http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2010-11/big-east-expansion/story/big-east-football-plan-does-marquette-dirty#subnav
I want to be pissed about this, but he might have a point. My problem with this whole situation, as others have said, is Seton Hall and Providence aren't stepping up to the plate financially but are getting no scrutiny. PC I can understand, since the offices are there.
The headline is a little jarring, but the meat of the story is essentially correct. The BE's alligence to basketball has been a problem for its development as a football conference for 20+ years.
The Big East can have the best of both worlds but need to be proactive and selective about expansion. I'd target a Florida or Texas strategy. Maybe both.
Could the other 14 schools get together and boot out Marquette and Depaul for this reason? I know its somewhat far fetched, but do the big east by-laws prevent this?
The only answer left is to add football.
As I have previously stated, my understanding is that it will only cost $13.74 to get the program up and running.
Quote from: MUCam on November 03, 2010, 11:07:24 AM
The only answer left is to add football.
As I have previously stated, my understanding is that it will only cost $13.74 to get the program up and running.
Cool. I'm in. Pencil me down for $1.53, which is what I have in my pocket in change right now. Just another $12.21 and we've got a football program!
...and I suggest pencil because I may spend that money at the vending machine later.
This is not good news. If we are doing all the right things and still getting articles like this, then there is not much we can do.
If they do kick out 2 bball only schools, will they go with tradition and boot MU and DePaul, or will they go with winning and the chance at the Chicago market and kick out PC and SH. GTown and St. John's sound safe based on the NY/DC market, tradition, and winning.
I think the point of the article is that MU has been too successful to throw out.
I think the point of the article is that football rules, basketball success be damned.
Quote from: bilsu on November 03, 2010, 11:24:46 AM
I think the point of the article is that MU has been too successful to throw out.
+1. Otherwise, DeCourcy would have picked on DePaul... a much easier target.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on November 03, 2010, 11:23:53 AM
This is not good news. If we are doing all the right things and still getting articles like this, then there is not much we can do.
That was my gut reaction at first as well. It can't help recruiting, that's for sure.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 03, 2010, 11:30:40 AM
I think the point of the article is that football rules, basketball success be damned.
I hate that it comes down to that, but it's true. Disappointing.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 03, 2010, 11:30:40 AM
I think the point of the article is that football rules, basketball success be damned.
That's exactly right.
I've got to believe once MU and DePaul signed in they became just as hard to throw out as an original member. With that in mind I can't imagine that MU would be any more of a target than say Providence. If anyone is asked to leave (and I doubt that in the first place as from a money standpoint more is almost always better) it will probably be the cold calculus of which BB only schools bring in the least money for BE, which enhance BE the least in tv revenue and tv market reach and which have the least likelihood of getting better based on program investment. Based on those parameters we are currently towards the top of that list, not towards the bottom. Short of all BB only schools being cut loose I wouldn't be too concerned.
Kick out PC and Seton Hall.
I don't think anyone is going to get the boot anyways.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 03, 2010, 11:30:40 AM
I think the point of the article is that football rules, basketball success be damned.
I can see where you're going, but I think it would be better if it read:
"I think the point of the article is that
football the BCS rules,
basketball success NCAA be damned."
So how soon before the NCAA wises up and kick the BCS to the curb?
Nothing is going to happen for another year or two so just relax so all we can do is relax and enjoy the season
Marquette fans calling for Providence to go is like Sonny Corleone trying to kick Vito out of the family. Politically, they are a giant fish in the Big East. We'd have a better bet of seeing DePaul and Seton Hall go, but I'm not sure if that's a good thing either. If DePaul leaves, it puts Marquette on an island with a relatively small television market.
I'd say that along with SHU and DePaul we are most vulnerable, but my gut says if DePaul goes, we go with them.
Quote from: bilsu on November 03, 2010, 11:24:46 AM
I think the point of the article is that MU has been too successful to throw out.
No. Marquette wil get tossed at some point, along with DePaul, for the sake of football. football is the engine in big time college sports.
Quote from: 79Warrior on November 03, 2010, 12:19:29 PM
No. Marquette wil get tossed at some point, along with DePaul, for the sake of football. football is the engine in big time college sports.
Correct. Basketball revenue is a tiny drop in the ocean. Yes, the NCAA tournament money is huge, but it's spent on ALL sports and not just on basketball. Football is king.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 03, 2010, 12:18:51 PM
Marquette fans calling for Providence to go is like Sonny Corleone trying to kick Vito out of the family.
Providence= Fredo. Fredo was older and should have had more political power but got passed up by Michael.
Times change. MU/DePaul is a bigger money maker in the long run. Chicago would embrace DePaul if they started winning and this recent MU renaissance in hoops helps us too.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on November 03, 2010, 12:32:50 PM
Providence= Fredo. Fredo was older and should have had more political power but got passed up by Michael.
Times change. MU/DePaul is a bigger money maker in the long run. Chicago would embrace DePaul if they started winning and this recent MU renaissance in hoops helps us too.
The thing with Chicago is that it's more than just the DMA size, which is obviously huge, but the recruiting angle. The other schools want DePaul for the recruiting base. They can come in there and say we're playing in Chicago and Milwaukee every year, plus Notre Dame just up the road. The television eyeballs in Chicago that give a damn about DePaul is super low right now. The recruiting base is a gold mine, potentially, for the conference.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 03, 2010, 11:30:40 AM
I think the point of the article is that football rules, basketball success be damned.
This.
Knowing we'd be kicked out eventually we should have just packed it up after Crean departed and sucked hard like DePaul. A lot less stressful.
But we hired Buzz and now we'll elevate our winning and it will be more excruciating when they drop us.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 03, 2010, 12:43:39 PM
The thing with Chicago is that it's more than just the DMA size, which is obviously huge, but the recruiting angle. The other schools want DePaul for the recruiting base. They can come in there and say we're playing in Chicago and Milwaukee every year, plus Notre Dame just up the road. The television eyeballs in Chicago that give a damn about DePaul is super low right now. The recruiting base is a gold mine, potentially, for the conference.
I never thought about that form a recruiting perspective. That is a very good point.
I think that rating/attendance would go up with DePaul's improvement. Chicago will wake up and support and any winner, and many fans will stay loyal through tough times once they are hooked.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on November 03, 2010, 12:46:02 PM
This.
Knowing we'd be kicked out eventually we should have just packed it up after Crean departed and sucked hard like DePaul. A lot less stressful.
But we hired Buzz and now we'll elevate our winning and it will be more excruciating when they drop us.
Yep. That is the way it goes. It will be tough but with some planning we can be ok. It will not be terrible if we can position ourselves into a quality hoops league.
No one has mentioned Notre Dame in all this yet. They're obviously a huge part in an expansion discussion, be it Big East or Big Ten.
Buzz has always said he'll stay as long as MU wants him, but it's a two way street. If the Big East dumps MU, it relegates us to mid major status. Losing the Big East makes Gonzaga and Xavier our ceiling. That's not what he signed up for and I wouldn't blame him if he felt unwanted under those circumstances.
Quote from: Benny B on November 03, 2010, 12:09:21 PM
So how soon before the NCAA wises up and kick the BCS to the curb?
Never.
The NCAA is at the whim of its member institutions...especially the larger ones. They will not be able to touch the football profits because the BCS schools won't let them. If they try doing so, those schools can simply leave and do their own thing not only in football, but in each of the other sports that the NCAA relies on them for.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2010, 12:58:03 PM
Buzz has always said he'll stay as long as MU wants him, but it's a two way street. If the Big East dumps MU, it relegates us to mid major status. Losing the Big East makes Gonzaga and Xavier our ceiling. That's not what he signed up for and I wouldn't blame him if he felt unwanted under those circumstances.
Uh...was he in high demand when he "signed up" at MU?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2010, 12:58:03 PM
Losing the Big East makes Gonzaga and Xavier our ceiling. That's not what he signed up for and I wouldn't blame him if he felt unwanted under those circumstances.
That's a helluva ceiling. I'm not sure many here would be unhappy with Xavier-like success.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2010, 12:58:03 PM
Buzz has always said he'll stay as long as MU wants him, but it's a two way street. If the Big East dumps MU, it relegates us to mid major status. Losing the Big East makes Gonzaga and Xavier our ceiling. That's not what he signed up for and I wouldn't blame him if he felt unwanted under those circumstances.
How have we compared the last 10 years vs. Gonzaga or X???? Seems to me both the Zags and X have had more success than MU.
Without Wade, X and Gonzaga are clearly ahead of MU for the decade. I would take the highs of having Wade and the Final Four rather than more consistent March winning for the other two programs, but thats a toss up.
MU has the Al legacy which trumps them.
We better appreciate X, because with the Big East, we would likely be headlining an A-10 type of conference with them.
The article doesn't really call us out, just implies that it was a mistake adding us in terms of seeing the Big East as a football conference.
In fact it seems to be a congratulatory piece about the success of Marquette basketball making it a difficult decision. He seems to toss DePaul to the side easily, whereas they are in the same position as us. I think it's more of an article about how the Big East screwed up by considering us at all simply because we don't have a football program.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 03, 2010, 01:01:07 PM
Uh...was he in high demand when he "signed up" at MU?
I don't know what that has to do with it. My point is that when he signed MU's commitment to competing with the best was clear. A move from the Big East to, say, the A10 changes the landscape.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2010, 03:00:41 PM
I don't know what that has to do with it. My point is that when he signed MU's commitment to competing with the best was clear. A move from the Big East to, say, the A10 changes the landscape.
My point is that if MU was still in the CUSA, he wouldn't have been waiting for offers for teams in more competitive conferences. He still would have signed on as head coach. So saying "that's not what he signed up for" is inaccurate.
Quote from: 79Warrior on November 03, 2010, 01:41:29 PM
How have we compared the last 10 years vs. Gonzaga or X???? Seems to me both the Zags and X have had more success than MU.
I'm not saying that we've outdone Gonzaga or Xavier over the last 10 years. We haven't. I do think that that we have the potential (ceiling) to become a "top tier" Big East team (Syracuse, Nova, Pitt, Georgetown), and to me that's a step up from Gonzaga or Xavier. If we drop down to the A10, though, I think the most we can even HOPE for is to be Xavier.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 03, 2010, 03:03:01 PM
My point is that if MU was still in the CUSA, he wouldn't have been waiting for offers for teams in more competitive conferences. He still would have signed on as head coach. So saying "that's not what he signed up for" is inaccurate.
He signed up to coach Marquette in the Big East and said he was here as long as Marquette wanted him. That was based in part on MU's commitment to compete at the highest level. If circumstances (a return to a CUSA like situation) make it impossible to compete at that level then MU shouldn't expect to keep him.
Just think for one moment where we would be right now if we didn't accomplish what we did from 2000-2003.
For all the haters out there, just think about it for a second. Would we even be in the Big East right now to have this discussion?
Would we have built the program up enough to be able to say 5 straight NCAA appearances?
Would we have been able to lure a head coach at another DI school to be an assistant (Buzz Williams)?
Timing is everything gang. Just think about if we would be where we are today if not for what happened in that time period. Takes some of that shine of the hate, now doesn't it!
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 03, 2010, 01:00:12 PM
Never.
The NCAA is at the whim of its member institutions...especially the larger ones. They will not be able to touch the football profits because the BCS schools won't let them. If they try doing so, those schools can simply leave and do their own thing not only in football, but in each of the other sports that the NCAA relies on them for.
They rely on the NCAA much more for those other sports than the NCAA relies on them. That's perhaps the only reason the BCS schools haven't split off on their own already. Administration of the other non-revenue sports is an overwhelming hassle that they don't want to take on. They'd much rather leave it to the NCAA than try to deal with the headaches themselves.
Quote from: bma725 on November 03, 2010, 03:57:18 PM
They rely on the NCAA much more for those other sports than the NCAA relies on them. That's perhaps the only reason the BCS schools haven't split off on their own already. Administration of the other non-revenue sports is an overwhelming hassle that they don't want to take on. They'd much rather leave it to the NCAA than try to deal with the headaches themselves.
Right. Everything is in balance right now. However, if the NCAA makes a grab at football money, that rapidly pushes it out of balance.
"Just think for one moment where we would be right now if we didn't accomplish what we did from 2000-2003."
Translation: All hail the tan one...
Quote from: HoopsMalone on November 03, 2010, 01:47:22 PM
We better appreciate X, because with the Big East, we would likely be headlining an A-10 type of conference with them.
This. We will see this sometime in the future. Some modified version of the A-10, with MU and Depaul in it, will more than likely be happening. It might not be ideal, but it won't be Armageddon.
Quote from: PE8983 on November 03, 2010, 04:06:44 PM
"Just think for one moment where we would be right now if we didn't accomplish what we did from 2000-2003."
Translation: All hail the tan one...
Well, he's right. Without the work that Crean did leading up to the Final Four, we aren't in the BE.
Wow. We got thru 2+ whole pages of conference talk before he found a way to praise TC - must have fallen asleep...
Quote from: PE8983 on November 03, 2010, 04:06:44 PM
"Just think for one moment where we would be right now if we didn't accomplish what we did from 2000-2003."
Translation: All hail the tan one even if you hate him and think he was a SOB, you've got to respect and appreciate what he brought to the program...
FTFY
If you don't pay your buck o'five who will.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2010, 12:58:03 PM
Buzz has always said he'll stay as long as MU wants him, but it's a two way street. If the Big East dumps MU, it relegates us to mid major status. Losing the Big East makes Gonzaga and Xavier our ceiling. That's not what he signed up for and I wouldn't blame him if he felt unwanted under those circumstances.
It seems to me that Gonzaga and Xavier are better programs than us.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2010, 03:41:49 PM
He signed up to coach Marquette in the Big East and said he was here as long as Marquette wanted him. That was based in part on MU's commitment to compete at the highest level. If circumstances (a return to a CUSA like situation) make it impossible to compete at that level then MU shouldn't expect to keep him.
Memphis competes at a high level. Losing the Big East conference would hurt, but it does not mean we will not still be competing at a high level.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2010, 03:41:49 PM
He signed up to coach Marquette in the Big East and said he was here as long as Marquette wanted him. That was based in part on MU's commitment to compete at the highest level. If circumstances (a return to a CUSA like situation) make it impossible to compete at that level then MU shouldn't expect to keep him.
Buzz signed on to coach New Orleans. Then he signed up to be an
assistant coach at MU. I seriously doubt that he felt that a successful Big East team represented the floor for someone with his coaching experience.
Frankly, had we hired Brad Brownell instead of Buzz, its likely that Buzz would have been
more than happy to sign up for the vacancy at Wright State.
Finally, given that both Gonzaga and Xavier (and let's throw in Butler) have reached the Sweet 16 or better during Buzz's tenure at MU, suggesting that those programs somehow operate at a lower competitive level seems to be contrary to fact.
Quote from: PE8983 on November 03, 2010, 04:06:44 PM
"Just think for one moment where we would be right now if we didn't accomplish what we did from 2000-2003."
Translation: All hail the tan one...
Translation...timing is everything and hatred blinds reality.
if MU gets pushed out of the BE the program will begin to trend downward.
Quote from: john_cocktoasten on November 03, 2010, 05:15:20 PM
if MU gets pushed out of the BE the program will begin to trend downward.
I'm not so sure about this. I think if we do get bumped, it really depends on where we go and if we can retain Buzz. Everyone thought C-USA would be a complete wasteland after the Big East came for us and the others, but Memphis has been able to thrive, continuing to recruit at a very high level and reaching a national title game. If we end up in the right conference and can absolutely dominate during the conference season, while continuing to do well in the non-conference and starting to show up in March, there's no reason we can't do what Memphis has done.
Of course, it's possible that it was just Calipari and questionable recruiting tactics, but Pastner has kept up their recruiting, and there are other teams that show that you don't have to be in a major conference to have high-level success (Butler, Gonzaga, George Mason). Of course we all want to stay in the Big East, but if we ended up in C-USA, the A-10, or another higher-level mid-major and were able to dominate, I fully believe that Buzz could still use Marquette's pedigree to continue the program at a high level.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 03, 2010, 04:06:31 PM
Right. Everything is in balance right now. However, if the NCAA makes a grab at football money, that rapidly pushes it out of balance.
Hypothetically, if the NCAA did make a grab, what are the BCS member institutions going to do? Go off and start their own association? Not a chance.
But let's assume the BCS
is up for the logistical nightmare that is organizing anew. Now you have two college athletic associations competing for the best talent. And how do you attract the most talented unpaid athletes in the world? Easy: pay them. The agents have already thought of this -- all they need is for a door to crack open. Shake up the NCAA, and you've just ripped that door from the hinges.
The NCAA isn't part of the balance, they are the balance - they are the ones who keep student-athletes unpaid. If you have to start paying your performers, that Big Ten TV contract won't be so big anymore.
The BCS claiming that they'll simply "take their ball and go home" is an empty threat... the bottom line is that if this is indeed all about money, then the BCS needs the NCAA; however, the NCAA doesn't need the BCS.
Quote from: Benny B on November 03, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
Hypothetically, if the NCAA did make a grab, what are the BCS member institutions going to do? Go off and start their own association? Not a chance.
But let's assume the BCS is up for the logistical nightmare that is organizing anew. Now you have two college athletic associations competing for the best talent. And how do you attract the most talented unpaid athletes in the world? Easy: pay them. The agents have already thought of this -- all they need is for a door to crack open. Shake up the NCAA, and you've just ripped that door from the hinges.
The NCAA isn't part of the balance, they are the balance - they are the ones who keep student-athletes unpaid. If you have to start paying your performers, that Big Ten TV contract won't be so big anymore.
The BCS claiming that they'll simply "take their ball and go home" is an empty threat... the bottom line is that if this is indeed all about money, then the BCS needs the NCAA; however, the NCAA doesn't need the BCS.
The BCS schools already split from the NCAA for football. They could do the same for basketball and there's nothing the NCAA could do about it.
Your comment about two leagues competing for talent belies the fact that the association with Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc. will get the best talent, and the one with Prairie View, IUPUI, St. Peters, etc, will not.
Would the big east really have been that much better off with Central Florida joining the conference back in 2005 instead of Marquette?
"Translation...timing is everything and hatred blinds reality."
Notice that I didn't say one thing about what he did or didn't do. Just commenting that you interject TC stuff into every thread (same thing you blame others for).
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 03, 2010, 05:27:24 PM
I'm not so sure about this. I think if we do get bumped, it really depends on where we go and if we can retain Buzz.
Buzz has said he will stay as long as we will have him
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 03, 2010, 12:58:03 PM
Buzz has always said he'll stay as long as MU wants him, but it's a two way street. If the Big East dumps MU, it relegates us to mid major status. Losing the Big East makes Gonzaga and Xavier our ceiling. That's not what he signed up for and I wouldn't blame him if he felt unwanted under those circumstances.
Blasphemy. You mean it has conditions? Hmm, that sounds awfully one sided. Was he crossing his fingers when he said he would stay as long as we would have him?
Gonzaga and Xavier "ceiling"? Since they have exceeded what we have done most years, doesn't sound like a bad ceiling. Didn't Butler, George Mason, etc blow the lid off the idea of ceilings? Hell, it might actually make it easier to get to the dance depending on where we would land. I'm so disappointed to hear that it was a one way commitment.......or maybe he'll be just like any other coach out there that will move on a moment's notice if they feel it betters their career, etc. My guess is the latter.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 03, 2010, 06:18:28 PM
Buzz has said he will stay as long as we will have him
Yes, and I hope we can believe him when he says that, but this is major college athletics. If we ended up in the the Horizon and a school like Texas came calling, could anyone really begrudge him for leaving? I believe in Buzz, and I believe he fully intends to stay here, but in today's NCAA, the landscape and reality can shift quickly, and it'd be hard to blame him for adapting to that.
And Chicos, it seems like all you're trying to do is stir the Crean/Buzz pot again. No need for that...we have 7,342,268 other threads for that.
Quote from: Benny B on November 03, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
Hypothetically, if the NCAA did make a grab, what are the BCS member institutions going to do? Go off and start their own association? Not a chance.
But let's assume the BCS is up for the logistical nightmare that is organizing anew. Now you have two college athletic associations competing for the best talent. And how do you attract the most talented unpaid athletes in the world? Easy: pay them. The agents have already thought of this -- all they need is for a door to crack open. Shake up the NCAA, and you've just ripped that door from the hinges.
The NCAA isn't part of the balance, they are the balance - they are the ones who keep student-athletes unpaid. If you have to start paying your performers, that Big Ten TV contract won't be so big anymore.
The BCS claiming that they'll simply "take their ball and go home" is an empty threat... the bottom line is that if this is indeed all about money, then the BCS needs the NCAA; however, the NCAA doesn't need the BCS.
Actually, thats exactly what they could do. Not that I think it is likely, but it is definitely in the realm of possibilities, and has been openly discussed lately with all the realignment. When the 4 main conferences expand somewhere from 16-20 teams (eventually), there is nothing to stop them from forming separate league with its own sponsors and championships. Hell, the NCAA is the only sporting organization that allows its postseason to be basically outsourced in the form of the BCS.
They could even hypothetically split to their own basketball league of 64-80 teams as well. The NCAA is basically a voluntary organization. The argument is, why do the teams that make all the money have to support the other 30-40 that don't.
From there they could make their own eligibility rules, allow athletes to get paid, etc. This would not hurt their revenue AT ALL because they already dropped a lot of dead weight and the student would only be paid in small stipends that would only minimally affect the bottom line (which they should be anyways since they cant even have a job on campus).
To think that paying athletes is the single reason why the BCS cant leave the NCAA is naive. And dont be surprised if some movement on this issue begins soon, its the single best way to limit and restrict the powers of these agents have in college sports, and the momentum is gaining.
Quote from: PE8983 on November 03, 2010, 04:06:44 PM
"Just think for one moment where we would be right now if we didn't accomplish what we did from 2000-2003."
Translation: All hail the tan one...
Ok, seriously, I think when bringing up conference realignment and how fortunate Marquette was to get a chance in the Big East, bringing up the successes of Tom Crean as being paramount to our current position and still future success is hardly off-topic, especially when comparing to the decade of winning that Gonzaga, Butler and Xavier have had.
Obviously we are in a better position than all of them, and all would rather be in our position, but pure success is debatable....and all of that is due to 1) Tom Crean, and 2) Dwyane Wade. I absolutely LOVE Buzz and what he is doing, but everyone has to stop wetting their pants every time his name is brought relevantly, as though it is an automatic challenge to or knock on Buzz.
It takes very high level coaching to consistently win like a Gonzaga has when you're in a mid-major conference and then other struggling programs in major conferences will consistently try to lure that coach away.
Just look at how many of our recruits the last few years mentioned being able to play in the Big East as a sizable reason for picking Marquette.
Getting booted out of the Big East and thus being forced to join a mid-major conference would be a massive massive blow to the MU program and would in turn leave us vulnerable to being just one bad coaching hire away from being a program that's largely ignored by all top 100 recruits.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 03, 2010, 06:49:30 PM
Yes, and I hope we can believe him when he says that, but this is major college athletics.
Exactly. And as such, believing any statement by ANY coach that says he's staying as long as we will have him is ridiculous.
I'm not stirring anything...we simply wouldn't be in this position if not for the timing of our run. We our extremely fortunate to be where we are right now.
Buzz loves MU, because it fits his values. People's priorties often change, but as long as Buzz feels he fits in with the University, I believe he will stay. I see a change in the university's president as a bigger threat than a change in the conference. Buzz felt very comfortable with Fr. Wild. You never know how he will feel about a new president.
Paying student athletes is a non starter. It's not going to happen because of Title IX.
You would have to pay the female and male non-revenue athletes. That would be the end of college athletics as we know it
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on November 03, 2010, 12:46:02 PM
This.
Knowing we'd be kicked out eventually we should have just packed it up after Crean departed and sucked hard like DePaul. A lot less stressful.
But we hired Buzz and now we'll elevate our winning and it will be more excruciating when they drop us.
The sting of a butt jam is never without pain, regardless of vaseline application.
This would have NEVER happened if we were still Warriors.
NO ONE would kick out a Warrior.
NO
ONE.
On Big Ten Football and Beyond which airs on the BTN on Wednesday night's, they reported that the Big East wants TCU as a football only school.
Has a conference ever kicked out a member? I thought all conference re-alignments were due to members leaving, not being kicked out.
How does a school get kicked out? nine schools (a majority) vote them out? You think the 8 non-football schools would vote one of their own out? Does that open it up for them to get kicked out later? Would all the non-footballs schools really want to set this precedent?
How about Nova? Would Nova vote us out? If so, does this put them under extreme pressure to get their football team competitive right away? If not, and the precedent is set, could the other BE members decide that Memphis is a better football school, and a good basketball school and boot out Nova to make room?
Does the BE really want to go down this road of voting members out (off the island). Once you start, does it stop at 1 or end in chaos?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 04, 2010, 08:00:35 AM
Has a conference ever kicked out a member?
The Big East kicked out Temple for football.
DeCourcy is Crean's asswipe. Therefore, much to do about nothing.
Quote from: Benny B on November 03, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
Hypothetically, if the NCAA did make a grab, what are the BCS member institutions going to do? Go off and start their own association? Not a chance.
But let's assume the BCS is up for the logistical nightmare that is organizing anew. Now you have two college athletic associations competing for the best talent. And how do you attract the most talented unpaid athletes in the world? Easy: pay them. The agents have already thought of this -- all they need is for a door to crack open. Shake up the NCAA, and you've just ripped that door from the hinges.
The NCAA isn't part of the balance, they are the balance - they are the ones who keep student-athletes unpaid. If you have to start paying your performers, that Big Ten TV contract won't be so big anymore.
The BCS claiming that they'll simply "take their ball and go home" is an empty threat... the bottom line is that if this is indeed all about money, then the BCS needs the NCAA; however, the NCAA doesn't need the BCS.
The NCAA doesn't need the BCS, but they need the BCS institutions. Don't think for a minute that starting their own association hasn't been discussed. The BCS schools most definately *could* do this, and *would* do this if the NCAA makes a grab for their football money. And what does that do to the NCAA? It guts their major money maker - March Madness.
And there wouldn't be competition for long for major college basketball players. The BCS conferences already get most of them. And if the other conferences have to pay for them, it just takes away more revenue. As I said, right now the BCS schools are fine with the NCAA. The NCAA provides a framework for competition that they don't want to replicate, and the schools keep their football money.
It's amazing that this thread has gone nearly four pages now and nobody has mentioned the 800-pound gorilla in the room - the Congress of the United States of America.
Anybody who thinks senators and representatives from states with strong non-BCS programs (i.e. Utah, Idaho, Nevada, etc.) are simply going to let the federally funded BCS institutions "take their ball and go home" is out of their effing gourds. The BCS is on shaky enough ground as it is with Congress, not to mention the current occupant of the White House. Breaking off into a separate organization that literally leave hundreds of universities (some with fairly powerful alums) in a lerch would spell all kinds of trouble - starting with the loss of tax-exempt status for athletics and bowl games - for the BCS institutions.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2010, 09:38:43 AM
It's amazing that this thread has gone nearly four pages now and nobody has mentioned the 800-pound gorilla in the room - the Congress of the United States of America.
Anybody who thinks senators and representatives from states with strong non-BCS programs (i.e. Utah, Idaho, Nevada, etc.) are simply going to let the federally funded BCS institutions "take their ball and go home" is out of their effing gourds. The BCS is on shaky enough ground as it is with Congress, not to mention the current occupant of the White House. Breaking off into a separate organization that literally leave hundreds of universities (some with fairly powerful alums) in a lerch would spell all kinds of trouble - starting with the loss of tax-exempt status for athletics and bowl games - for the BCS institutions.
U-S-A! U-S-A!
If only Joe McCarthy was still around to go to bat for us on this one. Jim Delany? Commie.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2010, 09:38:43 AM
It's amazing that this thread has gone nearly four pages now and nobody has mentioned the 800-pound gorilla in the room - the Congress of the United States of America.
Anybody who thinks senators and representatives from states with strong non-BCS programs (i.e. Utah, Idaho, Nevada, etc.) are simply going to let the federally funded BCS institutions "take their ball and go home" is out of their effing gourds. The BCS is on shaky enough ground as it is with Congress, not to mention the current occupant of the White House. Breaking off into a separate organization that literally leave hundreds of universities (some with fairly powerful alums) in a lerch would spell all kinds of trouble - starting with the loss of tax-exempt status for athletics and bowl games - for the BCS institutions.
The BCS hearings before Congress were met with a collective "Why are you wasting your time doing this?" when Hatch sponsored them before. Congress will bluster, but in the end won't do anything...especially since the Pac 12 will include Utah.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 04, 2010, 10:18:20 AM
The BCS hearings before Congress were met with a collective "Why are you wasting your time doing this?" when Hatch sponsored them before. Congress will bluster, but in the end won't do anything...especially since the Pac 12 will include Utah.
A split between the BCS and the NCAA would be an entirely different context than the previous hearings. I doubt the collective perspective would be the same.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 04, 2010, 10:18:20 AM
The BCS hearings before Congress were met with a collective "Why are you wasting your time doing this?" when Hatch sponsored them before. Congress will bluster, but in the end won't do anything...especially since the Pac 12 will include Utah.
But not Hatch's alma mater, BYU. Or Utah State, Harry Reid's alma mater, for that matter. Or Boise State, UNLV, Hawaii and many others with some influence in their home states.
If the BCS schools break off, they would have abandoned all pretense that their athletics departments are part of an "educational program," but rather are for-profit corporations. As for-profit operations, they very easily could (and should, IMO) be stripped of their tax-exempt status. As would the bowl games they provide them with their millions in revenue. As would any basketball tournament established to compete with the NCAA tournament. And, of course, all the TV contracts they feed them most of their money would be subject to taxation.
That's a lot of money walking out the door, quite possibly too much to make it a profitable venture.
Another thought. If the BCS tried to break off and yet continue to get prefered tax treatment as an "educational" assoication wouldn't they run into issues with all the equal opportunities for women stuff that the NCAA has to deal with. NCAA schools already have to "waste" a bunch of revenue supporting non-revenue sports just to have equal opportunties for women. So would the BCS have to end up with Men's football + womens volleyball, softball, fencing etc etc just to make everything come out equal? ;D
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2010, 10:44:53 AM
But not Hatch's alma mater, BYU. Or Utah State, Harry Reid's alma mater, for that matter. Or Boise State, UNLV, Hawaii and many others with some influence in their home states.
If the BCS schools break off, they would have abandoned all pretense that their athletics departments are part of an "educational program," but rather are for-profit corporations. As for-profit operations, they very easily could (and should, IMO) be stripped of their tax-exempt status. As would the bowl games they provide them with their millions in revenue. As would any basketball tournament established to compete with the NCAA tournament. And, of course, all the TV contracts they feed them most of their money would be subject to taxation.
That's a lot of money walking out the door, quite possibly too much to make it a profitable venture.
I agree 100% with Pakuni. If the BCS ever attempted to split off there will be congressional hearings. And they wouldn't be pretty. Congress will make the BCS look like the oil executives or wall street (whether it was fair or not) the way smaller schools got pushed to the curb. Media and the guy on the street would side against the BCS. It would be a public relations catastrophe for the BCS.
Yes, the BCS would be portrayed as the ones who killed NCAA sports programs.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5763731
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 04, 2010, 05:46:25 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5763731
Love that these guys can't seem to offer a defense for themselves beyond the old "it's a waste of money" argument. I'm sure we could come up with hundreds of more egregious examples of government waste than investigating an antitrust claim.
Maybe the real waste of money, Bill, is failing over the years to collect potentially millions in tax revenues off your employers' business operations.
I have a very soft spot in my heart for Bill. Worked with him for two NCAA regionals at the Bradley Center...his son was later killed on the plane that crashed with the Oklahoma State basketball team. He's a good man, but unfortunately he's been asked to be a front man for the BCS and make an argument that can't stand on the merits (and I believe he knows it).
On the other hand, I don't like it when gov't interferes into most things.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 04, 2010, 06:21:55 PM
I have a very soft spot in my heart for Bill. Worked with him for two NCAA regionals at the Bradley Center...his son was later killed on the plane that crashed with the Oklahoma State basketball team. He's a good man, but unfortunately he's been asked to be a front man for the BCS and make an argument that can't stand on the merits (and I believe he knows it).
On the other hand, I don't like it when gov't interferes into most things.
That's fine, and I mean to attack the message more than the messenger.
Not to turn this into a political discussion, but government already interferes with college athletics by helping to fund member institutions and granting tax-exempt status for the substantial revenues athletics generate.
If they really wanted government to leave them alone and act free of oversight, then they should ask to be treated like any other business enterprise. But that's something of which they want no part.
For most institutions (vast majority), that is correct, but not all NCAA members receive federal aid.
The problem I have is that clearly the bcs schools are the kings os revenue and largely drive the market. I guess I don't understand how they are anti-competitive. I mean the non-bcs schools get crappy bowl tie-ins for a reason. The utah/tcu game is on cbs college for a reason. It isn't ani-competitive. Its demand for what the market has determined to be a superior product.
To follow up, what prevents say the Liberty Bowl from offering tens of millions every year to the winners of the CUSA and the WAC? Because they can't. ESPN won't pay that much for the game. Sponsors won't step up. The marketplace doesn't want to see it. They want Alabama and Ohio State.
Honestly it could be argued that the bcs helps the likes of Boise more than it hurts them. They've gotten millions more than they would have received in the open market.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 04, 2010, 06:48:45 PM
For most institutions (vast majority), that is correct, but not all NCAA members receive federal aid.
Example?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 04, 2010, 09:24:10 PM
To follow up, what prevents say the Liberty Bowl from offering tens of millions every year to the winners of the CUSA and the WAC? Because they can't. ESPN won't pay that much for the game. Sponsors won't step up. The marketplace doesn't want to see it. They want Alabama and Ohio State.
Honestly it could be argued that the bcs helps the likes of Boise more than it hurts them. They've gotten millions more than they would have received in the open market.
So if the marketplace wants the Yankees and Dodgers in the World Series every year, we just say to hell with the playoffs and give the viewers what's most in demand?? Personally, if I want to watch a sport where the whole thing is rigged, I'll tune into WWE.
Then again, WWE does happen to be quite popular amongst fans of both Alabama and Ohio State... coincidence?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 04, 2010, 09:24:10 PM
To follow up, what prevents say the Liberty Bowl from offering tens of millions every year to the winners of the CUSA and the WAC? Because they can't. ESPN won't pay that much for the game. Sponsors won't step up. The marketplace doesn't want to see it. They want Alabama and Ohio State.
Honestly it could be argued that the bcs helps the likes of Boise more than it hurts them. They've gotten millions more than they would have received in the open market.
But the BCS teams can't - or at least shouldn't be allowed to - argue that they're simply following the demands of the free market on one hand while expecting federal money and tax exemptions on the other. They're incompatible positions.
If those teams want to break off on their own, fine. But they should do so without the taxpayer-funded benefits they now receive. Why the heck should taxpayers help fund an exclusive club that benefits only its members?
If the BCS programs want to continue receiving the equivalent of corporate welfare - and it's dubious that they get it in the first place - then they must also accept some level of federal oversight and dictates. And I think most believe that should include a system under which more than just a select few have an opportunity to compete for national championships and elite bowls. If they want to go off on their own, then they should truly be off on their own. My guess is the majority of BCS programs - which earn less than $10 million a year in net income - wouldn't be too happy losing their tax exemption and other federal assistance.
Let's see how Texas feels about pay a 35 percent corporate tax on its $65 million football profit. Or Iowa on the $12 million it made from football last year. Or Purdue on its $5.6 million. Methinks they wouldn't be preaching about the open market then. I think they'd rather suffer the occasional BCS bowl appearance by Boise State or TCU.
Quote from: Benny B on November 04, 2010, 10:18:10 PM
So if the marketplace wants the Yankees and Dodgers in the World Series every year, we just say to hell with the playoffs and give the viewers what's most in demand??
Anti-trust law doesn't govern the best way to dole out championships, it governs restraint of trade. The BCS as a method of determining a champion sucks. Everyone knows this. If MLB decided to determine its World Series participants through an online poll, it would be stupid, but it wouldn't raise the ire of the Justice Department.
Pakuni, I don't think you understand one basic thing. If you get rid of the BCS as it currently stands, and revert back to the old system with a few tie-ins and the rest being a free-for-all, Boise and their types have no chance at all to get to major bowls. The biggest and most prestigious bowls are going to select the teams that give them the largest audience to keep their sponsors happy. And if you decide to tax those bowls, you are just going to make it worse because they'll now need to earn even more money.
The Pre-BCS era is *loaded* with teams that got no chance at the big money bowl games...BYU in 1984 played in the Holiday Bowl, Tulane in 1998 played in the Liberty Bowl. Both ended the season undefeated, but didn't play in the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar or any other bowl with major pay-outs.
The only reason people complain about the BCS now is because it is a sham way for determining a champion. But don't let that cloud your thinking about how and why the Department of Justice should be investigating it for anti-trust reasons. The BCS actually gives those teams a bigger chance now at $$$ than the old system did.
And if you want to tax intercolligiate athletics, that is a completely seperate issue. Why you would want "federal oversight" when no federal dollars go to athletics, but basically to research and student aid, is beyond me.
It's funny. Cracked Sidewalks led me to believe there was a 4-alarm fire going on over here. But it seems to me you read understood what I said.
I never said Marquette could or should be kicked out of the Big East.
No one should be kicked out of a league, and to my knowledge, no one ever has been at the highest levels.
Marquette is to be congratulated for its spectacular success since joining the Big East. The Golden Eagles certainly have made it a better league. It just seemed to me the league would have fewer headaches right now if that had not happened.
Good luck this season.
MD
Thanks for stopping by. It is an honor. As is the case with nearly every message board, we had some who read it one way and assumed you were trashing MU. Others didn't and there was a decent discussion. The way I read it, you were actually commending MU for its success in the BEast, but were questioning the original decision to invite since football dollars drive the system and the BEast now finds itself with a awkward business model.
Those who actually read the article understood your point. Those who simply read the headline, never got it.
Quote from: Tsnmike on November 05, 2010, 08:18:34 AM
It's funny. Cracked Sidewalks led me to believe there was a 4-alarm fire going on over here. But it seems to me you read understood what I said.
I never said Marquette could or should be kicked out of the Big East.
No one should be kicked out of a league, and to my knowledge, no one ever has been at the highest levels.
Marquette is to be congratulated for its spectacular success since joining the Big East. The Golden Eagles certainly have made it a better league. It just seemed to me the league would have fewer headaches right now if that had not happened.
Good luck this season.
MD
Welcome to the community, Mike.
Best,
TB
Quote from: Tsnmike on November 05, 2010, 08:18:34 AM
It's funny. Cracked Sidewalks led me to believe there was a 4-alarm fire going on over here. But it seems to me you read understood what I said.
I never said Marquette could or should be kicked out of the Big East.
No one should be kicked out of a league, and to my knowledge, no one ever has been at the highest levels.
Marquette is to be congratulated for its spectacular success since joining the Big East. The Golden Eagles certainly have made it a better league. It just seemed to me the league would have fewer headaches right now if that had not happened.
Good luck this season.
MD
Mike,
Let me reiterate tower's comments, many on this board have trouble comprehending or merely finishing an article at that. I enjoy your writing and thank you for the praise of MU Basketball.
Quote from: Tsnmike on November 05, 2010, 08:18:34 AM
It's funny. Cracked Sidewalks led me to believe there was a 4-alarm fire going on over here. But it seems to me you read understood what I said.
I never said Marquette could or should be kicked out of the Big East.
No one should be kicked out of a league, and to my knowledge, no one ever has been at the highest levels.
Marquette is to be congratulated for its spectacular success since joining the Big East. The Golden Eagles certainly have made it a better league. It just seemed to me the league would have fewer headaches right now if that had not happened.
Good luck this season.
MD
Welcome aboard....you're one of the best (though some people here will say you are a mouthpiece for our former coach).
Quote from: Tsnmike on November 05, 2010, 08:18:34 AM
It's funny. Cracked Sidewalks led me to believe there was a 4-alarm fire going on over here. But it seems to me you read understood what I said.
I never said Marquette could or should be kicked out of the Big East.
No one should be kicked out of a league, and to my knowledge, no one ever has been at the highest levels.
Marquette is to be congratulated for its spectacular success since joining the Big East. The Golden Eagles certainly have made it a better league. It just seemed to me the league would have fewer headaches right now if that had not happened.
Good luck this season.
MD
Check the IP... make sure this isn't Chicos' alter ego or something.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 05, 2010, 07:55:39 AM
If MLB decided to determine its World Series participants through an online poll, it would be stupid, but it wouldn't raise the ire of the Justice Department.
Justice Department, probably not since an actual crime isn't being committed, but Washington would certainly get involved if two criteria were satisfied:
1) Public outrage on to which a senator or congressman (or woman) could latch... I could name 96 senators who would love to be at the forefront (i.e. in the limelight) of this movement.
2) Any excuse - no matter how far fetched - to claim some sort of jurisdiction, oversight or control over the accused... that little "exemption" MLB receives from the gov't would be quite a stretch, but it would definitely be enough to call a hearing.
Quote from: Tsnmike on November 05, 2010, 08:18:34 AM
It's funny. Cracked Sidewalks led me to believe there was a 4-alarm fire going on over here. But it seems to me you read understood what I said.
I never said Marquette could or should be kicked out of the Big East.
No one should be kicked out of a league, and to my knowledge, no one ever has been at the highest levels.
Marquette is to be congratulated for its spectacular success since joining the Big East. The Golden Eagles certainly have made it a better league. It just seemed to me the league would have fewer headaches right now if that had not happened.
Good luck this season.
MD
Tim said "The MUScoop community is all over this one". Welcome to the longest thread on the front page.
Marquette is a burden to the Big East. We're doing really well, but adding us was a mistake.
Thanks for the backhanded compliments. I think your writing is decent, but it's too bad the Sporting News isn't as good as other content providers. See what I did there?
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2010, 10:44:53 AM
But not Hatch's alma mater, BYU. Or Utah State, Harry Reid's alma mater, for that matter. Or Boise State, UNLV, Hawaii and many others with some influence in their home states.
If the BCS schools break off, they would have abandoned all pretense that their athletics departments are part of an "educational program," but rather are for-profit corporations. As for-profit operations, they very easily could (and should, IMO) be stripped of their tax-exempt status. As would the bowl games they provide them with their millions in revenue. As would any basketball tournament established to compete with the NCAA tournament. And, of course, all the TV contracts they feed them most of their money would be subject to taxation.
That's a lot of money walking out the door, quite possibly too much to make it a profitable venture.
The tax exempt status only has value if you actually make money. Losses from one year will carry forward to offset future year's income for 15 years. The big issue here would be the allocation of indirect expenses. Why the badgers have a lot of revenue, I am not sure, if you remove donations, that the sport programs actually make money. It is hard to tell, because of the way expenses are allocated. However, if the sports programs were taxable as unrelated businesses the allocation of indirect expenses would be more highly scrutinized.
For example the president of a university would be an indirect expense to the sports program. The issue would be how much of his or her salary should be allocated to the sports program. Or how much of the Al Center expense should be allocated, if it is also used by nonathletic department people. The indirect expenses would be the biggest issue as you would need a valid method for allocating each expense. It also would be a bigger issue, if they kept the tax-exempt status for the non-revenue sports, which are the real money lossers. The universities would argue that the other sports are required, so that their losses will offset the revenue sports. In the long run losing tax exempt status is more of an accounting nightmare than the potential taxes that would need be paid. there are probably 10 universities at the most that would pay any tax at all.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 05, 2010, 08:04:42 AM
Pakuni, I don't think you understand one basic thing. If you get rid of the BCS as it currently stands, and revert back to the old system with a few tie-ins and the rest being a free-for-all, Boise and their types have no chance at all to get to major bowls. The biggest and most prestigious bowls are going to select the teams that give them the largest audience to keep their sponsors happy. And if you decide to tax those bowls, you are just going to make it worse because they'll now need to earn even more money.
The Pre-BCS era is *loaded* with teams that got no chance at the big money bowl games...BYU in 1984 played in the Holiday Bowl, Tulane in 1998 played in the Liberty Bowl. Both ended the season undefeated, but didn't play in the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar or any other bowl with major pay-outs.
The only reason people complain about the BCS now is because it is a sham way for determining a champion. But don't let that cloud your thinking about how and why the Department of Justice should be investigating it for anti-trust reasons. The BCS actually gives those teams a bigger chance now at $$$ than the old system did.
And if you want to tax intercolligiate athletics, that is a completely seperate issue. Why you would want "federal oversight" when no federal dollars go to athletics, but basically to research and student aid, is beyond me.
You're presenting a false choice here .... BCS or pre-BCS.
Why not create something better (and more fair) than either? Why not create something that doesn't consolidate the power into the hands of a limited group? Why isn't that be an option? The fans want it. The networks want it. Many programs and even some coaches want it. Everybody but the powerbrokers in the BCS conferences and te bloated bowl committees wants it, because it could force them to share even more of the pie and weaken their fiefdoms.
Defending the current broken and unfair system by stating that the previous system was even more broken and unfair isn't much of a defense.
And no, taxing athletics revenues is not a completely separate issues. Athletics Departments receive tax-exempt status under the outdated premise that they are part of an educational system. The BCS system as it stands - and certainly if those programs were to break away and form their own group - pretty much does away with that pretense. College athletics, at least at that level - is nothing more than a for-profit business operation. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem, however, with for-profit business operations getting massive tax breaks by claiming they're something they're not. Arguing that athletic programs don't receive federal money seems, at best, misleading.
And while athletic departments may not directly receive federal dollars, those dollars indirectly support athletics by supporting the colleges and universities themselves. That's the entire basis for Title IX, and has long been a legally settled question.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on November 05, 2010, 09:31:49 AM
Tim said "The MUScoop community is all over this one". Welcome to the longest thread on the front page.
Marquette is a burden to the Big East. We're doing really well, but adding us was a mistake.
Thanks for the backhanded compliments. I think your writing is decent, but it's too bad the Sporting News isn't as good as other content providers. See what I did there?
The whole point of the article that the Big East should of added two football schools instead of MU and DePaul. It would be difficult to kick out a program that has been as successful as MU has been. I have no doubt that, if we have sucked as much as DePaul has since entering the Big East it would be a no brainer. It also will be hard to kick just DePaul out and keep MU. DePaul should be thanking us for saving their butts. The reality is the conference is not big enough for basketball. The problem is having to play mirror games to get to an 18 game schedule. The perfect conference for an 18 game schedule would be 10 teams and then you play everyone twice in a home and home schedule. This of course will not work, if you want 12 football teams to have a conference championship. Therefore the perfect conference would be to have 12 or 14 teams for football and 19 teams for basketball. 19 team league you play everyone once and alternate each year on whether you play a team home or away. The Big East needs 12 football schools and 7 basketball only schools. It helps that Villanova is moving up for football. Marquette, Georgetown, Seton Hall, St John's, Providence and DePaul are basketball only schools and Notre Dame's football independence makes 7. I do not see the Big East inviting another basketball only school, so Notre Dame is the big wild card here. If they would decide to join in football I could see the Big East going to 14 teams for football, which would result in either a 20 team conference with one to many teams for basketball or the Big East dropping a basketball school. Once you drop one basketball school, the door will be open to drop more basketball only schools. Notre Dame joining the Big Ten would also be a problem, because you now have lost a basketball only school that will not be replaced with a basketball only school. The only possible good outcome here would be for Villianova to stay a basketball only school. So basically the Big East will implode, if Notre Dame changes their current status as a basketball only school.
Quote from: bilsu on November 05, 2010, 09:43:23 AM
The tax exempt status only has value if you actually make money. Losses from one year will carry forward to offset future year's income for 15 years. The big issue here would be the allocation of indirect expenses. Why the badgers have a lot of revenue, I am not sure, if you remove donations, that the sport programs actually make money. It is hard to tell, because of the way expenses are allocated. However, if the sports programs were taxable as unrelated businesses the allocation of indirect expenses would be more highly scrutinized.
For example the president of a university would be an indirect expense to the sports program. The issue would be how much of his or her salary should be allocated to the sports program. Or how much of the Al Center expense should be allocated, if it is also used by nonathletic department people. The indirect expenses would be the biggest issue as you would need a valid method for allocating each expense. It also would be a bigger issue, if they kept the tax-exempt status for the non-revenue sports, which are the real money lossers. The universities would argue that the other sports are required, so that their losses will offset the revenue sports. In the long run losing tax exempt status is more of an accounting nightmare than the potential taxes that would need be paid. there are probably 10 universities at the most that would pay any tax at all.
A fair point, but I'm not sure I agree completely. I think it could be more than just an accounting hassle.
I think it would be interesting to see how college programs would be allowed to report their expenses. Would UW be allowed to write off the $2 million they spent sending more than 800 people to the Rose Bowl (and putting them up in the Beverly Hills Hotel) as a legitimate expense? I think that under the watchful eye of the IRS, some of the things written off as expenses today probably wouldn't be allowed. Would they be allowed to write off private jets for recruiting trips as a necessary expense? I'm not a tax lawyer, so maybe it wouldn't be a problem. I'm just raising the question.
But certainly the programs wouldn't be keen on having those expenses scrutinized and made public. Lord knows UW wasn't after the Rose Bowl fiasco.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 05, 2010, 10:05:30 AM
You're presenting a false choice here .... BCS or pre-BCS.
Why not create something better (and more fair) than either? Why not create something that doesn't consolidate the power into the hands of a limited group? Why isn't that be an option? The fans want it. The networks want it. Many programs and even some coaches want it. Everybody but the powerbrokers in the BCS conferences and te bloated bowl committees wants it, because it could force them to share even more of the pie and weaken their fiefdoms.
Defending the current broken and unfair system by stating that the previous system was even more broken and unfair isn't much of a defense.
There are two issues here. Is the BCS an unfair method of determining a champion? Yes, it obviously is unfair.
The other question is "Is the BCS an illegal restraint of trade and therefore worthy of Department of Justice investigation." IMO, no it isn't. In fact it is an improvement over the former system.
Don't let your hatred of the BCS over the first issue, cloud your judgement over whether or not the DoJ should be involved in the second.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 05, 2010, 10:21:32 AM
A fair point, but I'm not sure I agree completely. I think it could be more than just an accounting hassle.
I think it would be interesting to see how college programs would be allowed to report their expenses. Would UW be allowed to write off the $2 million they spent sending more than 800 people to the Rose Bowl (and putting them up in the Beverly Hills Hotel) as a legitimate expense? I think that under the watchful eye of the IRS, some of the things written off as expenses today probably wouldn't be allowed. Would they be allowed to write off private jets for recruiting trips as a necessary expense? I'm not a tax lawyer, so maybe it wouldn't be a problem. I'm just raising the question.
But certainly the programs wouldn't be keen on having those expenses scrutinized and made public. Lord knows UW wasn't after the Rose Bowl fiasco.
Sending 800 people to the Rose Bowl should be an issue no matter what. It is basically screwing WI taxpayers. As far as private jets, they are a coomon use in large businesses, so it probably would be allowed.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 05, 2010, 11:10:45 AM
There are two issues here. Is the BCS an unfair method of determining a champion? Yes, it obviously is unfair.
The other question is "Is the BCS an illegal restraint of trade and therefore worthy of Department of Justice investigation." IMO, no it isn't. In fact it is an improvement over the former system.
Don't let your hatred of the BCS over the first issue, cloud your judgement over whether or not the DoJ should be involved in the second.
Again, being an improvement over the former situation does not make the current system fair or even legal (though smarter minds than I can and will decide that issue). I'm sure some could argue that the oil industry prior to the ascent of the Standard Oil Company was worse off for many, but that didn't make Standard any less guilty of violating anti-trust laws.
FWIW, the BCS is unfair not just in how it determines a national champion. In my mind, that part is kind of trivial. Where the BCS is unfair, IMO, is in how it arbitrarily denies access to revenues created at least to some degree because of special tax benefits its members and bowl committees receive. What the BCS says is that if you're State Supported Insitution X from Conference A, you can go 8-4 and participate in one of our $18 million-per-team bowl games. But if you're State Supported Institution Y from Conference B, you probably must go 12-0 and even then your invite to one of our bowls essentially is at the discretion of our members.
Completely arbitrary and exclusive, and therefore, IMO, unfair.
I'm not making a case for DoJ involvement, though I'm not opposed either. I am, however, making a case against tax exempt status (both for the ADs and bowls), especially if the BCS breaks off from the rest of the NCAA.
Quote from: bilsu on November 05, 2010, 09:43:23 AM
The tax exempt status only has value if you actually make money. Losses from one year will carry forward to offset future year's income for 15 years. The big issue here would be the allocation of indirect expenses. Why the badgers have a lot of revenue, I am not sure, if you remove donations, that the sport programs actually make money. It is hard to tell, because of the way expenses are allocated. However, if the sports programs were taxable as unrelated businesses the allocation of indirect expenses would be more highly scrutinized.
I am confused by the comment above. The key to tax exempt status for athletic departments is that you or I can give money directly to the Athletic department and it is tax deductible FOR US. If athletic departments were not tax exempt you would see a drop of around 25-35% of donations to athletic programs (assuming the margin tax rate would reduce givings at the same rate).