JR's post on this other thread got me to thinking about this possibility:

(04-06-2024 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 01:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  From the power league perspective, much of the complication and angst of revenue comes from the fact that there are just too many G5 level programs out there with their hands out wanting post-season access and funds.

Had they tightened the restrictions for FBS just a little tighter, we might have avoided the gradual creeping up of the size of FBS. Let’s say the requirements had been enough to place the Big West and MAC in FCS.

That leaves the 1985 FBS as:

Big 10, Big 8, ACC, PAC 10, SEC, SWC, WAC, independents

Those independents gradually become the BE and C-USA.

With fewer gateways into FBS, a posit that today their might only be 6 conferences

IMO, this is a good premise, but with a flawed conclusion. The G5 wanted a slice of the post season revenue. Money was the solution for them, it was the objective for the Power schools. Three fourths of the G5 or more are subsidized at more than 50%. All of them are subsidized at least 25% by their state's taxpayers. This means none of those schools can afford big time athletics on their own abilities.

A compromise for the Power schools would have been to draw the line on the G5 at 25% subsidy levels.

This one move would have created a consolidation of the top G5 schools into one conference and it would have slammed the door on about 60 of those schools leaving an upper tier of just over 70. None of the power leagues would have to have realigned initially, and when consolidation took eventually happened, they would have moved from a P6 into like a P4 of around 18 schools each with some, but less raiding between the top 4. Inclusion of the top 10 to 15 G5 schools would not have been a big deal if we were in 4 conferences of roughly 18 members and TV contracts would have been better for the 3rd and 4th conference.

The issue is one of perspective. The networks look at it from the most valuable down. The schools look at it based upon reasonable regionality and institutional fit. The poorer schools look at it as inclusion, and region and fit mean less to them. The P5 looked at it as being autonomous in decision making and the G5 looked at inclusion.

When you consider all of those angles were in play with money being the only tool for coordination it's a wonder that the whole thing wasn't even a bigger mess than it actually is now.

Now the various aspects are just 3. Networks want best earners. Conferences still want some regionality even if it only happens within divisions, and those at the bottom of the acceptable revenue scale simply want inclusion. And because the networks control the revenue offered more consolidation seems to be indicated and the final number in the upper tier could wind up being between 48 to 56.

Right. If they wanted a separation, the bar needed to be just a tad higher in 1978-1985. I don’t think people realize just how significant letting the Big West fall above the cut line was in direct and indirectly caused move ups:

Direct:
UNLV, Nevada, UNT, Boise St, Idaho

Had the Big West schools not been above the cut line, there would be no WAC for UTSA and Texas St.

The depletion of the Big West eventually led to SBC members parking as affiliates, which led to the SBC’s take over of what was once the Big West football, so they are indirectly responsible for all the schools that moved up with the intention of being in the SBC:

MTSU, Troy, FAU, FIU, WKU, GA St, GA So, App St, Coastal Carolina, JMU

You could even say, had SBC come into existence, they would not raided C-USA in 2022, necessitating the additions of Sam Houston St, Jacksonville St, Kennesaw St, and Delaware.

Sending the Big West down in 1978 could have prevented this.

Just make any form of subsidy a nonstarter. The rest will take care of itself. Those P schools with student fees and small subsidies will just cover them in the general athletic budget. No subsidy and you are in. Borrow to compete or take subsidies and you aren't. End of story and you have a very manageable upper tier.

The original purpose of state flagships and land grants was to.provide a viable option to expensive private schools, IMO. But, if you really wanted to eliminate subsidies, privatizing state flagships would be a way to do it, IMO.
How much would tuition go up at UGA and GT, I wonder. U of Oregon was actually looking at this possibility in the past, if I recall.

To the best of my knowledge, the only state that has a private institution as a flagship is Pennsylvania which has Penn State, although they're not really 100% private, which is what I am talking about. Cornell is the only private land grant that I know of.

https://www.newamerica.org/education-pol...education/

And here's a graph from UGA about SEC state funding amounts as well as GT:

https://provost.uga.edu/secaldp/budget-presentation.pdf

Look for state funding comparison graph.

After seeing this, I have even more respect for Tech than I did in the past. However, I still like beating Tech in athletics!!

(04-08-2024 11:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  To the best of my knowledge, the only state that has a private institution as a flagship is Pennsylvania which has Penn State, although they're not really 100% private, which is what I am talking about. Cornell is the only private land grant that I know of.

I assume the private institution you are referring to is the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania, and not Penn State, which is public.

(04-09-2024 02:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-08-2024 11:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  To the best of my knowledge, the only state that has a private institution as a flagship is Pennsylvania which has Penn State, although they're not really 100% private, which is what I am talking about. Cornell is the only private land grant that I know of.

I assume the private institution you are referring to is the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania, and not Penn State, which is public.

Actually, I was referring to Penn State, who is state related, not a state institution like IUP.

I believe Delaware has a similar situation as Penn St

(04-09-2024 03:59 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 02:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-08-2024 11:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  To the best of my knowledge, the only state that has a private institution as a flagship is Pennsylvania which has Penn State, although they're not really 100% private, which is what I am talking about. Cornell is the only private land grant that I know of.

I assume the private institution you are referring to is the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania, and not Penn State, which is public.

Actually, I was referring to Penn State, who is state related, not a state institution like IUP.

Yes. Penn St., Pitt, Temple and 1 HBCU (Lincoln?) are state related and not under control of the state. Pennsylvania's Division II schools like California, Indiana, Slippery Rock, etc. are fully state institutions.

(04-18-2024 09:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 03:59 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 02:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-08-2024 11:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  To the best of my knowledge, the only state that has a private institution as a flagship is Pennsylvania which has Penn State, although they're not really 100% private, which is what I am talking about. Cornell is the only private land grant that I know of.

I assume the private institution you are referring to is the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania, and not Penn State, which is public.

Actually, I was referring to Penn State, who is state related, not a state institution like IUP.

Yes. Penn St., Pitt, Temple and 1 HBCU (Lincoln?) are state related and not under control of the state. Pennsylvania's Division II schools like California, Indiana, Slippery Rock, etc. are fully state institutions.

Yes, Lincoln is the HBCU in question.

Though, speaking as an alumni, the state-related/public distinction doesn't extend any further than public records laws, and even then that is only so because of a deeply flawed court ruling that probably would not survive a second look were the issue to ever be raised again.

The premise of this thread makes zero sense.

In most states, they're essentially private anyway, except for the board of regents. They get a tiny amount of state funding, but the boards of regents are generally appointed by the governor, except for some states (Michigan and Colorado off the top of my head) where they're elected statewide by a vote of the people.

(04-23-2024 09:32 PM)johnintx Wrote:  In most states, they're essentially private anyway, except for the board of regents. They get a tiny amount of state funding, but the boards of regents are generally appointed by the governor, except for some states (Michigan and Colorado off the top of my head) where they're elected statewide by a vote of the people.

More then that, though it depends on the state and the school.

Not sure about Professors, but rank and file support staff may or may not have access to state government employee benefits, union representation, and can do stuff like bid on jobs or promotional opportunities at other schools, or other state government jobs.

That could impact stuff like admissions standards, transfer agreements between different colleges and universities, and if not handled correctly could impact stuff like accreditation of various degree programs. Different states also have different levels of funding from taxes, so University of Tennessee for example could be impacted in terms of tax revenue differently then Mississippi State. Even as small percentages of funding, tax money can still add up to millions of dollars.

If not managed correctly, that would have a major impact on any Federal or corporate funding or agreements schools have. University of Tennessee in Knoxville for example does a lot partnerships with Oak Ridge National Laboratory and various companies that are contracted with ORNL. If UTK went private, depending on how it was handled, that could impact any contracts and partnerships between ORNL and UTK.