the argument that underwriting sports was a marketing expense that benefited the university as a whole.

Now that some of those schools are bringing in more cash than any of them ever imagined possible, it seems that they feel like that's no longer a valid argument. Instead, they (or at least their fans) argue that those who don't have that cash should curtail this marketing expense and drop down in class - to thin the herd, as it were.

I've never known a business whose success was improved by reducing its advertising budget. Does it work differently for schools?

That's because business aren't underwritten by the taxpayer. They are built by a clientele base. The successful schools pander to their clientele base which is why some of the proposed moves in realignment are far fetched in spite of revenue differences. What does it profit a good business to move into a new market if their old markets are alienated?

With enrollment declining it only seems that sports are important as an attractant of enrollment. Reduced tuition (partly achieved by the elimination of subsidies) will be more important to less sports oriented students in the future than how loved their football team or basketball team is. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for the old guys of the world to justify keeping something around that we loved. But even then it was an extravagance. Extravagances are fine when everything is flush. But the generations inheriting the Boomer and soon to be X'er world don't have the posh times that we did to afford that extravagance. They are fighting for a good living and charging them for other people's entertainment is simply morally wrong. Give them the most affordable educations possible.

And product lines that are exclusive tend to do quite well, even during downturns. So if football is to be an extravagance then making it as competitive and as elite as possible will only help it keeps its value. The demand is shrinking Ken D. Therefore to keep values high the supply of product needs to shrink as well, and its quality needs to improve. The quality stays higher if the supply of talent is concentrated. The demand stays high when the audience selection is focused.

So I just don't buy your argument. Market forces, and economic ones, are forming a synergy in this direction naturally. Schools who have had associations for over 100 years don't simply move for more money. They move for the survival of a major revenue stream. Like all things in life the productive and efficient will survive.

I went to a private high school, and one thing that one of my favorite teachers stressed to me was government businesses are never a $$-making proposition. Amtrak was cited as an example. Even my father, a city government employee told me that government was known for spending $$’s, not making them. Keep in mind this was back long before 9/11. Now things have changed somewhat, and taxpayers are really beginning to demand more accountability from their local, state, and federal governments, which, IMO, has been long overdue. Colleges & universities have tried to compensate for declining enrollment through online classes, but this is still a developing field because most would prefer the old classes in the brick and mortar buildings. Basically, all of what I said above boils down to this: colleges & universities have to be better stewards of their $$’s, or there will be consequences. Yes, a lot of G5 members need re-examine their positions on athletics. However, I feel like even the structure of state colleges & universities needs to be re-examined as well, because I have personally seen a lot of needless duplication of programs that could be combined with others. There also needs to be a lot more consolidation of higher education as well. HBCUs may not like it, but a lot of them need to be relics of the past, IMO.
07-01-2018 04:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 550
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 37
I Root For: UMass, Army, Rutgers
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Post: #52
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 04:45 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  HBCUs may not like it, but a lot of them need to be relics of the past, IMO.

I think HBCUs, single-sex, etc. institutions do have their place. Although, under no circumstances should they be public institutions.

I personally have no interest in attending a school like this and I believe they go against one of the major points of college, to learn from others of different backgrounds. However I can understand why some people may want to live and study among people who "look like them" (for lack of better words).
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 08:17 PM by McKinney.)
07-01-2018 08:16 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: #53
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 04:45 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  For most of my adult life, most colleges who had football teams among other sports all ran deficits. This was uniformly justified by all those schools by the argument that underwriting sports was a marketing expense that benefited the university as a whole.

Now that some of those schools are bringing in more cash than any of them ever imagined possible, it seems that they feel like that's no longer a valid argument. Instead, they (or at least their fans) argue that those who don't have that cash should curtail this marketing expense and drop down in class - to thin the herd, as it were.

I've never known a business whose success was improved by reducing its advertising budget. Does it work differently for schools?

That's because business aren't underwritten by the taxpayer. They are built by a clientele base. The successful schools pander to their clientele base which is why some of the proposed moves in realignment are far fetched in spite of revenue differences. What does it profit a good business to move into a new market if their old markets are alienated?

With enrollment declining it only seems that sports are important as an attractant of enrollment. Reduced tuition (partly achieved by the elimination of subsidies) will be more important to less sports oriented students in the future than how loved their football team or basketball team is. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for the old guys of the world to justify keeping something around that we loved. But even then it was an extravagance. Extravagances are fine when everything is flush. But the generations inheriting the Boomer and soon to be X'er world don't have the posh times that we did to afford that extravagance. They are fighting for a good living and charging them for other people's entertainment is simply morally wrong. Give them the most affordable educations possible.

And product lines that are exclusive tend to do quite well, even during downturns. So if football is to be an extravagance then making it as competitive and as elite as possible will only help it keeps its value. The demand is shrinking Ken D. Therefore to keep values high the supply of product needs to shrink as well, and its quality needs to improve. The quality stays higher if the supply of talent is concentrated. The demand stays high when the audience selection is focused.

So I just don't buy your argument. Market forces, and economic ones, are forming a synergy in this direction naturally. Schools who have had associations for over 100 years don't simply move for more money. They move for the survival of a major revenue stream. Like all things in life the productive and efficient will survive.

I went to a private high school, and one thing that one of my favorite teachers stressed to me was government businesses are never a $$-making proposition. Amtrak was cited as an example. Even my father, a city government employee told me that government was known for spending $$’s, not making them. Keep in mind this was back long before 9/11. Now things have changed somewhat, and taxpayers are really beginning to demand more accountability from their local, state, and federal governments, which, IMO, has been long overdue. Colleges & universities have tried to compensate for declining enrollment through online classes, but this is still a developing field because most would prefer the old classes in the brick and mortar buildings. Basically, all of what I said above boils down to this: colleges & universities have to be better stewards of their $$’s, or there will be consequences. Yes, a lot of G5 members need re-examine their positions on athletics. However, I feel like even the structure of state colleges & universities needs to be re-examined as well, because I have personally seen a lot of needless duplication of programs that could be combined with others. There also needs to be a lot more consolidation of higher education as well. HBCUs may not like it, but a lot of them need to be relics of the past, IMO.

Of course part of the issue is that if it were profitable to do, government generally isn't allowed to go into the business.
07-01-2018 09:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #54
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 09:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-01-2018 04:45 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  For most of my adult life, most colleges who had football teams among other sports all ran deficits. This was uniformly justified by all those schools by the argument that underwriting sports was a marketing expense that benefited the university as a whole.

Now that some of those schools are bringing in more cash than any of them ever imagined possible, it seems that they feel like that's no longer a valid argument. Instead, they (or at least their fans) argue that those who don't have that cash should curtail this marketing expense and drop down in class - to thin the herd, as it were.

I've never known a business whose success was improved by reducing its advertising budget. Does it work differently for schools?

That's because business aren't underwritten by the taxpayer. They are built by a clientele base. The successful schools pander to their clientele base which is why some of the proposed moves in realignment are far fetched in spite of revenue differences. What does it profit a good business to move into a new market if their old markets are alienated?

With enrollment declining it only seems that sports are important as an attractant of enrollment. Reduced tuition (partly achieved by the elimination of subsidies) will be more important to less sports oriented students in the future than how loved their football team or basketball team is. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for the old guys of the world to justify keeping something around that we loved. But even then it was an extravagance. Extravagances are fine when everything is flush. But the generations inheriting the Boomer and soon to be X'er world don't have the posh times that we did to afford that extravagance. They are fighting for a good living and charging them for other people's entertainment is simply morally wrong. Give them the most affordable educations possible.

And product lines that are exclusive tend to do quite well, even during downturns. So if football is to be an extravagance then making it as competitive and as elite as possible will only help it keeps its value. The demand is shrinking Ken D. Therefore to keep values high the supply of product needs to shrink as well, and its quality needs to improve. The quality stays higher if the supply of talent is concentrated. The demand stays high when the audience selection is focused.

So I just don't buy your argument. Market forces, and economic ones, are forming a synergy in this direction naturally. Schools who have had associations for over 100 years don't simply move for more money. They move for the survival of a major revenue stream. Like all things in life the productive and efficient will survive.

I went to a private high school, and one thing that one of my favorite teachers stressed to me was government businesses are never a $$-making proposition. Amtrak was cited as an example. Even my father, a city government employee told me that government was known for spending $$’s, not making them. Keep in mind this was back long before 9/11. Now things have changed somewhat, and taxpayers are really beginning to demand more accountability from their local, state, and federal governments, which, IMO, has been long overdue. Colleges & universities have tried to compensate for declining enrollment through online classes, but this is still a developing field because most would prefer the old classes in the brick and mortar buildings. Basically, all of what I said above boils down to this: colleges & universities have to be better stewards of their $$’s, or there will be consequences. Yes, a lot of G5 members need re-examine their positions on athletics. However, I feel like even the structure of state colleges & universities needs to be re-examined as well, because I have personally seen a lot of needless duplication of programs that could be combined with others. There also needs to be a lot more consolidation of higher education as well. HBCUs may not like it, but a lot of them need to be relics of the past, IMO.

Of course part of the issue is that if it were profitable to do, government generally isn't allowed to go into the business.

I think the word he was looking for was "efficient". Government is anything but.
07-01-2018 10:02 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: #55
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-01-2018 09:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-01-2018 04:45 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  For most of my adult life, most colleges who had football teams among other sports all ran deficits. This was uniformly justified by all those schools by the argument that underwriting sports was a marketing expense that benefited the university as a whole.

Now that some of those schools are bringing in more cash than any of them ever imagined possible, it seems that they feel like that's no longer a valid argument. Instead, they (or at least their fans) argue that those who don't have that cash should curtail this marketing expense and drop down in class - to thin the herd, as it were.

I've never known a business whose success was improved by reducing its advertising budget. Does it work differently for schools?

That's because business aren't underwritten by the taxpayer. They are built by a clientele base. The successful schools pander to their clientele base which is why some of the proposed moves in realignment are far fetched in spite of revenue differences. What does it profit a good business to move into a new market if their old markets are alienated?

With enrollment declining it only seems that sports are important as an attractant of enrollment. Reduced tuition (partly achieved by the elimination of subsidies) will be more important to less sports oriented students in the future than how loved their football team or basketball team is. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for the old guys of the world to justify keeping something around that we loved. But even then it was an extravagance. Extravagances are fine when everything is flush. But the generations inheriting the Boomer and soon to be X'er world don't have the posh times that we did to afford that extravagance. They are fighting for a good living and charging them for other people's entertainment is simply morally wrong. Give them the most affordable educations possible.

And product lines that are exclusive tend to do quite well, even during downturns. So if football is to be an extravagance then making it as competitive and as elite as possible will only help it keeps its value. The demand is shrinking Ken D. Therefore to keep values high the supply of product needs to shrink as well, and its quality needs to improve. The quality stays higher if the supply of talent is concentrated. The demand stays high when the audience selection is focused.

So I just don't buy your argument. Market forces, and economic ones, are forming a synergy in this direction naturally. Schools who have had associations for over 100 years don't simply move for more money. They move for the survival of a major revenue stream. Like all things in life the productive and efficient will survive.

I went to a private high school, and one thing that one of my favorite teachers stressed to me was government businesses are never a $$-making proposition. Amtrak was cited as an example. Even my father, a city government employee told me that government was known for spending $$’s, not making them. Keep in mind this was back long before 9/11. Now things have changed somewhat, and taxpayers are really beginning to demand more accountability from their local, state, and federal governments, which, IMO, has been long overdue. Colleges & universities have tried to compensate for declining enrollment through online classes, but this is still a developing field because most would prefer the old classes in the brick and mortar buildings. Basically, all of what I said above boils down to this: colleges & universities have to be better stewards of their $$’s, or there will be consequences. Yes, a lot of G5 members need re-examine their positions on athletics. However, I feel like even the structure of state colleges & universities needs to be re-examined as well, because I have personally seen a lot of needless duplication of programs that could be combined with others. There also needs to be a lot more consolidation of higher education as well. HBCUs may not like it, but a lot of them need to be relics of the past, IMO.

Of course part of the issue is that if it were profitable to do, government generally isn't allowed to go into the business.

I think the word he was looking for was "efficient". Government is anything but.

But then again we don't always want efficient do we?

When the Postal Service suggests it might close under-utilized post offices or stop visiting nearly every house in the nation six days a week to be more efficient the public outcry prompts Congress to try to block it.
When the administrative offices of the courts suggests that some Federal courthouses should be closed to be more efficient that draws objection.
When the FAA wants to close some towers there is always a fight over that.
When the military wants to close bases that creates an issue. Here locally the long proposed "North Belt Freeway to bypass traffic in the Little Rock area got the final nail in the coffin when the commander of Little Rock Air Force Base pointed out that FAA regulations won't permit them to fly their C-130s with the doors open within a certain distance of high volume highways which severely limit their training capacity nearly guaranteeing the base would move up on the closure list.
When Amtrak wants to quit stopping in Walnut Ridge (population 4900, county population 17,500) the local congressman and two Senators are grilling Amtrak officials to try to prevent it.

Americans are only in favor of government being efficient someplace other than their hometown.
07-01-2018 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #56
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 02:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-01-2018 01:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  You do have some G5 schools distancing themselves from the rest of the others as well staying in lock step with the P5.

Let's look at one of those schools ... Memphis:

Five years ago (2012), Memphis revenue was $46m, Tennessee was $102m.

Last year, Memphis revenue was $48m, Tennessee was $148m.

So in the last five years, the gap has grown from $56m to $100m. And those were years in which Tennessee was disappointing on the football field while Memphis was on the upswing.

That doesn't look like "keeping up".... 07-coffee3


But, those 3 schools also have more P5 schools playing them. Those schools do get pretty good bowl games. Especially UCF who got into the access bowls beating Baylor and Auburn. Lets not just count football in these. Memphis, Cincinnati and Houston also draw for men's basketball as well. They even could draw viewership as well because of their tv markets. Boise State's tv contract helped them distance themselves from the rest of the MWC a bit.
07-02-2018 12:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,320
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #57
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 08:16 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(07-01-2018 04:45 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  HBCUs may not like it, but a lot of them need to be relics of the past, IMO.

I think HBCUs, single-sex, etc. institutions do have their place. Although, under no circumstances should they be public institutions.

I personally have no interest in attending a school like this and I believe they go against one of the major points of college, to learn from others of different backgrounds. However I can understand why some people may want to live and study among people who "look like them" (for lack of better words).

I have zero problems with private HBCUs. None. What irks me is when you have institutions like Grambling (30 minute drive from LaTech, if that; Southern, located in Baton Rouge, same as LSU; Florida A&M, located in Tallahassee, with FSU, etc. Sheesh, why does Delaware, a state roughly the same size as Rhode Island, need two state institutions?? See my point?? Now some HBCUs are located in very remote areas that really do need those institutions and I can see letting them stay. I can even see letting HBCUs stay that are in huge metropolitan areas. But that’s it as far as state supported HBCUs should go, IMO.
07-02-2018 02:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,299
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #58
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 02:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-01-2018 01:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  You do have some G5 schools distancing themselves from the rest of the others as well staying in lock step with the P5.

Let's look at one of those schools ... Memphis:

Five years ago (2012), Memphis revenue was $46m, Tennessee was $102m.

Last year, Memphis revenue was $48m, Tennessee was $148m.

So in the last five years, the gap has grown from $56m to $100m. And those were years in which Tennessee was disappointing on the football field while Memphis was on the upswing.

That doesn't look like "keeping up".... 07-coffee3

Looks like doing more with less or less with more depending on perspective -lol. One positive has been the ability to build new facilities w/o raising student fees over the same time period. They've shown they aren't afraid to pull the trigger, or worse yet, get stuck in a bad situation due to lack of donations when personnel aren't working out. Not sure how many bball coaches are currently receiving payments from Memphis, but it was reported a while back that the Penny hire had raised enough funds via donations to pay for the first year of his salary plus Tubby's payment. Bball brings in more money than fball when performing up to expectations. The fanbase is still growing into the LB so it'll take longer to find ways to max. rev. there. This year will be the first that I'm aware of with buzz and excitement surrounding both programs. It'll be interesting to see the dollars raised as a result.

Quote:The university is also expecting an increase of $4.5 million in athletic revenues next year. Of that, the CFO said, $1.5 million is an expected jump in ticket sales for the basketball program, another $1 million is from the football program and the other $2 million is increase scholarship funding and donations across all athletic programs.

Rudd said those numbers were conservative estimates, and given the enthusiasm surrounding both programs he would bet Athletic Director Tom Bowen a lunch that they would exceed the $2.5 million in ticket growth.

"I'd bet you we’d probably go over that before the end of the summer," Bowen said.

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...673585002/

ETA: Not trying to say that Memphis can catch up with local P5s or even come close as far as revenue goes, just that they have a big enough and affluent enough fanbase (including corporate sponsors) to compete on the field/court while upgrading infrastructure w/o drastically increasing subsidies. Rudd made it clear that the athletic budget is highly sensitive to fanbase dollars moreso than most in the G5...+30% IIRC. They understand the biggest growth is going to have to come from within not by kicking the can down the road waiting on pie in the sky conference monies that will likely never materialize.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2018 12:15 PM by gulfcoastgal.)
07-02-2018 06:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #59
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-02-2018 12:35 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(07-01-2018 02:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-01-2018 01:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  You do have some G5 schools distancing themselves from the rest of the others as well staying in lock step with the P5.

Let's look at one of those schools ... Memphis:

Five years ago (2012), Memphis revenue was $46m, Tennessee was $102m.

Last year, Memphis revenue was $48m, Tennessee was $148m.

So in the last five years, the gap has grown from $56m to $100m. And those were years in which Tennessee was disappointing on the football field while Memphis was on the upswing.

That doesn't look like "keeping up".... 07-coffee3


But, those 3 schools also have more P5 schools playing them. Those schools do get pretty good bowl games. Especially UCF who got into the access bowls beating Baylor and Auburn. Lets not just count football in these. Memphis, Cincinnati and Houston also draw for men's basketball as well. They even could draw viewership as well because of their tv markets. Boise State's tv contract helped them distance themselves from the rest of the MWC a bit.

But despite that, they all keep falling further and further behind their local power schools.

Maybe the new AAC TV deal will cut in to that some, but not by all that much.
07-02-2018 07:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Huskypride Offline
New Kid on the Block
*

Posts: 2,575
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 154
I Root For: Competitive FB
Location: Worcester
Post: #60
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 04:33 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I think the best solution is too enact spending limits NCAA wide.

I disgree, the big schools would still be able get away with it. It would just add to the corruption in college sports, by only punishing the little guys, for the most part
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2018 09:07 AM by Huskypride.)
07-02-2018 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.