Started By
Message
re: Death of College Athletics
Posted on 12/7/18 at 12:43 pm to gohogs141
Posted on 12/7/18 at 12:43 pm to gohogs141
quote:
Yeah Little Rock used to produce a fair number of football athletes for us, but now most of them are playing basketball. Cheaper for non-affluent families and easier to play.
Depends on where you are. TN HS football is producing more prospects than ever before. It's booming but a lot of it has come from the rise of private schools (we don't spend on high school sports the way the rest of the South does).
0
Posted on 12/7/18 at 12:43 pm to deeprig9
quote:
In fact, many of them resent the drain on the college.
Other than this, you make some good points.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 1:45 pm to John Milner
quote:
You an old fricker ain't ye
Probably not, he said no TV and 4 stations
I am old enough for the age of radio and it was 3 stations (ABC + NBC + CBS) as PBS did not do sports. Also, even back to the 50's you had a TV but it was in the living room. It was also B&W and you did not have a second one.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 5:12 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
Other things that should be done:
-Shorten season to 11 games
No, they shouldn't. Serious question: Have you ever been to a football game on a college campus?
The crowds, the excitement, potential students visiting, revenue not just for the school but also the community.
So what you're saying is that Louisiana Tech, MTSU, UTSA, Illinois, Indiana, Wake Forest, and about 95 other schools who would never in 50 years even sniff a whiff of this expanded playoff, should willingly give up one of those events so that four to eight more elite teams can get into the playoffs. Not only will that never happen...no, it's not even a good idea.
Sure, you may like the idea of Alabama hosting one of those first round games. Do you actually think that Indiana and Rice and Wyoming, etc., etc,., etc., etc. etc., would like the idea of giving up a home game so Alabama and Ohio State can have those games on their campuses?
Seriously?
quote:
-All P5 conferences should agree to have their teams play 10 P5 games a season
So that, combined with your 11 game schedule, means that only one G5 team gets to be paid by an Alabama or Georgia, instead of three. Yeah, I'm sure the 60 teams in the G5 would just jump right on board with that.
I'm not saying 10 P5 games is a bad idea. I'm saying only one non P-5 game is not a good idea and is so unrealistic it's absurd to even think about.
quote:
Gotta let go of the bowls though and expand the playoff to 8 or 16
No, we don't "gotta", and this season has just provided more evidence. Neither Washington nor Utah has any business in a playoff discussion...not to mention potentially an unranked Pitt. The Pac-12 currently is barely better than a G5 conference. There are 5 SEC teams in the top 16. Do you think the rest of the country has the stomach for 5 SEC teams in a 16 team playoff? Because that's exactly what you're gonna have unless you start having 4 and 5 loss teams get in. The Pac-12 runner up has 4 losses. The Big Ten runner up has 5 losses and is the 4th highest ranked team from that conference.
You have a grand total of two ACC teams in the top 25.
You think people didn't like Alabama-Georgia? Just wait until it's Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and LSU in the Final Four.
quote:
The BCS and now the playoff have caused teams to schedule rent-a-wins instead of quality OOC teams.
Not true at all. Another serious question...were you alive in the early nineties?
Alabama's OOC games, 1990-97:
1990: Sou.Miss, @ SW La, Cin.
1991: Temple, Chattanooga, Tulane
1992: Sou. Miss, La Tech, @ Tulane
1993: Tulane, La Tech, Sou. Miss
1994: Chattanooga, Tulane, Sou.Miss
1995: Sou. Miss, NC State, North Texas
1996: Bowling Green, Sou. MIss, @ NC State
1997: Houston, Sou. Miss, La Tech
Plenty of "rent-a-wins" on those schedules, and not one quality OOC opponent on the level of what we have been playing since 2007.
quote:
We wont ever have meaningful bowl games ever again.
Meaningful to whom? You?
Try telling Vanderbilt that their game with Baylor isn't "meaningful." Do you think they care whether or not some message board poster thinks it's "meaningful"? Or, we can go the other direction...since you think those bowl games used to be so meaningful. Tell us how meaningful that Bluebonnet Bowl game we had with Oklahoma in 1970 was. Tell us how much was riding on the Kansas Cowboy's toe.
This post was edited on 12/7/18 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:11 pm to BamaGradinTn
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of rivalries, it was the age of cupcakes, it was the epoch of television rights, it was the epoch of declining attendance, it was the season of big coaching contracts, it was the season of big buyouts, it was the spring of hope for victories, it was the winter of despair for losses, we had everything before us for a title run, we had nothing before us but minor bowls, we were all going direct to the playoff, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:38 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Only about 50 of them are profitable. .
Actually this is a bit misleading and a LONG STANDING college athletics myth.
In fact, a majority of college athletic programs support themselves quite well but only the top percent turn in their numbers in the black. Most schools simply spend right up to budget and then a little over, so their books show they don't need to have any cuts. There are programs in dire straights, but they're mostly less than the bottom half, and most notably, most of the HBCUs... which is a bit sad.
This post was edited on 12/7/18 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 12/8/18 at 6:04 am to Lordofwrath88
quote:
Most schools simply spend right up to budget and then a little over, so their books show they don't need to have any cuts.
While true it is a terrible way to do business as a sharp drop in donor dollars can be all the more damaging. Better to sock about 10% aside every year to protect for the rainy day.
Posted on 12/8/18 at 7:21 am to Lordofwrath88
quote:
Actually this is a bit misleading and a LONG STANDING college athletics myth.
In fact, a majority of college athletic programs support themselves quite well but only the top percent turn in their numbers in the black. Most schools simply spend right up to budget and then a little over, so their books show they don't need to have any cuts. There are programs in dire straights, but they're mostly less than the bottom half, and most notably, most of the HBCUs... which is a bit sad.
Not going to get into this again. But there is a debate about this.
I've gone long-winded before and put up linkies and the like.
Long story, short, the version I've seen and researched (if typing into a search engine and reading articles counts) indicates no more than 20 schools make a net profit from football. In fact the number might actually be ten.
Now you have written:
quote:
Most schools simply spend right up to budget and then a little over, so their books show they don't need to have any cuts.
That's interesting, and I don't know how it fits into the big picture.
I'll go further than football. Most schools lose money with athletics as a whole.
Which brings to mind why they are doing this. Other than the fact that State U. has always had a football team, always had a basketball team?
The usual people will put up the usual arguments, saying these P5 schools are awash in money. I don't believe that myself.
And one day in the next few years ESPN, which in the end has been the driving force in pumping money into athletics in this country at all levels, is no longer going to be profitable when the ongoing loss of subscribers reaches a certain point.
Then... I dunno what happens then.
Posted on 12/8/18 at 7:23 am to deeprig9
quote:...then it sounds like you need to start.
I don't drink liquor.
Posted on 12/8/18 at 8:53 am to Sunbeam
quote:
indicates no more than 20 schools make a net profit from football. In fact the number might actually be ten.
BS if there's a school not making a profit in the SEC
or Big 10 (sans Rutgers)it's their own fault and I think the majority of ACC and Big 12 schools are profitable .Both the SEC and BIG are awash in TV and bowl money every year...at least $40 to $50 million per school and that money has almost tripled over the last 25 years.The CFB playoff and bowl deal with ESPN is worth $500 million per year alone. Revenue isn't an issue but many schools spend money like drunken sailors
with a bloated athletic depts,facility upgrades and coaching staffs/buyouts (yes I know SOME are picked up by boosters)
quote:
Then... I dunno what happens then.
Easy,the future is gonna be streaming...the NFL and MLB
are already doing it and Facebook and Netflix are worth
more than all big 3 networks combined plus ESPN.
This post was edited on 12/8/18 at 11:27 am
Posted on 12/8/18 at 11:00 am to BamaGradinTn
You seem like a condescending douche but ill play along
Lots, I also am a Bama grad
There isnt that much excitement for cupcake games, especially nowadays.
Like I said earlier, cfb will ride that train to rock bottom.
No one gives a rats arse about these teams. Only 3 of those schools have a significant fanbase and thats barely for football. Losing a home game wont wreck San Antonio or Murfreesboro.
CFB had just 11 games not that long ago. The extra game is nothing but a cash grab and a way to fleece fans.
These teams arent P5 teams. They can schedule 20 games for all I care.
The P5 conferences dont owe these schools anything. They are already worthless programs whose only purpose is to go on the road and be pinatas for good teams to destroy so that their athletic departments can get paid. They value $$$$ over their athletes ever having a chance at a national title.
Sounds like you have financial interests in one of these non power 5 schools...
Alabama 1978 schedule:
Nebraska
at Mizzou
USC
Vandy
at Washington
at Kentucky
at Tennessee
Va Tech
Miss State
LSU
Auburn
Its not absurd at all
What im getting most from this post is that you have a stick up your arse. Why you get all salty about someone's opinion who wasnt even directed at you is beyond me. You cant disagree without being insulting? Im not exactly offering an offensive opinion or anything.
Unranked Pitt wouldnt make a TOP 16 team playoff...
Bro they got 2 SEC teams in a 4 team playoff last season, 2 SEC teams in a TWO team playoff in 2011 season. I think theyd just like to see their teams have a chance. Your nightmare scenario of SEC domination is already happening and frankly this model is sinking national interest in the game quickly.
so what? If they won the games to get there, people would at least respect that. I think you overestimate the likelihood of that happening.
Yes I was. Those were putrid schedules so ill concede that point. We lost to La Tech twice and lost to UCF once in Bham so its not like Bama was lighting the world on fire in the 90s.
Vandy...Baylor...yall take a knee and listen up. I know yall may be excited about your game..and thats great...but it is completely meaningless to any sort of championship. Most people will only watch if they are betting on the game or they are extremely bored. Its really just an exhibition game if we are really being honest. Your best players who are NFL bound, if you have any, are probably going to sit out the game. Yall have fun though!!
Also a glorified exhibition because both teams were lowly or unranked. That said, probably several other bowls that season actually had national title implications.
Im not really even saying to ditch the bowls. Incorporate them into the playoff and divvy out the rest to the non-16 or just give out the bowls to the the non playoff teams. There Vandy and Baylor can keep their meaningless bowl game.
quote:
Serious question: Have you ever been to a football game on a college campus?
Lots, I also am a Bama grad
quote:
The crowds, the excitement, potential students visiting,
There isnt that much excitement for cupcake games, especially nowadays.
quote:
revenue not just for the school but also the community.
Like I said earlier, cfb will ride that train to rock bottom.
quote:
So what you're saying is that Louisiana Tech, MTSU, UTSA, Illinois, Indiana, Wake Forest, and about 95 other schools who would never in 50 years even sniff a whiff of this expanded playoff, should willingly give up one of those events so that four to eight more elite teams can get into the playoffs. Not only will that never happen...no, it's not even a good idea.
No one gives a rats arse about these teams. Only 3 of those schools have a significant fanbase and thats barely for football. Losing a home game wont wreck San Antonio or Murfreesboro.
CFB had just 11 games not that long ago. The extra game is nothing but a cash grab and a way to fleece fans.
quote:
Sure, you may like the idea of Alabama hosting one of those first round games. Do you actually think that Indiana and Rice and Wyoming, etc., etc,., etc., etc. etc., would like the idea of giving up a home game so Alabama and Ohio State can have those games on their campuses?
These teams arent P5 teams. They can schedule 20 games for all I care.
quote:
So that, combined with your 11 game schedule, means that only one G5 team gets to be paid by an Alabama or Georgia, instead of three. Yeah, I'm sure the 60 teams in the G5 would just jump right on board with that.
The P5 conferences dont owe these schools anything. They are already worthless programs whose only purpose is to go on the road and be pinatas for good teams to destroy so that their athletic departments can get paid. They value $$$$ over their athletes ever having a chance at a national title.
quote:
I'm saying only one non P-5 game is not a good idea and is so unrealistic it's absurd to even think about.
Sounds like you have financial interests in one of these non power 5 schools...
Alabama 1978 schedule:
Nebraska
at Mizzou
USC
Vandy
at Washington
at Kentucky
at Tennessee
Va Tech
Miss State
LSU
Auburn
Its not absurd at all
quote:
No, we don't "gotta", and this season has just provided more evidence. Neither Washington nor Utah has any business in a playoff discussion...not to mention potentially an unranked Pitt.
What im getting most from this post is that you have a stick up your arse. Why you get all salty about someone's opinion who wasnt even directed at you is beyond me. You cant disagree without being insulting? Im not exactly offering an offensive opinion or anything.
Unranked Pitt wouldnt make a TOP 16 team playoff...
quote:
There are 5 SEC teams in the top 16. Do you think the rest of the country has the stomach for 5 SEC teams in a 16 team playoff? Because that's exactly what you're gonna have unless you start having 4 and 5 loss teams get in.
Bro they got 2 SEC teams in a 4 team playoff last season, 2 SEC teams in a TWO team playoff in 2011 season. I think theyd just like to see their teams have a chance. Your nightmare scenario of SEC domination is already happening and frankly this model is sinking national interest in the game quickly.
quote:
You think people didn't like Alabama-Georgia? Just wait until it's Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and LSU in the Final Four.
so what? If they won the games to get there, people would at least respect that. I think you overestimate the likelihood of that happening.
quote:
Not true at all. Another serious question...were you alive in the early nineties?
Yes I was. Those were putrid schedules so ill concede that point. We lost to La Tech twice and lost to UCF once in Bham so its not like Bama was lighting the world on fire in the 90s.
quote:
Meaningful to whom? You? Try telling Vanderbilt that their game with Baylor isn't "meaningful." Do you think they care whether or not some message board poster thinks it's "meaningful"?
Vandy...Baylor...yall take a knee and listen up. I know yall may be excited about your game..and thats great...but it is completely meaningless to any sort of championship. Most people will only watch if they are betting on the game or they are extremely bored. Its really just an exhibition game if we are really being honest. Your best players who are NFL bound, if you have any, are probably going to sit out the game. Yall have fun though!!
quote:
Or, we can go the other direction...since you think those bowl games used to be so meaningful. Tell us how meaningful that Bluebonnet Bowl game we had with Oklahoma in 1970 was. Tell us how much was riding on the Kansas Cowboy's toe.
Also a glorified exhibition because both teams were lowly or unranked. That said, probably several other bowls that season actually had national title implications.
Im not really even saying to ditch the bowls. Incorporate them into the playoff and divvy out the rest to the non-16 or just give out the bowls to the the non playoff teams. There Vandy and Baylor can keep their meaningless bowl game.
Posted on 12/8/18 at 11:08 am to bamafan1001
CFB games vary widely in the experience. Even in P5 - ever been to a game in Austin? It’s the wine and cheese crowd, and the atmosphere is terrible. Same goes for CU, UCLA, and many others I’ve been to. A&M, LSU, PSU - those are experiences that to me define what CFB should be
Once you leave P5 it is even worse. Only non-P5 games I’ve been to that don’t suck are the USAF, Army, Navy, etc ... I agree that CFB is in its death throes. D1 will split off officially into the haves and have nots in the next decade. And once you leave the two big sports, the differences become even more pronounced.
Once you leave P5 it is even worse. Only non-P5 games I’ve been to that don’t suck are the USAF, Army, Navy, etc ... I agree that CFB is in its death throes. D1 will split off officially into the haves and have nots in the next decade. And once you leave the two big sports, the differences become even more pronounced.
Posted on 12/8/18 at 2:00 pm to Kcoyote
Dear Diary
Posted on 12/8/18 at 7:15 pm to Sunbeam
quote:
I'll go further than football. Most schools lose money with athletics as a whole.
Again. TECHINCALLY you're correct if you cover all divisions and NAIA etc, most schools do lose money ultimately.
But as far as the FBS goes, (that's G5 and P5) virtually none of them are even close to hemorrhaging money or even any sort of "problem" They're all spending exactly what they mean to spend and coincidentally all come up to just a little bit over their income.
The FCS and down is where you only really start to run into programs that who are throwing cash out a window for no reason other than "sportsball is the cooliest"
This post was edited on 12/8/18 at 7:17 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News