(05-04-2020 01:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 12:28 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm just throwing this in here although to be honest it barely would affect football (more so other international sports like tennis, golf, swimming and track and field). But Purdue announced this morning that they're not going to be able to issue the VISA paperwork incoming 1st-year international students need to get to the campus in the fall. So consequently no new international students will be allowed to be on campus in the fall (just online instruction). Purdue's already announced they're trying everything they can to get classes to start up on campus on schedule in August.

It's possible other schools announce something similar. But again, this mostly will impact the sports with a lot of international athletes.

From a financial perspective, it's honestly a LOT more frightening for virtually all US universities that they're going to lose a huge amount of international student tuition dollars for next several years compared to losing a season of football. (To be clear, they're both really bad, but if losing football revenue is the equivalent of a hurricane, then losing international student revenue is the equivalent of a hurricane followed up by a tsunami followed up by flooding that takes years to recover from.)

Think about it: when a college doesn't enroll a freshman international student, that college isn't just losing that student for one year. For all intents and purposes, that college is losing that student for their entire 4-year college career... which means 4 years of lost tuition revenue times hundreds or even thousands of international students that would have otherwise attended each of those colleges... which means a real financial crisis for even the wealthiest universities. So, even if domestic students could all get back to campus in the fall on time in the most optimistic scenario, it's still going to be a financial bloodbath with so many international students (most of whom would be paying full rack rate out-of-state tuition prices out of pocket) staying home.

And it could start a pattern of many of those countries' students staying at home in future years.

(05-04-2020 01:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 11:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  All in all, it's as clear as mud. I can basically talk myself into and out of any scenario that is thrown out there right now.

IIRC, the FBS commissioners have said no football unless students are back on campus. Now, my kneejerk reaction when i heard that was "no football without fans in the stands". But on second thought, I guess you could have students back on campus but still play games with nobody in the stands.

But, that still means campuses are re-opened to students for the Fall. At the rate states are reopening things, that looks likely. But i suspect that the reality of the situation - that CV19 is by no means whipped - will in the end keep kids off campus this fall, and thus no football.

It's also possible that desperate university presidents could override the commissioners and move forward with football in an online-only environment. But that is extremely risky, and even desperate presidents tend to be risk-averse.

We're all talking out of our arses at this point, btw.

With things opening up, I think there will be students on campus in the fall, at least in the vast majority of states. I can't imagine having stands elbow to elbow with fans, though.

There has to be revenue or there will be no football. The only possible revenue will come from basketball and that's doubtful because their season starts in the fall too. If ALL colleges are not open to students in the fall, the earliest football could resume would be Spring 2021. Hopefully there will be a Covid-19 vaccine by then and fans could come back to the venues. If not, who knows?

Or here's another thought. If football starts in the fall and there are no fans, can TV crews work in the indoor practice facilities?

(05-04-2020 01:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 12:28 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm just throwing this in here although to be honest it barely would affect football (more so other international sports like tennis, golf, swimming and track and field). But Purdue announced this morning that they're not going to be able to issue the VISA paperwork incoming 1st-year international students need to get to the campus in the fall. So consequently no new international students will be allowed to be on campus in the fall (just online instruction). Purdue's already announced they're trying everything they can to get classes to start up on campus on schedule in August.

It's possible other schools announce something similar. But again, this mostly will impact the sports with a lot of international athletes.

From a financial perspective, it's honestly a LOT more frightening for virtually all US universities that they're going to lose a huge amount of international student tuition dollars for next several years compared to losing a season of football. (To be clear, they're both really bad, but if losing football revenue is the equivalent of a hurricane, then losing international student revenue is the equivalent of a hurricane followed up by a tsunami followed up by flooding that takes years to recover from.)

Think about it: when a college doesn't enroll a freshman international student, that college isn't just losing that student for one year. For all intents and purposes, that college is losing that student for their entire 4-year college career... which means 4 years of lost tuition revenue times hundreds or even thousands of international students that would have otherwise attended each of those colleges... which means a real financial crisis for even the wealthiest universities. So, even if domestic students could all get back to campus in the fall on time in the most optimistic scenario, it's still going to be a financial bloodbath with so many international students (most of whom would be paying full rack rate out-of-state tuition prices out of pocket) staying home.

Agreed. For universities at which 10% or more of undergrads are international students, the loss of international students paying full price is a much more serious financial issue than losses in athletics.

(Losing a large number of incoming international graduate students is another unforeseeen impact for universities that have a large number of international graduate students as teaching assistants and researchers in faculty research groups.)

(05-04-2020 03:31 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  There has to be revenue or there will be no football. The only possible revenue will come from basketball and that's doubtful because their season starts in the fall too. If ALL colleges are not open to students in the fall, the earliest football could resume would be Spring 2021. Hopefully there will be a Covid-19 vaccine by then and fans could come back to the venues. If not, who knows?

Or here's another thought. If football starts in the fall and there are no fans, can TV crews work in the indoor practice facilities?

I agree with the earlier poster. Football without fans is a loser for everyone but the P5.

(05-03-2020 08:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 08:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I say play the first month without fans and go from there

I’m one who thinks we could have had empty venues for sporting events. But for the college revenue sports, the crowds are key to a good chunk of change. If schools can’t get people into the stadiums, they won’t play.

It's not ideal, but the TV money is still enormous

(05-05-2020 07:11 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 08:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 08:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I say play the first month without fans and go from there

I’m one who thinks we could have had empty venues for sporting events. But for the college revenue sports, the crowds are key to a good chunk of change. If schools can’t get people into the stadiums, they won’t play.

It's not ideal, but the TV money is still enormous

I think crowds and cameras have to be a package deal with college football and basketball. Part of the power of the sports at this level are its venues. The experience. I don’t disagree that schools could or even should try, but I think it could impact programs profoundly down the line.

At places where the fans make the experience, if you make them irrelevant, and you say you don’t matter as much, you give more people a reason to stay at home on game days and trust the television to deliver the game. I know the media revenue is big, but I also think that experience factors into that pot; at hopping campuses, networks can really up-sell games. And while some majors don’t do as well with ticket revenue as others, throwing away millions when you are a public institution won’t age well over time.

(05-04-2020 06:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 03:31 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  There has to be revenue or there will be no football. The only possible revenue will come from basketball and that's doubtful because their season starts in the fall too. If ALL colleges are not open to students in the fall, the earliest football could resume would be Spring 2021. Hopefully there will be a Covid-19 vaccine by then and fans could come back to the venues. If not, who knows?

Or here's another thought. If football starts in the fall and there are no fans, can TV crews work in the indoor practice facilities?

I agree with the earlier poster. Football without fans is a loser for everyone but the P5.

It's a loser for the P5, too. Just not as big a loss.

(05-05-2020 08:07 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 06:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 03:31 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  There has to be revenue or there will be no football. The only possible revenue will come from basketball and that's doubtful because their season starts in the fall too. If ALL colleges are not open to students in the fall, the earliest football could resume would be Spring 2021. Hopefully there will be a Covid-19 vaccine by then and fans could come back to the venues. If not, who knows?

Or here's another thought. If football starts in the fall and there are no fans, can TV crews work in the indoor practice facilities?

I agree with the earlier poster. Football without fans is a loser for everyone but the P5.

It's a loser for the P5, too. Just not as big a loss.

It's a bigger absolute loss for the P5, but a smaller relative loss.

(05-05-2020 08:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 08:07 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 06:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 03:31 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  There has to be revenue or there will be no football. The only possible revenue will come from basketball and that's doubtful because their season starts in the fall too. If ALL colleges are not open to students in the fall, the earliest football could resume would be Spring 2021. Hopefully there will be a Covid-19 vaccine by then and fans could come back to the venues. If not, who knows?

Or here's another thought. If football starts in the fall and there are no fans, can TV crews work in the indoor practice facilities?

I agree with the earlier poster. Football without fans is a loser for everyone but the P5.

It's a loser for the P5, too. Just not as big a loss.

It's a bigger absolute loss for the P5, but a smaller relative loss.

I'm thinking in straight profit and loss terms.

There's certainly going to be a massive reduction in year-over-year revenue if there aren't fans in the stands. There isn't a question on that front. However, my guess is that the P5 could still turn an actual profit with football without fans in the stands since the TV revenue is high enough to justify still playing. It might be a lower profit than last year, but it's still a profit. Heck, it's conceivable that a school like Illinois (where media revenue is several times more than ticket revenue) could actually make more profit since they aren't incurring game day stadium expenses. The point is that the P5 likely wouldn't be straight up losing money by playing football (whereas they'd absolutely be losing money if they didn't play football at all).

It might be different for the G5. Schools like Illinois and Vandy are getting $30 million-plus media revenue checks from the Big Ten and SEC for simply putting on pads and playing in front of nobody, whereas even the best G5 programs like UCF or Boise State are only getting a fraction of that media revenue amount and are much more dependent on ticket revenue. UCF and Boise State could straight up *lose* money by playing football games because the expenses of playing football games would be in excess of whatever media revenue is coming in. Ultimately, it's going to be question of what's the "least bad" option: do they lose more money by playing football without fans or if they don't play football at all?

Now, an important consideration is the CFP revenue. Similar to the NCAA Tournament for basketball, maybe the CFP revenue alone is enough to make it worth it for the G5 conferences to take a potential financial loss for playing games in the regular season in the hopes of getting into the black when the CFP revenue checks come in the postseason. I honestly don't know, but that's something to take into account beyond the regular season profit/loss numbers, too.

The P5 certainly make a ton more guaranteed revenue off of the CFP and contract bowls, too, so that points to at least those schools attempting to play the season at all costs with or without fans in stands.

we can't catch a break..

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...n-original

SB, MAC and CUSA make less a million or so a year from TV. MWC contract was just over a million. AAC was $3 million, but going to $7 million. They make more from game day. Costs of operations are more for all but the AAC under the new contract and maybe for AAC. They would be better off financially not playing than playing before an empty stadium.

(05-05-2020 09:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It might be different for the G5. Schools like Illinois and Vandy are getting $30 million-plus media revenue checks from the Big Ten and SEC for simply putting on pads and playing in front of nobody ...

Everyone is assuming that, but I wonder. Do the media contracts address this at all?

Maybe ESPN will argue that fans in the stands are an important aspect of the atmosphere of a game, and their absence could hurt ratings, and try to negotiate a lower amount for these games.

IIRC, I saw an article from Taiwan (or maybe South Korea?) where they have put robots in the stands or otherwise used simulated graphics to put virtual fans in the stands of baseball games that are being televised but played with no fans. I saw a couple of European soccer matches with no fans right before the bans were put in place, and they were far less engaging than typical games.

(05-05-2020 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 09:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It might be different for the G5. Schools like Illinois and Vandy are getting $30 million-plus media revenue checks from the Big Ten and SEC for simply putting on pads and playing in front of nobody ...

Everyone is assuming that, but I wonder. Do the media contracts address this at all?

Maybe ESPN will argue that fans in the stands are an important aspect of the atmosphere of a game, and their absence could hurt ratings, and try to negotiate a lower amount for these games.

IIRC, I saw an article from Taiwan (or maybe South Korea?) where they have put robots in the stands or otherwise used simulated graphics to put virtual fans in the stands of baseball games that are being televised but played with no fans. I saw a couple of European soccer matches with no fans right before the bans were put in place, and they were far less engaging than typical games.

I highly doubt the media contracts would address anything like that since I can't imagine any conference agreeing to some type of provision tied to in-person attendance. The majority of schools aren't like Alabama or Ohio State where there's a full stadium every week. Plus, even the most high profile teams can have uncontrollable circumstances that depress attendance on any given day (see Florida, Florida State and Miami during hurricane season). The average Tuesday night MACtion game is effectively guaranteed to have tons of empty seats where I've seen better fan atmospheres at a grade school flag football game, but ESPN pays them no matter what since they need to programming.

Frankly, it could go the other direction where the conferences have a lot more leverage. ESPN and the other sports networks are so starved for any type of live programming that they've started showing Korean baseball games. The NFL Draft just got its highest ratings ever and that was literally broadcast from Roger Goodell's basement. The Last Dance is getting ratings akin to live playoff games even though it's a documentary that's suited to being watched on a DVR. Sports fans will watch *anything* right now.

It wouldn't surprise me if the conferences can procure the same rights payments for a full 12-game season even if they end up playing only 8 games because the sports networks are so desperate right now.

(05-05-2020 09:50 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Frankly, it could go the other direction where the conferences have a lot more leverage. ESPN and the other sports networks are so starved for any type of live programming that they've started showing Korean baseball games.

I thought about something like that the other day: Imagine if its Fall 2020 and conferences like the SEC and B1G and ACC have announced no football because kids are not back on campus.

But a G5 conference like the MAC announces it will play even with no students on campus. In the absence of SEC, Big 12, and B1G games, those MAC games could be more valuable. Of course, the MAC is under contract, but they could say "hey, pay us a more or we just won't play too".

(05-05-2020 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 09:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It might be different for the G5. Schools like Illinois and Vandy are getting $30 million-plus media revenue checks from the Big Ten and SEC for simply putting on pads and playing in front of nobody ...

Everyone is assuming that, but I wonder. Do the media contracts address this at all?

Maybe ESPN will argue that fans in the stands are an important aspect of the atmosphere of a game, and their absence could hurt ratings, and try to negotiate a lower amount for these games.

I was thinking it could actually go the other way. With so many 50,000-100,000+ stadiums being empty and void of fans, that means the number of potential viewers would increase. That could actually drive up the value in terms of advertising dollars.