More conference realignment talk

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

We all know the percentage of revenue for these programs are going back into football.  The incremental revenue isn’t going to lead to better women’s soccer, men’s volleyball, etc.

Of course it is. As the total pool of money grows, the percentages split between the sports typically stays the same (and Title IX requires that women's sports as a whole get an equitable split with men's sports). So when football makes more money, all the sports make more money. That doesn't guarantee success but it gives them more resources with which to chase success.

You’re also disregarding the debt for which athletic dept’s run in. This isn’t in the best interest of literally anyone. College sports are a mess - the latest move isn’t gone lead to positives.

I'm not disregarding anything. Athletics raises 5-10 times what they spend, not just direct income but donations driven by athletics. That is the money that gets reinvested into the university, often directly into the endowment which then grows even more.

But I'm glad we have so many visionaries on this board who can clearly see how universities have been making mistakes for decades and have been running giant money sucks that are harming the university's bottom line while somehow simultaneously making "the people at the top" obscene amount of money. It's a wonder that every single D1 university hasn't figured this out but so many on Scoop have.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

My only concern with this consolidation of power is its long term impact (or not so long term) on CBB, the college sport that I and most of us on here care about way more than college football. My fear, however irrational, is that this will lead to another division of bball higher than MU will be allowed to play in.  I don’t want MU to be a “buy game” at some point for a school that once was a peer if not below our status. 

The money doesn’t bother me.  The consolidation of power does. This is different than “what has alway happened in college athletics”.  I hope MU is not second tier/class 10-25 years from now.

That is the most likely outcome. College athletics will consolidate to the point of diminishing returns. Colleges make decisions on an individual basis and will do so until the money starts shrinking. I think it it a logical outcome in 25 years to have 30 D1 schools.
The hierarchy for college sports (football, men's basketball) is 1. School/Team 2. Conference 3. The Sport/NCAA
The hierarchy for other professional sports are 1. The Sport/League 2. The Team.

Other professional sports like the NFL and teams like the Jets understand their competition is MLB, NBA, MLS, movies, reality TV shows, HBO and NOT the Packer or Cowboys or Titans.

Michigan or Ohio State would put the boot on Wisconsin's or Illinois' neck in a second to get a better contract or win more games. So yes, the idea of 30 team D1 is real.

For football this is a possibility though I don't think it will shrink to 30. More in the realm of 45-50. It won't happen in basketball. You need more inventory in college basketball. It may shrink from 360+, but I don't think it will shrink below 120.

College sports is just another minor league. The only reason it is profitable is because of people's connections to their alma maters or schools they grew up cheering for. You lop too many of those out and it just becomes the g-league or the XFL.

[forgetful]

I'm not disregarding anything. Athletics raises 5-10 times what they spend, not just direct income but donations driven by athletics. That is the money that gets reinvested into the university, often directly into the endowment which then grows even more.

But I'm glad we have so many visionaries on this board who can clearly see how universities have been making mistakes for decades and have been running giant money sucks that are harming the university's bottom line while somehow simultaneously making "the people at the top" obscene amount of money. It's a wonder that every single D1 university hasn't figured this out but so many on Scoop have.

TAMU, the data does not support your first bolded assertion. Time-series data over all institutions for multiple years indicates that athletic performance does not have a consistent and significant effect on donations. Those making assertions like yours usually point to artifactual data, e.g. Loyola-Chicago, but neglect larger data sets, which contradict these artifacts.

Regarding the second bolded. For me at least, I'm not being visionary, I'm referencing actual conversations with institutional leaders, that both state the same thing you are, but also acknowledge that largely they are just stuck working with the system as it is, because change is hard and often major athletic supporters are on the board that makes decisions. They also acknowledge a significant fear of what to do in the future, as most from this generation and to some extent the previous generation, do not have the same connection between athletics and their University, and in some cases have an animosity regarding the relationship between athletics, tuition costs, and their University.

[WhiteTrash]

College sports is just another minor league. The only reason it is profitable is because of people's connections to their alma maters or schools they grew up cheering for. You lop too many of those out and it just becomes the g-league or the XFL.

Your thinking like the NBA or NFL not like college presidents. I trust you, the NFL and NBA more than NCAA members.

NCAA members just "lopped" off fans of Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

TAMU, the data does not support your first bolded assertion. Time-series data over all institutions for multiple years indicates that athletic performance does not have a consistent and significant effect on donations. Those making assertions like yours usually point to artifactual data, e.g. Loyola-Chicago, but neglect larger data sets, which contradict these artifacts.

I don't believe TAMU asserted that success in athletics necessarily correlates with increase philanthropy. Schools can struggle on the field or the court, but still use athletics to drive engagement or philanthropy.  Look at Northwestern for instance.

Regarding the second bolded. For me at least, I'm not being visionary, I'm referencing actual conversations with institutional leaders, that both state the same thing you are, but also acknowledge that largely they are just stuck working with the system as it is, because change is hard and often major athletic supporters are on the board that makes decisions. They also acknowledge a significant fear of what to do in the future, as most from this generation and to some extent the previous generation, do not have the same connection between athletics and their University, and in some cases have an animosity regarding the relationship between athletics, tuition costs, and their University.

You accuse TAMU of using "artificial data," but then use an anecdote. Not terribly consistent. 

[El Guerrero 2]

He's explained this twice. He's not talking about the direct money earned by athletics. He is talking about the alumni engagement and philanthropy that occurs around athletic activities.

Marcus Lemonis sits with President Lovell at a basketball game, National Marquette Day, etc.  Marquette's primary "point of pride" and "point of connection" is the men's basketball team.

I have said this before, but intercollegiate athletics for many D1 schools is their most effective marketing tool. At the lower levels, it is a huge enrollment driver.

Saying that college athletics is a good marketing and promotional tool is one thing, something no rational person would dispute. Saying it advances institution’s educational / philanthropic missions is quite another, and a ludicrous proposition. And the thing about donors motivated by athletics is that they donate to… athletics. Otherwise the SEC would be the Ivy League.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Saying that college athletics is a good marketing and promotional tool is one thing, something no rational person would dispute. Saying it advances institution’s educational / philanthropic missions is quite another, and a ludicrous proposition.

I don't know how a follower (and presumably a graduate) of Marquette can say that with a straight face.

[El Guerrero 2]

I'm not disregarding anything. Athletics raises 5-10 times what they spend, not just direct income but donations driven by athletics. That is the money that gets reinvested into the university, often directly into the endowment which then grows even more.

But I'm glad we have so many visionaries on this board who can clearly see how universities have been making mistakes for decades and have been running giant money sucks that are harming the university's bottom line while somehow simultaneously making "the people at the top" obscene amount of money. It's a wonder that every single D1 university hasn't figured this out but so many on Scoop have.

You realize that your claim here is that the University of Alabama athletics raise between $1 and 2 billion annually. And those funds then get reinvested instep a school with an endowment of $1.09 billion. They must be the world’s worst hedge fund managers.

[forgetful]

I don't believe TAMU asserted that success in athletics necessarily correlates with increase philanthropy. Schools can struggle on the field or the court, but still use athletics to drive engagement or philanthropy.  Look at Northwestern for instance.

Then why worry about needing to spend more money on athletics, if success doesn't matter?

Also, in that case, there is no data to support an assertion that athletics raises general funding, rather it is just a case of "well that's how it has always been done". The latter is for the most parts true. A reluctance to make a change.

You accuse TAMU of using "artificial data," but then use an anecdote. Not terribly consistent.

I'm really not accusing TAMU of anything. Nor am I saying my data/side is better. I greatly respect TAMU's knowledge in this area, and understand and appreciate his perspective. Rather, I was just adding additional commentary, and giving perspective on where my statements/perspective are coming from, because they are different...not necessarily better...just different.

Not all discussions are a "I'm right, you're wrong" situation, rather it can be just an open discussion of information and different viewpoints so people can appreciate and understand other stances.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Then why worry about needing to spend more money on athletics, if success doesn't matter?

Also, in that case, there is no data to support an assertion that athletics raises general funding, rather it is just a case of "well that's how it has always been done". The latter is for the most parts true. A reluctance to make a change.

I just don't believe that every single division one school is making these decisions out of a reluctance to change.

And to answer your question, winning is better than losing.

[WhiteTrash]

You realize that your claim here is that the University of Alabama athletics raise between $1 and 2 billion annually. And those funds then get reinvested instep a school with an endowment of $1.09 billion. They must be the world’s worst hedge fund managers.

I think Alabama went heavy on Redman Chewing Tobacco and Bud Light in their portfolio. 

[Herman Cain]

This hasn't been my experience with the free market. I've found that most companies don't focus on maximizing value to their customers, they focus on providing the value that is most profitable to them while still providing enough value to keep customers coming back...which is exactly what these universities are doing. The loss of rivalries, the consolidation of power, the brutal travel on student athletes, the decrease in winning (for most programs)....all of that sucks for fans, but...

This is exactly right. Even though most fans/customers hate these changes, they will still come back for more. So if changing conferences will make the university more money and the fans will come back despite hating it, than the university is doing exactly what any smart organization would do.

Just make sure you keep that same energy for the next time a company moves thousands of jobs overseas to save money, or causes an environmental disaster without technically breaking the law, or upcharges a life saving medicine like insulin beyond what a middle class family can afford.

Most good companies focus on providing the customer a strong product or strong experience, care about their employees and communities. They then channel all that into tiers of product and experience, value propositions at different price points. Profits are an outgrowth of a well managed organization. The market, and politics, weeds out businesses that are strictly bottom line oriented with no regard for the customer.

All that said, College Sports are not a business. They are a development tool as has been pointed out by several in this thread. For the D1 Major schools the marketing and visibility help generate a steady stream of contributions to the overall University. To the D3 schools, Athletes helps drive enrollment, that is why so many of these schools build their future planning around that.

I believe the only people really carping about college realignment are those fans and observers in the left behind schools. I doubt very much Texas A & M and Mizzou fans yearn for their old conference. As a Big Ten College Football supporter, I am delighted to see the Pac -12 teams come on board, hopefully we can get it back to where we were in the 70s when the out of conference games were all solid teams, not cream puffs paid to lose.

However, even being left behind is not the end of the world. There is always an opportunity to improve and upgrade, Houston , BYU , Cincy and UCF are testament to that.

As far as MU goes, I hope The Big East can retain U Conn , as they have been a helpful addition to our leagues cause. However, again its not the end of the world if they leave. Some other school can emerge as strong player in the conference.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Your thinking like the NBA or NFL not like college presidents. I trust you, the NFL and NBA more than NCAA members.

I don't think this is as true as you think. I think college presidents are acutely aware of this reality.

NCAA members just "lopped" off fans of Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU.

They didn't "lop off" the PAC 4, at least not in the way we were talking about earlier. You said there would be 30 D1 teams. No one has been removed from D1 at this point. Washington State still plays at the same level as Alabama.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Then why worry about needing to spend more money on athletics, if success doesn't matter?

Because while success in an individual year doesn't matter, success over time (or perhaps more accurately, lack of failure over time) does. If your program descends to DePaul levels, that is going to impact your alumni engagement, giving, and recruitment negatively. Further, conference realignment is equally about security as it is money. Power is consolidating and in order to be safe you need to be in a power conference. It used to be the Power 6, then it was the Power 5, now it is the Power 4, soon it will be the Power 3. Eventually it will probably be the Power 2. You have to jump on those lifeboats whenever you can.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

All that said, College Sports are not a business.

I agree with a lot of your post, but the above is simply naïve. Of course they are a business, at least at the FBS level.

[Skatastrophy]

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Not sure how practically that works…

[WhiteTrash]

I don't think this is as true as you think. I think college presidents are acutely aware of this reality.

They didn't "lop off" the PAC 4, at least not in the way we were talking about earlier. You said there would be 30 D1 teams. No one has been removed from D1 at this point. Washington State still plays at the same level as Alabama.

I think you give the presidents too much credit. You'd need to point out examples to me to change my mind.

I did say the fans were 'lopped off', not the schools (yet). And yes, WSU plays at the same level of Alabama as does Chicago State play at the same level of Duke.  I did say 30 teams, in about 25 years.

The overall point is the college's view the health of the product strictly as what is best for each individual school. There is no care about the overall product and growing or preserving the product. BUT, up till now the TV money and gambling interest has fueled sustained growth for decades. They have not faced the challenges of the the entertainment industry that Hollywood and NBA, etc. have had. Maybe they never will and my point is moot, we'll see. I'd guess PAC12 fans may feel different.

[WhiteTrash]

I agree with a lot of your post, but the above is simply naïve. Of course they are a business, at least at the FBS level.

Agreed. If college sports (FBS level) is not a business than neither is Conoco, GM or Apple. I hope Herman meant something different, because that was right up there with 'the world is flat' claims. 

[Skatastrophy]

Not sure how practically that works…

I'm sure the football schools will tell us.

[Herman Cain]

I agree with a lot of your post, but the above is simply naïve. Of course they are a business, at least at the FBS level.

Agreed. If college sports (FBS level) is not a business than neither is Conoco, GM or Apple. I hope Herman meant something different, because that was right up there with 'the world is flat' claims. 

I oversimplified what I meant. To clarify , while College Sports at The FBS level have large revenues in total and have lots of  business like aspects, the are effectively a collection of not- for profit organizations when taken as a whole governed by their trade association (NCAA) with no overarching strategic plan . For example, that means including the mandated sponsorship of all the various varsity sports for both genders. They have massive imbedded investments that are necessary to compete with limited return going in.

So College Sports value proposition , is derived from what they create for the overall University.  As opposed to a granular P & L, designed to yield profits  and make an appropriate risk adjusted return on their Invested Assets.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I agree with a lot of your post, but the above is simply naïve. Of course they are a business, at least at the FBS level.

And it's now time for the IRS to tax the sports side of universities and for the FTC to start regulating competition. If BAMA is pulling in $1-2B per year, that is a much bigger pot of gold to go after than my airline and hotel points. There is simply no reason to maintain the tax free status of this cartel.

[WhiteTrash]

And it's now time for the IRS to tax the sports side of universities and for the FTC to start regulating competition. If BAMA is pulling in $1-2B per year, that is a much bigger pot of gold to go after than my airline and hotel points. There is simply no reason to maintain the tax free status of this cartel.

Ha. So true.  I have been told multiple times on this site the universities are paying tax on athletics income.

[Shooter McGavin]

And it's now time for the IRS to tax the sports side of universities and for the FTC to start regulating competition. If BAMA is pulling in $1-2B per year, that is a much bigger pot of gold to go after than my airline and hotel points. There is simply no reason to maintain the tax free status of this cartel.

Yep. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And it's now time for the IRS to tax the sports side of universities and for the FTC to start regulating competition. If BAMA is pulling in $1-2B per year, that is a much bigger pot of gold to go after than my airline and hotel points. There is simply no reason to maintain the tax free status of this cartel.

Of course there's a reason. They are fundraising tools that support higher education. You can argue that this is too flimsy of a reason but my guess is they start taxing megachurches before they tax college sports.