Started By
Message
re: Why do we bother really?
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:27 pm to Sunbeam
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:27 pm to Sunbeam
I mean, if y'all don't lose to Navy late in the season in 84. And you don't lose at home to 7-5 Auburn in 2011. And you don't give up 44 points to Jeff Driskel in 2012. And you don't lose to 5-7 Butch Jones in 2013... 
0
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:28 pm to REBSontheRISE
quote:
and Freeze paid a heavy price for playing the same game that the bluebloods play for free.
He was to sloppy about it. And it's not just the bluebloods, even little DIII schools do the same thing.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:29 pm to Korin
"Equity in Athletics."
Hmmm explain something to me.
If UF put Florida Field up for sale, who would buy it?
Lessee if I can remember the profitable SEC teams at least.
Bama, A&M, Georgia, LSU, UF, were on the list for sure.
South Carolina was run at a net loss, and the Mississippi schools. Vandy may have been profitable, but I don't think they are engaging in the arms race the Gumps started with Saban. Can't remember if UT was profitable.
Literally Bama is a poster child for what's wrong with college sports. Once upon a time people got excited about it, but all these stupid buildings people are building now, paying 35 "analysts" to be a bullpen for coaching changes and watching film, paying ex-players to scrimmage your team... that just wasn't done.
But if the Gumps do it and are successful, everyone else has to engage in the zero sum game (which isn't winnable for most teams) or get left behind.
Talk about a Red Queen's race. Only most schools aren't as profitable as Alabama.
Hmmm explain something to me.
If UF put Florida Field up for sale, who would buy it?
Lessee if I can remember the profitable SEC teams at least.
Bama, A&M, Georgia, LSU, UF, were on the list for sure.
South Carolina was run at a net loss, and the Mississippi schools. Vandy may have been profitable, but I don't think they are engaging in the arms race the Gumps started with Saban. Can't remember if UT was profitable.
Literally Bama is a poster child for what's wrong with college sports. Once upon a time people got excited about it, but all these stupid buildings people are building now, paying 35 "analysts" to be a bullpen for coaching changes and watching film, paying ex-players to scrimmage your team... that just wasn't done.
But if the Gumps do it and are successful, everyone else has to engage in the zero sum game (which isn't winnable for most teams) or get left behind.
Talk about a Red Queen's race. Only most schools aren't as profitable as Alabama.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:29 pm to Sunbeam
quote:
If we have a game (in a mathematical sense), and the odds are against you, why play?
To try to become one of those elites. Look through history, there's a good deal of turnover within the teams winning all the championships. Really, Alabama and Ohio State are the only schools who have occupied that space through every era (I would add Notre Dame to that, but they haven't won a title in some 30 years).
There was a time where the Ivy League schools dominated, then there was a time where the service academies dominated. Minnesota had a brief dynasty. So did Georgia Tech. So did Miami. LSU was never really a powerhouse until the 2000's.
Schools can become powerhouses and come out of the wild blue to compete for championships, it's just really damned hard.
There's also the outlier years along the way. BYU, Colorado, Georgia Tech and Washington have all won titles in the last 40 years.
I guess the question is, is it emotionally worth it to you to keep investing yourself in it. I can't answer that for you, but I would say that the answer from almost everyone on this board is yes.
Why? We love the sport and we love our teams. Simple as that.
Georgia's never won a national championship in my relatively young lifetime, so under your logic, why bother? The answer is because I love football and I love the Dawgs and I understand that the chance is there, even if it always seems to be just a milimeter beyond possible grasp because of fricking Alabama.
Am I a fool? Maybe. Hell, probably, but I don't care. The wins are too damn fun and the thrills and nerves that come with every Fall Saturday are some of my favorite things in the world. If you don't have a passion for the sport, then walk away. Do what makes you happy, because life's sure as shite too short to spend time on an "entertainment" venture that ultimately makes you bitter and resentful.
This post was edited on 9/9/18 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:30 pm to Sunbeam
You're not "remembering" anything. Look up every SEC school on that site, they all turn a profit in football (even Vandy).
South Carolina
revenue: $60,264,364
expenses: $34,794,858
South Carolina
revenue: $60,264,364
expenses: $34,794,858
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:42 pm to Korin
Looked for my post, but said screw it.
Here's one link:
LINK /
And an excerpt:
"What’s more, there’s actually a kind of hierarchy among the top-tier football programs. According to Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian, authors of The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football (2013), figures from the 2010-11 academic year show that only 22 of the 120 top-tier football programs broke even or made a profit. That means that while these big-time teams generate millions of dollars of revenue, the cost of running such programs usually exceeds that revenue. To put that more starkly, even within the so-called top tier, 82% of college football teams actually take away money from the university’s budget, rather than generate net revenue. (The NCAA’s figures are, perhaps predictably, less damning with just over half the teams generating profit.) Benedict and Keteyian’s figures suggest that the overwhelming majority of top-tier athletic departments require their universities to allocate funds from elsewhere in the school’s budget for the sake of football. Thus, the myth that college football generates revenue for universities is a lie 82% of the time among the highest grossing “tier” of teams."
Some of the other articles I found indicated only TEN college football programs made money. I'm not talking about money going to Title IX, I'm talking about the school having to subsidize it.
Here's one link:
LINK /
And an excerpt:
"What’s more, there’s actually a kind of hierarchy among the top-tier football programs. According to Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian, authors of The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football (2013), figures from the 2010-11 academic year show that only 22 of the 120 top-tier football programs broke even or made a profit. That means that while these big-time teams generate millions of dollars of revenue, the cost of running such programs usually exceeds that revenue. To put that more starkly, even within the so-called top tier, 82% of college football teams actually take away money from the university’s budget, rather than generate net revenue. (The NCAA’s figures are, perhaps predictably, less damning with just over half the teams generating profit.) Benedict and Keteyian’s figures suggest that the overwhelming majority of top-tier athletic departments require their universities to allocate funds from elsewhere in the school’s budget for the sake of football. Thus, the myth that college football generates revenue for universities is a lie 82% of the time among the highest grossing “tier” of teams."
Some of the other articles I found indicated only TEN college football programs made money. I'm not talking about money going to Title IX, I'm talking about the school having to subsidize it.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:43 pm to Korin
Yeah. He’s confusing football profit with athletic department profit.
Very few schools have athletic departments which are profitable.
Very few schools have athletic departments which are profitable.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:45 pm to Sunbeam
You’re sort of right.
The G5 conferences should create their own playoff system because there is no way they will make the current playoff.
You have a division with 120 teams but only 4 make the playoffs lmao
The G5 conferences should create their own playoff system because there is no way they will make the current playoff.
You have a division with 120 teams but only 4 make the playoffs lmao
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:46 pm to Sunbeam
quote:
South Carolina was run at a net loss
We spend all of our money for a reason. It's not good to show a profit ... although, I will admit, the arms race bubble will burst one day.
You are aware, are you not, that we are one of the few schools in the country that funds an emergency fund and contributes anywhere from two to ten million anually to the fund.
Right now, in order to really recruit and compete, we absolutely had to upgrade facilities ... we were way behind in the arms race just ten short years ago and we've been on a spending binge while catching-up Sunbeam, out of necessity.
We've got probably two more years of spending big time and then we'll have to start giving money to the academic side of things ... to buy more property in Olympia and in the golden triangle between Bluff and Shop Roads. At least that's the plan. But that's not until after the East Lower gets upfitted and I keep hearing there a couple more renovations headed basketball's way.
This football ops building is going to help us a lot. It shows commitment to the program. It's a palace as you know.
The additional advisors and recruiting staff and video people and film evaluators ... they are a necessary evil these days. Jessica Jackson and her crew do a grear job. Justin King is the best in the business. Having a tenth coach to recruit is another big plus. Having Marcus around as a spokesperson has been huge.
It's an arm race friend and either we play to win or we give up.
Don't give up. We're closer to getting where we need to be than you may think right now.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:46 pm to Sunbeam
UGA literally made this guy’s arse quit, lmao
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:49 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. He’s confusing football profit with athletic department profit.
No I'm not.
My claim is this:
Football is not profitable for most schools. Revenue from TV rights, concessions, ticket sales, and merchandise is less than outlays on football for most schools.
That's my contention. And if it is true (obviously I think it is), why do most schools play football.
And that is before the liability risk that CTE could expose them to. It's only a matter of time before instrumentation is devised that is capable of detecting CTE in living subjects, non-invasively.
Then what? I'll tell you this, if a study indicates widespread CTE within the members of a team, new cases arising within one season, and exacerbated CTE, then football is over. Schools are going to run away so quick your head will spin.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:51 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. He’s confusing football profit with athletic department profit.
Probably. Still wrong though.
LINK /
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:54 pm to Sunbeam
Damn. OP is just broken
Posted on 9/9/18 at 10:00 pm to Sunbeam
You've strayed pretty far from your original points in the OP. It seems like now your question is "is football sustainable?"
Nobody definitively knows more than, say, 10 to 20 years down the road, but I don't think it's anything worth worrying about now to people who love the sport.
If CTE studies cause the death of football, there's not much any of us can do about it.
As for athletic department spending, University systems in America have bigger long-term concerns, I assure you, because public perception on higher education is shifting negatively in a way it never really has before. The last thing they're worried about is whether the football program gains or loses by 1 or 2 million. Even if it's slightly in the red, it's still probably a net benefit for the University because of brand exposure, and I think Korin has posted enough reputable info to prove that the claim of "82 percent of football programs losing money" is highly questionable at best.
Another element of this that's worth remembering is the ability of highly successful industries to find some way to survive even when they have no business doing so. Often, if there's still high public demand for a product, there will always remain a means to provide it and make money doing so.
If you love the sport and your team, keep watching it. If you don't, then don't. It's pretty simple at the end of the day. Unless you meant to aim this question towards Universities, but that's not how you really presented it in the OP.
Nobody definitively knows more than, say, 10 to 20 years down the road, but I don't think it's anything worth worrying about now to people who love the sport.
If CTE studies cause the death of football, there's not much any of us can do about it.
As for athletic department spending, University systems in America have bigger long-term concerns, I assure you, because public perception on higher education is shifting negatively in a way it never really has before. The last thing they're worried about is whether the football program gains or loses by 1 or 2 million. Even if it's slightly in the red, it's still probably a net benefit for the University because of brand exposure, and I think Korin has posted enough reputable info to prove that the claim of "82 percent of football programs losing money" is highly questionable at best.
Another element of this that's worth remembering is the ability of highly successful industries to find some way to survive even when they have no business doing so. Often, if there's still high public demand for a product, there will always remain a means to provide it and make money doing so.
If you love the sport and your team, keep watching it. If you don't, then don't. It's pretty simple at the end of the day. Unless you meant to aim this question towards Universities, but that's not how you really presented it in the OP.
This post was edited on 9/9/18 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 9/9/18 at 10:07 pm to Sunbeam
college football is an event. it's about saturdays in the fall, supporting your school. hanging out with friends and pretty girls. it's more about saturday than w/e happens at the end of the season.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 10:50 pm to Sunbeam
Nothing’s really changed, just perception. There’s always been a top 10. Out of that top 10, only the top 4 or 5 had any chance of a NC. What’s changed, in reality, for USCe? When’s the last time you had a realistic chance at a NC?
Georgia, Florida, Texas, California, Ohio, etc. produce the most quality HS players in the US. It would follow logic that schools in those states would have the best college teams. But an anomaly exists. Bama and Clemson, schools from states that have pretty good HS football, are able to get a good base from their home state, and can recruit kids from GA, FL, etc. to pad their roster. That’s really the same scenario that’s always existed, just a few names occasionally change.
UGA benefits from a very strong HS football system. Every time we get a decent HC, we are successful. Now we have one who’s an excellent coach and recruiter, so he’s keeping the five stars home and snagging a few from other states (most of the five stars you indicated are from GA). So what has changed and what’s the fowl? UGA is keeping its talent home, and USCe, Auburn, etc. can’t steal the normal blue chips they’ve been used to getting.
The NC this season will probably be decided among UGA, Bama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State, maybe Wisconsin, etc. Go back 20 years and see what the NC bowl matchups were. Probably similar. USCe wasn’t in the mix then, and is not now.
Nothing’s changed, just your perception.
Georgia, Florida, Texas, California, Ohio, etc. produce the most quality HS players in the US. It would follow logic that schools in those states would have the best college teams. But an anomaly exists. Bama and Clemson, schools from states that have pretty good HS football, are able to get a good base from their home state, and can recruit kids from GA, FL, etc. to pad their roster. That’s really the same scenario that’s always existed, just a few names occasionally change.
UGA benefits from a very strong HS football system. Every time we get a decent HC, we are successful. Now we have one who’s an excellent coach and recruiter, so he’s keeping the five stars home and snagging a few from other states (most of the five stars you indicated are from GA). So what has changed and what’s the fowl? UGA is keeping its talent home, and USCe, Auburn, etc. can’t steal the normal blue chips they’ve been used to getting.
The NC this season will probably be decided among UGA, Bama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State, maybe Wisconsin, etc. Go back 20 years and see what the NC bowl matchups were. Probably similar. USCe wasn’t in the mix then, and is not now.
Nothing’s changed, just your perception.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 10:52 pm to TailbackU
quote:
I said this in a post earlier last week and got blasted for it but it's true none the less. At least 3 of the spots are already taken. And that's the way it is every year it's going to get worse.
There are among 6 to 8 teams that will make the playoffs every year. Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia, Oklahoma, maybe someone from the Pac 12. Bama and Georgia play such a joke schedule that they are virtually assured a spot.
There are a few teams that every now and then may find the magic depending on their schedule. Auburn, A&M, FSU, TX, VaTech, USC, Mich, Mich St. PSU, but it will be rare.
The NCAA better be careful what they have wished for. They're gonna kill the golden goose. College football was unique among sport. Bowl games, conference championships, etc. Now basically nothing matters but the playoffs. It doesn't even matter if you win your division me anymore.
With soccer coming and fewer and fewer kids playing football, people are going to continue to lose interest.
There’s no whine better than Aubie whine. Delicious!
Posted on 9/9/18 at 10:59 pm to Sunbeam
Too much money on the table for that to happen. Football will survive.
Major college football will probably contract in 2023 or so, but it won’t go away. It might be consolidated into a NFL-like super conference by a Netflix hungry for content (but not current conferences it doesn’t respect). Football will go on.
Programs are scrambling to make that cut when it happens, which is why everything matters right now unless you are a blue blood.
Major college football will probably contract in 2023 or so, but it won’t go away. It might be consolidated into a NFL-like super conference by a Netflix hungry for content (but not current conferences it doesn’t respect). Football will go on.
Programs are scrambling to make that cut when it happens, which is why everything matters right now unless you are a blue blood.
Page 6 of 8
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News