Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
Author Message
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,579
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 115
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #81
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 04:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The three people most responsible for UC's growth are coach Bob Huggins, coach Brian Kelly, and Joe Steger (president in the 90s who pioneered public-private partnerships to build dorms and converted UC into a residential campus).

Honorable mention to the gentrification of the Clifton neighborhood.
07-20-2021 05:34 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Mav Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,042
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Omaha
Location:
Post: #82
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 04:46 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 04:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 09:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IIRC, Cincy already socks its students with about $30 million in fees and transfers, about 43% of its overall budget, to stay within mega-horn shouting distance of those regional P5s. If the amount needed to ante up to big boy status doubles, can Cincy double the fee to $60 million? Where is that extra money going to be ponied-up from? We know that other 57% of the budget, the part that athletics actually earns via fans in the stands and media deals, isn't going to be generating much new revenue.

So I'm not sure.

07-coffee3

Sure, there's a point beyond which UC won't be able to compete.

But the cost of not competing is far higher than $30 million for us. It's the long-term difference between transforming into Pitt or Akron.

I don't think there is any evidence that the presence or absence of "major level" football is likely to have anywhere near that impact on Cincinnati (or USF). If there is, I would love to see it.

In 1980, UC's enrollment was around 39k. Today it is around 46k. Adjusted for population it's probably lower now than then. And I'm not sure it is any better a school now than then. I'm not sure where Cincy football was in 1980.

In 1980, UC was a commuter school. It was a boom time for commuter schools due to the tail end of the baby boomers and skyrocketing numbers of females entering college.

In 2021, nationwide college enrollment is declining. The only schools that are growing are large public comprehensive research schools (which includes elite sports), private schools with big-time sports (Butler, Villanova, Xavier) or super-elite private schools with multibillion dollar endowments.

In 1980, UC was the 10th largest undergrad school in the country, but 40% of students were part-time. Flagships like Ohio State and Texas and Wisconsin were at 10%.

Most of UC's 1980 peers have declining enrollment today (like Toledo, Akron, Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Many schools that were ahead of UC in 1980 are either far behind today (Miami-OH, Oberlin, Kenyon, Ohio) or have seen UC make up a lot of ground on them (Case Western, Rochester). UC's biggest advantage over those schools in the 21st century was high-quality athletics. The local schools that UC has NOT gained substantial ground on (Ohio State, Pitt, Purdue, Notre Dame, Indiana) all have high quality athletics programs.

The three people most responsible for UC's growth are coach Bob Huggins, coach Brian Kelly, and Joe Steger (president in the 90s who pioneered public-private partnerships to build dorms and converted UC into a residential campus).

To be honest, there are other ways to grow into a top 50 national research university. Many of the University of California system schools were barely getting started in 1980. For example, UC San Diego is now a research powerhouse. The difference is that they invested in research faculty (rather than sports). They’re now finally investing in athletics and have moved up to D1.

Using athletics as the foundation is a risky approach…that charges the students and alumni for the start-up investment cost.
Just look at Nebraska as proof of that. They've been trying to sell students on Saturdays at Memorial Stadium and using that to build themselves for a while now, and the results speak for themselves. Academically, the school is crumbling and there's no sign of the bleeding stopping anytime soon. Getting tossed from the AAU, rather than being a wake-up call, only served to enforce the complacency seen among the leadership there and they're still sending out emails about tickets to Husker football games before any sort of academic or logistical info to high-schoolers that apply.
07-20-2021 05:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 17,756
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 751
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #83
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 09:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 08:48 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-19-2021 07:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Those days are numbered. Every time a P5 takes a bigger deal the networks will demand more P games. And should there be a breakaway, which is what is being set up here, only schools who commit to NIL and full scholarships/and, or/ pay for play depending upon a SCOTUS ruling on stipend caps next Summer, will be involved and then inside a closed scheduling system.

If the choice of division is a voluntary commitment (rather than an exclusive club), the AAC will be fine. The AAC will choose to pony up and play with the big boys.

As long as midwestern peers like Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa are comfortable with the pay-for-play model, Cincinnati will commit the resources necessary to stay in the same division as them.

IIRC, Cincy already socks its students with about $30 million in fees and transfers, about 43% of its overall budget, to stay within mega-horn shouting distance of those regional P5s. If the amount needed to ante up to big boy status doubles, can Cincy double the fee to $60 million? Where is that extra money going to be ponied-up from? We know that other 57% of the budget, the part that athletics actually earns via fans in the stands and media deals, isn't going to be generating much new revenue.

So I'm not sure.

07-coffee3

Sure, there's a point beyond which UC won't be able to compete.

But the cost of not competing is far higher than $30 million for us. It's the long-term difference between transforming into Pitt or Akron.

I don't think there is any evidence that the presence or absence of "major level" football is likely to have anywhere near that impact on Cincinnati (or USF). If there is, I would love to see it.

In 1980, UC's enrollment was around 39k. Today it is around 46k. Adjusted for population it's probably lower now than then. And I'm not sure it is any better a school now than then. I'm not sure where Cincy football was in 1980.

UC was 39k in 1980 but it actually dipped in the 90s to a low of 32K. It hovered in the 32-34K range when I was there.

Another big difference is the makeup of the student. In the 80s and 90s most of the student body was from Greater Cincinnati. Today you’ll come across many more students from other parts of the state (also out of state). I can remember moving to Columbus in the early 2000s and most people telling me I was the first UC grad they ever met. By the Kelly years, many of those people took their kids down to UC for a tour and some of the kids went there.
07-20-2021 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,987
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1319
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #84
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 06:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 09:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 08:48 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If the choice of division is a voluntary commitment (rather than an exclusive club), the AAC will be fine. The AAC will choose to pony up and play with the big boys.

As long as midwestern peers like Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa are comfortable with the pay-for-play model, Cincinnati will commit the resources necessary to stay in the same division as them.

IIRC, Cincy already socks its students with about $30 million in fees and transfers, about 43% of its overall budget, to stay within mega-horn shouting distance of those regional P5s. If the amount needed to ante up to big boy status doubles, can Cincy double the fee to $60 million? Where is that extra money going to be ponied-up from? We know that other 57% of the budget, the part that athletics actually earns via fans in the stands and media deals, isn't going to be generating much new revenue.

So I'm not sure.

07-coffee3

Sure, there's a point beyond which UC won't be able to compete.

But the cost of not competing is far higher than $30 million for us. It's the long-term difference between transforming into Pitt or Akron.

I don't think there is any evidence that the presence or absence of "major level" football is likely to have anywhere near that impact on Cincinnati (or USF). If there is, I would love to see it.

In 1980, UC's enrollment was around 39k. Today it is around 46k. Adjusted for population it's probably lower now than then. And I'm not sure it is any better a school now than then. I'm not sure where Cincy football was in 1980.

UC was 39k in 1980 but it actually dipped in the 90s to a low of 32K. It hovered in the 32-34K range when I was there.

Another big difference is the makeup of the student. In the 80s and 90s most of the student body was from Greater Cincinnati. Today you’ll come across many more students from other parts of the state (also out of state). I can remember moving to Columbus in the early 2000s and most people telling me I was the first UC grad they ever met. By the Kelly years, many of those people took their kids down to UC for a tour and some of the kids went there.

I'm open to evidence. Have student SAT scores risen since 1980? Has Cincy's US News ranking risen?

If so, is there any evidence that football has anything at all to do with it?
07-20-2021 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 17,756
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 751
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #85
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 06:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 09:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IIRC, Cincy already socks its students with about $30 million in fees and transfers, about 43% of its overall budget, to stay within mega-horn shouting distance of those regional P5s. If the amount needed to ante up to big boy status doubles, can Cincy double the fee to $60 million? Where is that extra money going to be ponied-up from? We know that other 57% of the budget, the part that athletics actually earns via fans in the stands and media deals, isn't going to be generating much new revenue.

So I'm not sure.

07-coffee3

Sure, there's a point beyond which UC won't be able to compete.

But the cost of not competing is far higher than $30 million for us. It's the long-term difference between transforming into Pitt or Akron.

I don't think there is any evidence that the presence or absence of "major level" football is likely to have anywhere near that impact on Cincinnati (or USF). If there is, I would love to see it.

In 1980, UC's enrollment was around 39k. Today it is around 46k. Adjusted for population it's probably lower now than then. And I'm not sure it is any better a school now than then. I'm not sure where Cincy football was in 1980.

UC was 39k in 1980 but it actually dipped in the 90s to a low of 32K. It hovered in the 32-34K range when I was there.

Another big difference is the makeup of the student. In the 80s and 90s most of the student body was from Greater Cincinnati. Today you’ll come across many more students from other parts of the state (also out of state). I can remember moving to Columbus in the early 2000s and most people telling me I was the first UC grad they ever met. By the Kelly years, many of those people took their kids down to UC for a tour and some of the kids went there.

I'm open to evidence. Have student SAT scores risen since 1980? Has Cincy's US News ranking risen?

If so, is there any evidence that football has anything at all to do with it?

I’ll have to do a deeper dive but yes the ACT scores have progressively gotten better from 1980. On a related note, as Captain Bearcat and I have pointed out Universities in Ohio have primarily seen enrollments shrink. Ohio State, UC and Miami Ohio have been the outliers (Miami is terrible at FB but it’s a safe haven for preppy Chicagoland kids and the tuition is cheaper than schools they might otherwise target). Here is an article from Ohio Universities perspective outlying the troubles the other schools are facing.

https://woub.org/2021/04/07/ohio-univers...ect-gains/
07-20-2021 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,683
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 663
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #86
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 01:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  An inescapable reality is that there are more than 1100 colleges and universities in the NCAA, and almost all of them are having their needs met pretty well.

More than 900 of those colleges have no means of generating significant revenue from athletics, and they are getting the administration services and championships provided by the NCAA for free. Why wouldn't those colleges be happy with that?

The moneymakers in college athletics are still in the NCAA because they have wanted to preserve the façade of college-sports-as-amateurism, in order to (a) not pay athletes, and (b) to maintain the power imbalance between colleges and athletes that heavily favors the colleges.

Do the moneymakers remain in the NCAA if the NCAA can't do those things for them any more?

How many of these 'moneymakers" who would leave the NCAA do you think there are? I think the true number is smaller than you think, and a big reason why they can make so much money is because they have the others to beat up on. They may not be thriving in spite of the current system. They may be thriving because of it.

It may be that the PTB at those schools are as malevolent as you seem to suggest they are, in which case maybe it's time to say good riddance to them. I'm just not ready to accept that they are.

Has nothing to do with malevolence. It's primarily about money. That includes whether, once the pretense of amateurism is gone, the schools that can break off decide they want more money to pay for ever-increasing budgets at the top levels of college sports. Also, no one said they are leaving *today*. Inertia and procrastination are important in any bureaucracy.

Think of this like getting divorced after one or both people are convinced the marriage is no longer worthwhile. Maybe some people say, boom, it's over, and just file the papers. But a lot of people procrastinate, and are reluctant to actually confront the issue and tell their spouse it's over, reluctant to deal with the messiness of divorce, and on and on. Sometimes that goes on for years until the divorce papers are filed. Despite all of that, lots and lots of divorces happen every year (about 750,000/year in the US in pre-pandemic years).

In other words, when good reasons to stay married no longer exist, the fact that the divorce isn't immediate doesn't mean it won't happen eventually.

You say that as though they were different things. If their motives for remaining in the NCAA are so they can avoid compensating their players and so they can maintain their power over them, that sounds pretty malevolent to me. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but it's hard for me to see it any other way.

Those budgets are ever-increasing because their revenues are increasing, not because costs are. They need to spend obscene amounts of money in unnecessary and minimally productive ways not because of amateurism, but because they are non-profits. Does the Texas Athletic Department really need to have 1100 employees? They have to spend all that money somehow, and NCAA rules prevent them from sharing it with their labor force.

So why should potential legislation to make paying players possible cause them to secede from the NCAA? The only reason I can think of is that they want to use that legislation as an excuse or opportunity to dominate other schools and conferences the way the early robber barons of the industrial revolution eliminated their competition through the power of monopoly. I can understand that some won't consider that malevolent. They would consider that it's just the American Way. But it's hard to see it as benevolent.
07-20-2021 07:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 27,382
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3236
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #87
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 07:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 01:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  An inescapable reality is that there are more than 1100 colleges and universities in the NCAA, and almost all of them are having their needs met pretty well.

More than 900 of those colleges have no means of generating significant revenue from athletics, and they are getting the administration services and championships provided by the NCAA for free. Why wouldn't those colleges be happy with that?

The moneymakers in college athletics are still in the NCAA because they have wanted to preserve the façade of college-sports-as-amateurism, in order to (a) not pay athletes, and (b) to maintain the power imbalance between colleges and athletes that heavily favors the colleges.

Do the moneymakers remain in the NCAA if the NCAA can't do those things for them any more?

How many of these 'moneymakers" who would leave the NCAA do you think there are? I think the true number is smaller than you think, and a big reason why they can make so much money is because they have the others to beat up on. They may not be thriving in spite of the current system. They may be thriving because of it.

It may be that the PTB at those schools are as malevolent as you seem to suggest they are, in which case maybe it's time to say good riddance to them. I'm just not ready to accept that they are.

Has nothing to do with malevolence. It's primarily about money. That includes whether, once the pretense of amateurism is gone, the schools that can break off decide they want more money to pay for ever-increasing budgets at the top levels of college sports. Also, no one said they are leaving *today*. Inertia and procrastination are important in any bureaucracy.

Think of this like getting divorced after one or both people are convinced the marriage is no longer worthwhile. Maybe some people say, boom, it's over, and just file the papers. But a lot of people procrastinate, and are reluctant to actually confront the issue and tell their spouse it's over, reluctant to deal with the messiness of divorce, and on and on. Sometimes that goes on for years until the divorce papers are filed. Despite all of that, lots and lots of divorces happen every year (about 750,000/year in the US in pre-pandemic years).

In other words, when good reasons to stay married no longer exist, the fact that the divorce isn't immediate doesn't mean it won't happen eventually.

You say that as though they were different things. If their motives for remaining in the NCAA are so they can avoid compensating their players and so they can maintain their power over them, that sounds pretty malevolent to me. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but it's hard for me to see it any other way.

Those budgets are ever-increasing because their revenues are increasing, not because costs are. They need to spend obscene amounts of money in unnecessary and minimally productive ways not because of amateurism, but because they are non-profits. Does the Texas Athletic Department really need to have 1100 employees? They have to spend all that money somehow, and NCAA rules prevent them from sharing it with their labor force.

So why should potential legislation to make paying players possible cause them to secede from the NCAA? The only reason I can think of is that they want to use that legislation as an excuse or opportunity to dominate other schools and conferences the way the early robber barons of the industrial revolution eliminated their competition through the power of monopoly. I can understand that some won't consider that malevolent. They would consider that it's just the American Way. But it's hard to see it as benevolent.

You mean like Big Pharma and High Tech have? "Well ain't that America? Little pink houses for you and me." Face it Ken those who have had their way under the NCAA and academics who naively believe that athletics and academics go hand in hand are the only people out there who believe remaining in the NCAA is healthy moving forward. SCOTUS has essentially bifurcated academics and athletics and with that your old world and its associations is being swept away and new ways of connecting for academics and for athletics will travel their own separate paths.
07-20-2021 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,474
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 150
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #88
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 04:46 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 04:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 09:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IIRC, Cincy already socks its students with about $30 million in fees and transfers, about 43% of its overall budget, to stay within mega-horn shouting distance of those regional P5s. If the amount needed to ante up to big boy status doubles, can Cincy double the fee to $60 million? Where is that extra money going to be ponied-up from? We know that other 57% of the budget, the part that athletics actually earns via fans in the stands and media deals, isn't going to be generating much new revenue.

So I'm not sure.

07-coffee3

Sure, there's a point beyond which UC won't be able to compete.

But the cost of not competing is far higher than $30 million for us. It's the long-term difference between transforming into Pitt or Akron.

I don't think there is any evidence that the presence or absence of "major level" football is likely to have anywhere near that impact on Cincinnati (or USF). If there is, I would love to see it.

In 1980, UC's enrollment was around 39k. Today it is around 46k. Adjusted for population it's probably lower now than then. And I'm not sure it is any better a school now than then. I'm not sure where Cincy football was in 1980.

In 1980, UC was a commuter school. It was a boom time for commuter schools due to the tail end of the baby boomers and skyrocketing numbers of females entering college.

In 2021, nationwide college enrollment is declining. The only schools that are growing are large public comprehensive research schools (which includes elite sports), private schools with big-time sports (Butler, Villanova, Xavier) or super-elite private schools with multibillion dollar endowments.

In 1980, UC was the 10th largest undergrad school in the country, but 40% of students were part-time. Flagships like Ohio State and Texas and Wisconsin were at 10%.

Most of UC's 1980 peers have declining enrollment today (like Toledo, Akron, Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Many schools that were ahead of UC in 1980 are either far behind today (Miami-OH, Oberlin, Kenyon, Ohio) or have seen UC make up a lot of ground on them (Case Western, Rochester). UC's biggest advantage over those schools in the 21st century was high-quality athletics. The local schools that UC has NOT gained substantial ground on (Ohio State, Pitt, Purdue, Notre Dame, Indiana) all have high quality athletics programs.

The three people most responsible for UC's growth are coach Bob Huggins, coach Brian Kelly, and Joe Steger (president in the 90s who pioneered public-private partnerships to build dorms and converted UC into a residential campus).

To be honest, there are other ways to grow into a top 50 national research university. Many of the University of California system schools were barely getting started in 1980. For example, UC San Diego is now a research powerhouse. The difference is that they invested in research faculty (rather than sports). They’re now finally investing in athletics and have moved up to D1.

Using athletics as the foundation is a risky approach…that charges the students and alumni for the start-up investment cost.

If you are talking about top 50 research university, as determined by actual research performed in either quality or quantity measurements, one thing that definitely is not going to grow a university into a top research institution is athletics. Zero impact. Zero.

Correlation does not equal causation. Large research schools often have powerful athletic departments because they often have significant financial resources. There powerful, top 50 research universities that have no athletics. You don't build your research plant with NCAA tournament appearances; not how it works.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2021 08:15 PM by CrazyPaco.)
07-20-2021 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,027
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #89
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 05:22 AM)schmolik Wrote:  It is the big dilemma in college sports, would you rather win a Division 2 national championship or win one or two games in the Division 1 national championship? Well think about this, almost everyone here remembers Oral Roberts' Sweet 16 run. A lot of you probably remember when Lehigh beat Duke. Who won the 2021 NCAA Division 2 Men's Basketball National Championship? I can't even answer that without looking it up. FCS National Champion? I know the season was delayed this year but if Carson Wentz didn't hit it big with the Eagles I probably wouldn't care about FCS either. But I sure remembered when Appalachian State beat Michigan. Do you think Oral Roberts and Lehigh want to go down to Division 2 even if it means they will win a "national championship" or several of them? I doubt it. Given the choice, more schools would rather move "up" than "down".

But the problem is the big schools want certain rules in their favor. The small schools will then have two choices, let the big schools do what they want or the big schools will take their ball and walk away and the small schools will eventually be "Division 2"ed.


The problem is Binghamton is a big school. It is like Alabama telling Vanderbilt that they don't belong in D1. Second, I do value schools like Boise State and North Dakota State's football more valuable then Duke, Boston College, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt and Kansas football teams.
07-20-2021 09:56 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,356
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 163
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #90
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
P-5 Football Playing Schools and ARWU National Rank:

2 Stanford
4 Cal
11 UCLA
13 Washington
17 Michigan
19 Duke
21 NW
22 UNC
23 Wisky
24 Minnisotta
25 Texas
27 Colorado
28 Illinois
31 MD
32 USC
33 Vandy
36 Purdue
37 Florida
41 Pitt
42-56 GT, ASU, Indiana, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, Ohio State, Utah, and Arizona
57-65 Texas A&M, UVa, Colorado State, FSU
66-94 NC State, Iowa State, Oregon State, Georgia, Cincy, UConn, Houston, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Florida, VT, Tennessee

Only 44 of the top 94 even play P-5 level football and that's allocating Colorado State, Cincy, USF, Houston, and UConn into that description.

95-114 ND, LSU, Temple, New Mexico, UCF, Washington State, South Carolina

At this point you are transitioning out of heavy research universities and getting into what are mostly undergraduate colleges.

115- 133 Wake Forest, TT, OU
134- 154 West Virginia, Clemson, BC, Baylor, Mississippi State, Oklahoma State, Alabama, Auburn
155-175 Syracuse and Louisville
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2021 10:31 PM by Statefan.)
07-20-2021 10:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 27,382
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3236
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #91
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 10:17 PM)Statefan Wrote:  P-5 Football Playing Schools and ARWU National Rank:

2 Stanford
4 Cal
11 UCLA
13 Washington
17 Michigan
19 Duke
21 NW
22 UNC
23 Wisky
24 Minnisotta
25 Texas
27 Colorado
28 Illinois
31 MD
32 USC
33 Vandy
36 Purdue
37 Florida
41 Pitt
42-56 GT, ASU, Indiana, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, Ohio State, Utah, and Arizona
57-65 Texas A&M, UVa, Colorado State, FSU
66-94 NC State, Iowa State, Oregon State, Georgia, Cincy, UConn, Houston, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Florida, VT, Tennessee

Only 44 of the top 94 even play P-5 level football and that's allocating Colorado State, Cincy, USF, Houston, and UConn into that description.

Too bad it will be based upon profitability, huh?
07-20-2021 10:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,356
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 163
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #92
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
Only 52 of the P-5 are graduate research heavy institutions. Five of those do not have a Research Medical Hospital - Nebraska, NC State, GT, Georgia, and VT and that's where the biggest money is for the future.
07-20-2021 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 27,382
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3236
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #93
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 10:44 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Only 52 of the P-5 are graduate research heavy institutions. Five of those do not have a Research Medical Hospital - Nebraska, NC State, GT, Georgia, and VT and that's where the biggest money is for the future.

No, sadly it's not. It will be high tech arms. The global Baby Boom will have become statistically irrelevant by 2035. Many elites believe the Earth would be better off with 5 billion less people. Mass migrations of people are pursuing essential commodities necessary to sustain life. Every time this happens it is a harbinger of large regional, if not global, conflict. Which historically, along with pandemic, has been our population reset, just not on this scale. So, I emphatically and respectfully disagree with your assessment. As many times before advancements in medicine will likely come on the battlefield. I fear the opportunities will belong to future Galens and not future Pasteurs and Curies or Barnards.

The Pentagon's 21st century plan emphasized defense of potable water supplies. Aquifers have taken centuries to form and just years to drain. Mexico City is in crisis now as they realize the one they are over is almost drained.

We have much bigger fish to fry than sports and sexual preference. And our puerile obsessions had better give way to the practical and we had best find a unity of purpose. Life is about to get very rudely real again. What's bad for us is that wars in the near future may flame and smolder for years but when one adversary believes they hold a strategic advantage it will be over in seconds. The first salvo will be financial and may come reasonably soon. Keep your family close and God bless us all. Our allies don't trust us and our enemies are oddly too close. Therefore our present strategic and diplomatic confusion only emboldens our foes, and it exists because corporate interests have diverged from that of our people, it's not political as both parties are controlled by the afore mentioned.

But hey, I sure wish you were right.
07-20-2021 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 4,158
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 129
I Root For: common sense
Location: common sense
Post: #94
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 11:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 10:44 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Only 52 of the P-5 are graduate research heavy institutions. Five of those do not have a Research Medical Hospital - Nebraska, NC State, GT, Georgia, and VT and that's where the biggest money is for the future.

No, sadly it's not. It will be high tech arms. The global Baby Boom will have become statistically irrelevant by 2035. Many elites believe the Earth would be better off with 5 billion less people. Mass migrations of people are pursuing essential commodities necessary to sustain life. Every time this happens it is a harbinger of large regional, if not global, conflict. Which historically, along with pandemic, has been our population reset, just not on this scale. So, I emphatically and respectfully disagree with your assessment. As many times before advancements in medicine will likely come on the battlefield. I fear the opportunities will belong to future Galens and not future Pasteurs and Curies or Barnards.

The Pentagon's 21st century plan emphasized defense of potable water supplies. Aquifers have taken centuries to form and just years to drain. Mexico City is in crisis now as they realize the one they are over is almost drained.

We have much bigger fish to fry than sports and sexual preference. And our puerile obsessions had better give way to the practical and we had best find a unity of purpose. Life is about to get very rudely real again. What's bad for us is that wars in the near future may flame and smolder for years but when one adversary believes they hold a strategic advantage it will be over in seconds. The first salvo will be financial and may come reasonably soon. Keep your family close and God bless us all. Our allies don't trust us and our enemies are oddly too close. Therefore our present strategic and diplomatic confusion only emboldens our foes, and it exists because corporate interests have diverged from that of our people, it's not political as both parties are controlled by the afore mentioned.

But hey, I sure wish you were right.
JR,. one thing that I do take comfort in is that there is one nation that the CCP has yet to be able to crack, but sadly, it is not our nation. This nation is roughly the same size as the state of Connecticut, but yet, I believe that they continue to baffle the Chinese. This nation is one of our oldest allies--it is the nation of Israel. Israel, despite its small size, would not be afraid to do battle with China, IMO. God has blessed that tiny nation very well, and we, the United States, would do well to continue to keep them as an ally. Regardless of what becomes of Israel's relationship with the US, Israel can stand on its own two feet without our help.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
07-21-2021 02:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,987
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1319
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #95
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 04:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 09:38 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 08:48 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If the choice of division is a voluntary commitment (rather than an exclusive club), the AAC will be fine. The AAC will choose to pony up and play with the big boys.

As long as midwestern peers like Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa are comfortable with the pay-for-play model, Cincinnati will commit the resources necessary to stay in the same division as them.

IIRC, Cincy already socks its students with about $30 million in fees and transfers, about 43% of its overall budget, to stay within mega-horn shouting distance of those regional P5s. If the amount needed to ante up to big boy status doubles, can Cincy double the fee to $60 million? Where is that extra money going to be ponied-up from? We know that other 57% of the budget, the part that athletics actually earns via fans in the stands and media deals, isn't going to be generating much new revenue.

So I'm not sure.

07-coffee3

Sure, there's a point beyond which UC won't be able to compete.

But the cost of not competing is far higher than $30 million for us. It's the long-term difference between transforming into Pitt or Akron.

I don't think there is any evidence that the presence or absence of "major level" football is likely to have anywhere near that impact on Cincinnati (or USF). If there is, I would love to see it.

In 1980, UC's enrollment was around 39k. Today it is around 46k. Adjusted for population it's probably lower now than then. And I'm not sure it is any better a school now than then. I'm not sure where Cincy football was in 1980.

In 1980, UC was a commuter school. It was a boom time for commuter schools due to the tail end of the baby boomers and skyrocketing numbers of females entering college.

In 2021, nationwide college enrollment is declining. The only schools that are growing are large public comprehensive research schools (which includes elite sports), private schools with big-time sports (Butler, Villanova, Xavier) or super-elite private schools with multibillion dollar endowments.

In 1980, UC was the 10th largest undergrad school in the country, but 40% of students were part-time. Flagships like Ohio State and Texas and Wisconsin were at 10%.

Most of UC's 1980 peers have declining enrollment today (like Toledo, Akron, Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Many schools that were ahead of UC in 1980 are either far behind today (Miami-OH, Oberlin, Kenyon, Ohio) or have seen UC make up a lot of ground on them (Case Western, Rochester). UC's biggest advantage over those schools in the 21st century was high-quality athletics. The local schools that UC has NOT gained substantial ground on (Ohio State, Pitt, Purdue, Notre Dame, Indiana) all have high quality athletics programs.

The three people most responsible for UC's growth are coach Bob Huggins, coach Brian Kelly, and Joe Steger (president in the 90s who pioneered public-private partnerships to build dorms and converted UC into a residential campus).

I looked at the Cincy enrollment numbers and have trouble seeing evidence for this. Cincy enrollment declined for much of the Huggins era. It did grow under Brian Kelly, but it was growing before Brian Kelly too. It also continued to grow in the mid-2010s when football performance slumped.

Basically, UC enrollment declined from 1980 - 2002, and has risen from 2002 onwards, regardless of the quality of UC football or basketball. So IMO to give coaches of those programs credit for any growth doesn't register.

I admit, I don't know what the cause of Cincy's rebound in enrollment the past 20 years has been, but it seems like athletics is a tangential factor, if a factor at all.

I also admit my view is colored by what has happened in Florida - in the past 25 years, since their football programs began to develop, USF and UCF have grown significantly, both in terms of research quality and enrollment. But, they were growing significantly in those areas before then as well. I would bet they would both continue to do so without it.

Just doesn't seem to be much of a connection there, to me. My belief is, as I think someone else in this thread said, that at most schools, big-time athletics is an effect rather than a cause of university growth. Sure, we can think of obvious exceptions, like say Notre Dame. But at most places, particularly G5 schools, what seems to happen is that for whatever reasons, the university is growing, and the community says to itself "hey, we have 30,000 students now too, why don't we have a domed basketball arena and a football team"? That's what happened at USF and UCF. Cincy has some significant differences with those schools - you guys were winning hoops national titles when we were kicking sandspurs out of our heels - but the pattern seems to be the same. Before 1980, you grew to almost 40,000 students with football that was barely on anyone's radar.
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2021 07:10 AM by quo vadis.)
07-21-2021 06:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,987
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1319
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #96
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 04:46 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  To be honest, there are other ways to grow into a top 50 national research university. Many of the University of California system schools were barely getting started in 1980. For example, UC San Diego is now a research powerhouse. The difference is that they invested in research faculty (rather than sports). They’re now finally investing in athletics and have moved up to D1.

Using athletics as the foundation is a risky approach…that charges the students and alumni for the start-up investment cost.

So that said, what's behind UVA's push the past 10 - 15 years to seriously upgrade its athletics? UVA is spending massively on athletics, and is socking its students with $18 million in transfers, a basically G5-level of institutional support and one that is one of the highest among all P5 schools.

And yet UVA of course is one of the best public schools in the country and always has been, despite sleepy football for almost its entire history.

So what's behind the push to basically become a Virginia Tech in athletics?
07-21-2021 07:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,683
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 663
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #97
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 08:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 07:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  More than 900 of those colleges have no means of generating significant revenue from athletics, and they are getting the administration services and championships provided by the NCAA for free. Why wouldn't those colleges be happy with that?

The moneymakers in college athletics are still in the NCAA because they have wanted to preserve the façade of college-sports-as-amateurism, in order to (a) not pay athletes, and (b) to maintain the power imbalance between colleges and athletes that heavily favors the colleges.

Do the moneymakers remain in the NCAA if the NCAA can't do those things for them any more?

How many of these 'moneymakers" who would leave the NCAA do you think there are? I think the true number is smaller than you think, and a big reason why they can make so much money is because they have the others to beat up on. They may not be thriving in spite of the current system. They may be thriving because of it.

It may be that the PTB at those schools are as malevolent as you seem to suggest they are, in which case maybe it's time to say good riddance to them. I'm just not ready to accept that they are.

Has nothing to do with malevolence. It's primarily about money. That includes whether, once the pretense of amateurism is gone, the schools that can break off decide they want more money to pay for ever-increasing budgets at the top levels of college sports. Also, no one said they are leaving *today*. Inertia and procrastination are important in any bureaucracy.

Think of this like getting divorced after one or both people are convinced the marriage is no longer worthwhile. Maybe some people say, boom, it's over, and just file the papers. But a lot of people procrastinate, and are reluctant to actually confront the issue and tell their spouse it's over, reluctant to deal with the messiness of divorce, and on and on. Sometimes that goes on for years until the divorce papers are filed. Despite all of that, lots and lots of divorces happen every year (about 750,000/year in the US in pre-pandemic years).

In other words, when good reasons to stay married no longer exist, the fact that the divorce isn't immediate doesn't mean it won't happen eventually.

You say that as though they were different things. If their motives for remaining in the NCAA are so they can avoid compensating their players and so they can maintain their power over them, that sounds pretty malevolent to me. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but it's hard for me to see it any other way.

Those budgets are ever-increasing because their revenues are increasing, not because costs are. They need to spend obscene amounts of money in unnecessary and minimally productive ways not because of amateurism, but because they are non-profits. Does the Texas Athletic Department really need to have 1100 employees? They have to spend all that money somehow, and NCAA rules prevent them from sharing it with their labor force.

So why should potential legislation to make paying players possible cause them to secede from the NCAA? The only reason I can think of is that they want to use that legislation as an excuse or opportunity to dominate other schools and conferences the way the early robber barons of the industrial revolution eliminated their competition through the power of monopoly. I can understand that some won't consider that malevolent. They would consider that it's just the American Way. But it's hard to see it as benevolent.

You mean like Big Pharma and High Tech have? "Well ain't that America? Little pink houses for you and me." Face it Ken those who have had their way under the NCAA and academics who naively believe that athletics and academics go hand in hand are the only people out there who believe remaining in the NCAA is healthy moving forward. SCOTUS has essentially bifurcated academics and athletics and with that your old world and its associations is being swept away and new ways of connecting for academics and for athletics will travel their own separate paths.

When I suggested in my original reply to Wedge that colleges were behaving malevolently, I was carrying his premise about their motives to what I think is a reasonable conclusion. But, I don't accept his premise. I don't think that the dominant football programs are motivated by a desire to exploit cheap labor.

I believe there is a much broader issue in college sports. A guiding principle in all sporting activity is that it should be conducted as much as possible on a level playing field. That's what conferences were supposed to do. They were meant to be groups of peer institutions with similar resources and missions. That's also what separating schools into divisions within the NCAA was meant to do.

Over time, what I would describe as the "family dynamic" came into play. The kid brothers wanted to play with their older, stronger brothers, and usually Mom insisted that the big brothers let them. NCAA is the mom in this case, and their decisions were motivated by the fact that there were far more kid brothers who had a vote than older ones.

As long as we have a system in which most of the participants have little to no chance of succeeding in their competition, and in which those who do have a chance are judged first and foremost by how many losses they incur during the regular season, the end results will always be suboptimal. Add to that a system based on a false premise, like "amateurism" and you get what we got. Something that makes no sense at all.

You get a system where the kid brothers, the ones with limited resources, want to level the playing field by having rules that keep the big brothers from using the resources they have. If that "family dynamic" fully applied to college sports, the kid brothers would soon grow up and be able to compete fairly with their older brothers as adults. But in college sports, that's not going to happen. The problem doesn't get fixed because there are factors that keep the kid brothers from ever having a chance to grow into peers. There are a few exceptions to this, on the margins, and over decades.

At the end of the day, if level playing fields is the goal, the only solution is smaller divisions. If that's not the goal, you can't blame the older brothers from behaving the way they do within the system imposed on them by the NCAA, Congress and the courts.
07-21-2021 07:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 10,393
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 437
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #98
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-20-2021 07:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 01:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  An inescapable reality is that there are more than 1100 colleges and universities in the NCAA, and almost all of them are having their needs met pretty well.

More than 900 of those colleges have no means of generating significant revenue from athletics, and they are getting the administration services and championships provided by the NCAA for free. Why wouldn't those colleges be happy with that?

The moneymakers in college athletics are still in the NCAA because they have wanted to preserve the façade of college-sports-as-amateurism, in order to (a) not pay athletes, and (b) to maintain the power imbalance between colleges and athletes that heavily favors the colleges.

Do the moneymakers remain in the NCAA if the NCAA can't do those things for them any more?

How many of these 'moneymakers" who would leave the NCAA do you think there are? I think the true number is smaller than you think, and a big reason why they can make so much money is because they have the others to beat up on. They may not be thriving in spite of the current system. They may be thriving because of it.

It may be that the PTB at those schools are as malevolent as you seem to suggest they are, in which case maybe it's time to say good riddance to them. I'm just not ready to accept that they are.

Has nothing to do with malevolence. It's primarily about money. That includes whether, once the pretense of amateurism is gone, the schools that can break off decide they want more money to pay for ever-increasing budgets at the top levels of college sports. Also, no one said they are leaving *today*. Inertia and procrastination are important in any bureaucracy.

Think of this like getting divorced after one or both people are convinced the marriage is no longer worthwhile. Maybe some people say, boom, it's over, and just file the papers. But a lot of people procrastinate, and are reluctant to actually confront the issue and tell their spouse it's over, reluctant to deal with the messiness of divorce, and on and on. Sometimes that goes on for years until the divorce papers are filed. Despite all of that, lots and lots of divorces happen every year (about 750,000/year in the US in pre-pandemic years).

In other words, when good reasons to stay married no longer exist, the fact that the divorce isn't immediate doesn't mean it won't happen eventually.

You say that as though they were different things. If their motives for remaining in the NCAA are so they can avoid compensating their players and so they can maintain their power over them, that sounds pretty malevolent to me. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but it's hard for me to see it any other way.

Those budgets are ever-increasing because their revenues are increasing, not because costs are. They need to spend obscene amounts of money in unnecessary and minimally productive ways not because of amateurism, but because they are non-profits. Does the Texas Athletic Department really need to have 1100 employees? They have to spend all that money somehow, and NCAA rules prevent them from sharing it with their labor force.

So why should potential legislation to make paying players possible cause them to secede from the NCAA? The only reason I can think of is that they want to use that legislation as an excuse or opportunity to dominate other schools and conferences the way the early robber barons of the industrial revolution eliminated their competition through the power of monopoly. I can understand that some won't consider that malevolent. They would consider that it's just the American Way. But it's hard to see it as benevolent.

So soon we forget the wisdom of legendary Governor William J LePetomane.

"We have to protect our 1100 phoney baloney UT Athletic Department jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!"

If Buck Strickland's big fat checks are no longer in the form of donations to the Longhorn Fund, but can be cut directly to Longhorn linemen and Longhorn defensive backs and wide receivers, that's a big problem for paying those 1100 salaries.

Which is, in fact, an indicator that the decision-makers will do what they can to stay inside the NCAA.
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2021 08:58 AM by johnbragg.)
07-21-2021 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,074
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 127
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #99
RE: SI The SEC, NCAA and a Fight to Change College Sports
(07-21-2021 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-20-2021 04:46 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  To be honest, there are other ways to grow into a top 50 national research university. Many of the University of California system schools were barely getting started in 1980. For example, UC San Diego is now a research powerhouse. The difference is that they invested in research faculty (rather than sports). They’re now finally investing in athletics and have moved up to D1.

Using athletics as the foundation is a risky approach…that charges the students and alumni for the start-up investment cost.

So that said, what's behind UVA's push the past 10 - 15 years to seriously upgrade its athletics? UVA is spending massively on athletics, and is socking its students with $18 million in transfers, a basically G5-level of institutional support and one that is one of the highest among all P5 schools.

And yet UVA of course is one of the best public schools in the country and always has been, despite sleepy football for almost its entire history.

So what's behind the push to basically become a Virginia Tech in athletics?

UVa is not pursuing a Virginia Tech athletics model. UVa was and/or is following an approach similar to UNC and Duke…build a successful athletics brand by winning lots of conference and NCAA titles.

With regards to student subsidies of athletics, I agree with your sentiments. UVa, and many of the ACC schools, unnecessarily rely on student fees. It’s anachronistic funding that needs to change. As collegiate athletic revenues have exploded, student subsidies should have been cut. UVa has a strong fan base than can fully support the athletic department.
07-21-2021 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2021 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, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.