"From a very reliable source: Kansas and Kansas St. have been invited to join the Big East. If they accept the invitation the conference will stay as it is now. If they decline the basketball only schools will form their own conference and XU WILL be invited along with Butler. They may consider other schools, but XU and BU WILL be invited as the 1st 2 additions."
Take with a large grain of salt....but interesting.
Quote from: DomJamesToTheBasket on September 20, 2011, 07:46:13 PM
"From a very reliable source: Kansas and Kansas St. have been invited to join the Big East. If they accept the invitation the conference will stay as it is now. If they decline the basketball only schools will form their own conference and XU WILL be invited along with Butler. They may consider other schools, but XU and BU WILL be invited as the 1st 2 additions."
Take with a large grain of salt....but interesting.
This doesn't seem to account for the real possibility of UConn and either Rutgers/WVU leaving the conference as well. In that case, wonder what happens. I don't see it going down as a two for two swap. We'd be incredibly lucky if that was to happen.
It makes sense. The key to survival is being able to effectively market the brand to the television networks in general, and dare I say, ESPN specifically.
Adding Kansas and Kansas State (unlikely, in my opinion), solidifies the "premier basketball conference" title that the Big East has enjoyed. Going to an all-basketball premier conference, could potentially accomplish the same goal.
Keep in mind that the Big East Network is affiliated with ESPN. For years, ESPN has pimped out Big East basketball (whether warranted or not), because a pimped out product is a better sell on television. ESPN also produces telecasts for the Big 12 and the Kansas Jayhawks basketball program. Unfortunately, it is also tied to the "ACC Network." However, it is generally understood that the Big East Network has been its biggest draw for ESPN during the basketball season, especially with the Big East tournament.
We need to be in a conference that can sell itself effectively to ESPN. ESPN is a pimp and will do everything in its power to promote us. If that means a reduced network deal to begin with, so be it. Make ESPN's profit tied to our conference's prestige and attractiveness to the general public and we will be in good hands. Adding Kansas and Kansas State is one way to accomplish that. Going for a premier b-ball only conference is another way to accomplish it.
Either way, football schools or not, the biggest deal is remaining attractive to ESPN. That means retaining the Big East brand and the Big East tournament.
I'm guessing Nova wouldn't be one of the basketball only schools, would it?
I just don't think ESPN marketing could take the basketball only conference to something other than the 5th best conference in the land behind ACC,BigTen,Pac16,SEC.
The top 4 Marquee teams would be Gtown, Nova, ST Johns, MU/Depaul/Xavier... that just doesn't do it for a network. You are arguably taking away the top 4 teams of the current BEast in UConn,Pit,Cuse,Ville
Steering players or over promoting that conference would just dilute their other properties.
The Big East needs Kansas and should be willing to overpay a bit to get them.
I don't necessarily disagree, although ESPN would sure push that basketball only conference over the Big Ten, with whom they have a beef over the Big Ten Network.
You need Kansas / Kansas State to really make it work, but if they won't come, you have to go with the next best alternative. Hell, I'd even ask ESPN for input. Make them think its their baby and they will sell it as long as it can reach the appropriate markets. Will it ever exceed the Super-4 Conferences? Doubtful. But that doesn't mean it won't be profitable to ESPN during the basketball season.
Ugh...really? Asking ESPN for advice?
Shoot me now...
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 20, 2011, 08:56:27 PM
Ugh...really? Asking ESPN for advice?
Shoot me now...
Right, because in this day and age where principal and historical significance rules over money, asking a major money player makes no sense.
Trust me, it makes me sick, but it is your only chance. I gave up on Sportscenter approximately 10 years ago, because the ESPN network has become a glutonous monster. That said, if that monster can help keep Marquette relevant, I'd gladly play Faust.
Well he goes to Maryland and we aren't going to the ACC... teal
Quote from: MUCam on September 20, 2011, 09:10:19 PM
Right, because in this day and age where principal and historical significance rules over money, asking a major money player makes no sense.
Trust me, it makes me sick, but it is your only chance. I gave up on Sportscenter approximately 10 years ago, because the ESPN network has become a glutonous monster. That said, if that monster can help keep Marquette relevant, I'd gladly play Faust.
Exactly this... historical significance and like mindedness is secondary. Money is first and if you have to build something that you are trying to sell (a new conference), it's probably a good idea to ask your customers (ESPN,Fox,Versus,etc..) what they want.
The combination of KU and K-State bball is just as good as the combination of Pitt and Syracuse.
It's Kansas, it's Kansas.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 20, 2011, 08:56:27 PM
Ugh...really? Asking ESPN for advice?
Shoot me now...
It's a sad state of affairs when you consider asking a tv network for advice, but it is absolutely the right move.
I know....i just hate ESPN.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 20, 2011, 09:25:33 PM
I know....i just hate ESPN.
Better than ending up on Versus, like was mentioned in the JS article just posted.
I suspect Uconn and Rutgers do not leave, if the Kansas schools join.
I feel more confident now that the football leagues are going only to 14.
ACC will not lose anybody and will stand pat with Syracuse and Pitt.. Oklahoma and Okl St to Pac 10. Missouri to SEC. Big 10 will hold out for Texas and Notre Dame now or in the future. What would upset the apple cart would be Texas committing to any other league than the Big 10.
I think the ACC is holding out for ND and Texas also. They aren't going to add Rutgers and UConn when there's still a chance they can get those 2. If they had to, ND would take the ACC over the Big Tweleven.
In the end, I think we need to go with a basketball only conference. I keep looking at all the different scenarios, and it seems like there is going to be a level of instability with the football conferences for years to come. Whatever D1 schools that don't find a home in a super-conference will jump at the first chance they get. If the BEAST were to take/get a school like Kansas, I could almost see a scenario where the other BEAST teams would hope their football program didn't develop into anything more than it already is because they'd then draw interest from a super-conference that hadn't gone to 16 teams yet.
A basketball only conference would play well with recruits, would provide stability for the schools, and would offer a uniqueness that I think would play very well with fans of the universities and even offer a bit of an edge to big college basketball followers. Maybe it's not a great comparison, but when you look at fans of unpopular sports in the US they are often very compassionate about their sport because of its lack of popularity. There may be a window for an all basketball conference to gain a lot of support from those who are sick of the greed of football messing things up for all.
From Andy Katz' Twitter:
"Pac-12 will not expand beyond 12."
Quote from: pux90mex on September 20, 2011, 10:12:18 PM
From Andy Katz' Twitter:
"Pac-12 will not expand beyond 12."
Which leads me to believe that the Big 12 will not fall apart either, unfortunately.
Quote from: pux90mex on September 20, 2011, 10:12:18 PM
From Andy Katz' Twitter:
"Pac-12 will not expand beyond 12."
Interviewed pn ESPN moments ago:
-PAC stays put.
-aTm might now be allowed to leave to go to SEC
-Does SEC stay at 13 or add Mizzou?
-The BE has the option of adding ECU, UCF and the service academies.
-UConn may be saying they are committed to the BE but they want the ACC badly.
Quote from: pux90mex on September 20, 2011, 10:12:18 PM
From Andy Katz' Twitter:
"Pac-12 will not expand beyond 12."
Let TAMU go to SEC
TCU or BYU goes to the Big 12
Missouri well I don't know...
Quote from: MUCam on September 20, 2011, 09:10:19 PM
Right, because in this day and age where principal and historical significance rules over money, asking a major money player makes no sense.
To quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"
I'd rather see Memphis get an invite. At least they bring some good hoops to replace Syracuse.
If the buy out isn't made 30K, how long before Rutgers and UConn look at leaving?
I'd rather see Memphis too, especially now that Calipari is gone. Maybe bring in the service academies for football, that would definitely increase the likelihood of congressional inquiries if everything goes to hell.
I don't get the infatuation with UCF, but whatever, sunbelt markets, blah, blah, blah. But good God, just say no to ECU.
Quote from: Litehouse on September 20, 2011, 11:01:22 PM
I'd rather see Memphis too, especially now that Calipari is gone. Maybe bring in the service academies for football, that would definitely increase the likelihood of congressional inquiries if everything goes to hell.
I don't get the infatuation with UCF, but whatever, sunbelt markets, blah, blah, blah. But good God, just say no to ECU.
Fastest growing university in the nation, alumni base set to double in next 15-20 years, over 50,000 students, top-20 media market in rabid college football state, both Jordan boys playing hoops there, 3 bowl appearances last 4 years, UCF is a no-brainer.
Just look at where there athletics were 15 years ago and where they are now and it's ludicrous. Add in their insane growth and it becomes clear that it's not just a "good run". They're on the come.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 20, 2011, 11:07:12 PM
Fastest growing university in the nation, alumni base set to double in next 15-20 years, over 50,000 students, top-20 media market in rabid college football state, both Jordan boys playing hoops there, 3 bowl appearances last 4 years, UCF is a no-brainer.
Just look at where there athletics were 15 years ago and where they are now and it's ludicrous. Add in their insane growth and it becomes clear that it's not just a "good run". They're on the come.
15 years ago Daunte Culpepper was their starting QB and I haven't heard anything about them since he graduated. If adding UCF is what it takes to keep the Big East together, then fine, we aren't really in a position to complain much right now. But it's another move to weaken basketball for lousy football.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 20, 2011, 11:07:12 PM
Fastest growing university in the nation, alumni base set to double in next 15-20 years, over 50,000 students, top-20 media market in rabid college football state, both Jordan boys playing hoops there, 3 bowl appearances last 4 years, UCF is a no-brainer.
Just look at where there athletics were 15 years ago and where they are now and it's ludicrous. Add in their insane growth and it becomes clear that it's not just a "good run". They're on the come.
Don't forget the most important factor --- the Orlando TV market is #19 nationwide.
UCF beat ACC football stalwart Boston College 30-3 two weeks ago....and then turned around and lost to Fla. International. Maybe it should be FI to the BE?
Quote from: Benny B on September 21, 2011, 09:47:57 AM
Don't forget the most important factor --- the Orlando TV market is #19 nationwide.
The size of the TV market matters only if the school/team looms large in the market.
Chicago is the #3 market in the nation, but nobody here has Big East basketball fever because DePaul is largely irrelevant in the market.
I can't imagine many households in Orlando are tuning in to watch UCF on Saturdays if the Gators and/or Seminoles are playing.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 21, 2011, 09:57:51 AMThe size of the TV market matters only if the school/team looms large in the market.
Chicago is the #3 market in the nation, but nobody here has Big East basketball fever because DePaul is largely irrelevant in the market.
I can't imagine many households in Orlando are tuning in to watch UCF on Saturdays if the Gators and/or Seminoles are playing.
UCF's alumni base is growing by leaps and bounds, however. They are estimated to have a base of 170,000 and awarded their 200,000th degree last year, just 5 years after awarding their 150,000th. Put them in a BCS conference and earning a couple BCS berths (they could do that from the Big East) and while they won't surpass UF or FSU any time soon, they could carve out a very sizable chunk within 10-15 years.
When people look at UCF as a throwaway, they are looking at them now. Remember their football program is just 15 years old. They became ranked for the first time in basketball last year. They average nearly 40,000 fans a game for football. Over the course of the next two decades, no one in the country has more growth potential than UCF. They would potentially be a huge boon to the Big East.
Quote from: Litehouse on September 20, 2011, 10:00:31 PM
I think the ACC is holding out for ND and Texas also. They aren't going to add Rutgers and UConn when there's still a chance they can get those 2. If they had to, ND would take the ACC over the Big Tweleven.
You said this in the other thread but I still hold its simply not true, ND prefers the Big 10. The only people really pushing the ND-ACC story is ESPN because they have a vested interest in getting ND in the ACC for their own programing purposes. ESPN doesn't have that same interest if ND goes Big 10 hence the slanted reporting. The only reports of ND to the ACC are from ESPN and their associated sycophants.
Quote from: mu03eng on September 21, 2011, 12:19:08 PMYou said this in the other thread but I still hold its simply not true, ND prefers the Big 10. The only people really pushing the ND-ACC story is ESPN because they have a vested interest in getting ND in the ACC for their own programing purposes. ESPN doesn't have that same interest if ND goes Big 10 hence the slanted reporting. The only reports of ND to the ACC are from ESPN and their associated sycophants.
If I were a ND fan, I'd probably favor the ACC too. While the Big Ten is a better football conference and has more rivalries for them (UM, MSU, Purdue, even Indiana) the truth is they simply aren't in a position to compete. If Notre Dame were still a national power, I'd say go for the Big Ten. But if they want a chance to compete, they are better off in the ACC. They can't realistically compete with the Ohio States, the Wisconsins, or the Nebraskas of the football world. They have a better chance taking aim at teams like FSU, Virginia Tech, or Miami that may still be good but aren't what they once were (like ND).
Football is Notre Dame's main priority, and everyone knows a middle-of-the-road team like them has a better chance of reaching a conference title game and beyond in the ACC than they do in the Big 10. No matter what they may have done to MSU last week, they just can't compete at the Big 10 level anymore.
Quote from: Litehouse on September 20, 2011, 11:20:53 PM
15 years ago Daunte Culpepper was their starting QB and I haven't heard anything about them since he graduated. If adding UCF is what it takes to keep the Big East together, then fine, we aren't really in a position to complain much right now. But it's another move to weaken basketball for lousy football.
Sure based on history they have not been good in basketball. However, there is a possibility that joining the Bog East results in an uptick in their basketball program. Of course you can point to South Florida as evidence it would not. It stinks to lose Pittsburg and Syracuse, but I think that means we will generally finish two spots higher in the standings and that is not all bad.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 21, 2011, 12:29:35 PM
If I were a ND fan, I'd probably favor the ACC too. While the Big Ten is a better football conference and has more rivalries for them (UM, MSU, Purdue, even Indiana) the truth is they simply aren't in a position to compete. If Notre Dame were still a national power, I'd say go for the Big Ten. But if they want a chance to compete, they are better off in the ACC. They can't realistically compete with the Ohio States, the Wisconsins, or the Nebraskas of the football world. They have a better chance taking aim at teams like FSU, Virginia Tech, or Miami that may still be good but aren't what they once were (like ND).
Football is Notre Dame's main priority, and everyone knows a middle-of-the-road team like them has a better chance of reaching a conference title game and beyond in the ACC than they do in the Big 10. No matter what they may have done to MSU last week, they just can't compete at the Big 10 level anymore.
All of which is why Notre Dame remains independent. The moment they join a conference they lose what makes them "special" in many people's eyes - most notably that of their alumni - and become just another middle-of-the-road ACC/Big 1? team. They also lose the right to make their own schedule, have their own national television deal and do whatever they see fit under their own terms.
Notre Dame, unlike probably every other school out there, doesn't need a conference affiliation to remain relevant. Heck, Notre Dame doesn't even need to win to remain relevant. Quality teams of ND's choosing will always be willing to schedule them because officials at those schools know a game against Notre Dame will draw more media attention than nearly every other game on the schedule, put paying customers in seats and out eyes on television sets. As for fear of being locked out of a BCS-only bowl/championship system, I don't think that'll ever happen. The TV networks will insist upon Notre Dame having a chance to participate, just as they did under the current BCS format.
The only real benefit for Notre Dame to join a conference is that it might bring in a few more million dollars and protect its non-football sports. But those other sports are an afterthought in South Bend. they're not going to trade away all the benefits of football independence for the sake of helping the field hockey and soccer teams. and while nobody minds making more money, ND football already brings in $57 million. They aren't hard up, and are unlikely to trade away their independence and p*ss off their alumni - most of whom prefer independence - for the sake of a few million more.
Sorry Brew, but saying that Notre Dame can't compete at the Big 10 level in football is absurd. They're in the third year of a "re-emphasizing" program under Kelly. If they went to the Big 10 next year they'd enter with their program ahead of Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue Illinois and Indiana and on equal footing with Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Iowa and Nebraska and behind Ohio State and Wisconsin. How does that make them noncompetitive?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 21, 2011, 01:15:26 PM
Sorry Brew, but saying that Notre Dame can't compete at the Big 10 level in football is absurd. They're in the third year of a "re-emphasizing" program under Kelly. If they went to the Big 10 next year they'd enter with their program ahead of Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue Illinois and Indiana and on equal footing with Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Iowa and Nebraska and behind Ohio State and Wisconsin. How does that make them noncompetitive?
Oh .... and they looked pretty competitive against the Big 10 on Saturday.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 21, 2011, 12:55:47 PM
The only real benefit for Notre Dame to join a conference is that it might bring in a few more million dollars and protect its non-football sports.
A few million? Joining the B10 would double their $$$. However pissing off their alumni in the process might just give that all back.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 21, 2011, 01:24:46 PM
A few million? Joining the B10 would double their $$$. However pissing off their alumni in the process might just give that all back.
Joining the Big 1? would make Notre Dame another $57 million?
I'm slightly skeptical of that claim.
According to a Chicago Tribune story from a year ago, Notre Dame would make about $5 million more from joining the Big 10. Sure, that's nothing to sneeze at, but it's not money Notre Dame needs, and probably not enough to outweigh all its perceived benefits of independence.
Quote from: mu03eng on September 21, 2011, 12:19:08 PM
You said this in the other thread but I still hold its simply not true, ND prefers the Big 10. The only people really pushing the ND-ACC story is ESPN because they have a vested interest in getting ND in the ACC for their own programing purposes. ESPN doesn't have that same interest if ND goes Big 10 hence the slanted reporting. The only reports of ND to the ACC are from ESPN and their associated sycophants.
I disagree. I think ND would prefer the ACC. If they join the Big Ten they're just another midwest college in a midwest conference, nothing to differentiate themselves. They relate more to the east coast, and would rather have the east coast exposure. Then they can differentiate themselves as the midwest option in the east coast conference.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 21, 2011, 01:29:47 PM
Joining the Big 1? would make Notre Dame another $57 million?
I was under the impression that NBC paid them about $9M, and that the Big Ten would pay about $20M.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 21, 2011, 01:33:12 PMI was under the impression that NBC paid them about $9M, and that the Big Ten would pay about $20M.
I'm sure it's still less than their cut of the BTN would be, but don't they get another chunk from the Big East basketball contract? It certainly wouldn't even out, but doesn't it get them to $13M combined (or is $4M the football schools...)?
Quote from: Litehouse on September 21, 2011, 01:32:05 PM
I disagree. I think ND would prefer the ACC. If they join the Big Ten they're just another midwest college in a midwest conference, nothing to differentiate themselves. They relate more to the east coast, and would rather have the east coast exposure. Then they can differentiate themselves as the midwest option in the east coast conference.
ND doesn't fancy themselves a midwestern school. They view themselves as a US school and independent of anything so provincial as regional alignment and/or branding. They have their own tv contract for gods sake. This would be all about eye balls and reputation. The Big 10 has a much bigger academic rep than the ACC and a much better network than the ACC. And while OSU has had issues of late with ethics Miami has a terrible reputation going back years and I doubt that ND wants to be associated with that on a regular basis.
Quote from: mu03eng on September 21, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
ND doesn't fancy themselves a midwestern school. They view themselves as a US school and independent of anything so provincial as regional alignment and/or branding. They have their own tv contract for gods sake. This would be all about eye balls and reputation. The Big 10 has a much bigger academic rep than the ACC and a much better network than the ACC. And while OSU has had issues of late with ethics Miami has a terrible reputation going back years and I doubt that ND wants to be associated with that on a regular basis.
So you're saying that ND would intentionally choose the weaker conference?
They're in the BEast for everything but Football, why would they suddenly make a decision of academics over competition when that hasn't been the case in the past?
Quote from: mu03eng on September 21, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
ND doesn't fancy themselves a midwestern school. They view themselves as a US school and independent of anything so provincial as regional alignment and/or branding. They have their own tv contract for gods sake. This would be all about eye balls and reputation. The Big 10 has a much bigger academic rep than the ACC and a much better network than the ACC. And while OSU has had issues of late with ethics Miami has a terrible reputation going back years and I doubt that ND wants to be associated with that on a regular basis.
The B1G's academic reputation is much better than the ACC's, yes, but ND is not a research giant like so many of the B1G schools are. ND prides itself on its undergraduate experience - something more in-line with the ACC, for sure. Besides, its not about academics anyways (see Nebraska). ND would prob take a B1G invite over an ACC invite because of traditional rivalries, money and exposure...not academics.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 21, 2011, 01:33:12 PM
I was under the impression that NBC paid them about $9M, and that the Big Ten would pay about $20M.
OK. You weren't clear that you meant exclusively NBC revenues vs all Big 1? revenues.
Big 10 schools got about $20 million apiece in shared revenues (TV, B10 network, bowl money, gate, etc.), according to the Chicago Tribune. I've seen it listed as high as $22 million elsewhere.
NBC pays Notre Dame $15 million a year for TV rights to football, according to the New York Times. The Big East basketball TV contract reportedly nets teams $2 million per year. The NCAA tournament payout for Big East members this year reportedly was $1.2 million. Notre Dame currently does not have to share any of its other revenues (i.e. gate, merchandise) nor do they share whatever bowl payouts they receive, unlike Big 1? schools. Those figures vary, or are unavailable, but safe to say for ND it's in the millions of dollars.
So, given all that, the Trib's estimate of a $3-5 million net gain for Notre Dame seems, if anything, optimistic.
Quote from: muhs03 on September 21, 2011, 02:55:55 PM
The B1G's academic reputation is much better than the ACC's, yes, but ND is not a research giant like so many of the B1G schools are. ND prides itself on its undergraduate experience - something more in-line with the ACC, for sure. Besides, its not about academics anyways (see Nebraska). ND would prob take a B1G invite over an ACC invite because of traditional rivalries, money and exposure...not academics.
I'm not sure the B10's academic reputation is that much better than the ACC. Clemson is a joke, but then the B10 added a glorified junior college with Nebraska...FSU and Ohio State are pretty much on par, Virginia and North Carolina are on par with the two best state schools the B10 has (Michigan and Illinois), Duke is every bit as prestigious as North Carolina. They may be a bit weaker, but not by much. At the end of the day, ND's decision will be guided by $$. Just like the rest of the slime pit that is college athletics.
What private schools can really thrive in D1 athletics OUTSIDE a BCS?
Stanford, Southern Cal, Boston College, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Duke are all in BCS conferences.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 21, 2011, 03:19:33 PM
OK. You weren't clear that you meant exclusively NBC revenues vs all Big 1? revenues.
Big 10 schools got about $20 million apiece in shared revenues (TV, B10 network, bowl money, gate, etc.), according to the Chicago Tribune. I've seen it listed as high as $22 million elsewhere.
NBC pays Notre Dame $15 million a year for TV rights to football, according to the New York Times. The Big East basketball TV contract reportedly nets teams $2 million per year. The NCAA tournament payout for Big East members this year reportedly was $1.2 million. Notre Dame currently does not have to share any of its other revenues (i.e. gate, merchandise) nor do they share whatever bowl payouts they receive, unlike Big 1? schools. Those figures vary, or are unavailable, but safe to say for ND it's in the millions of dollars.
So, given all that, the Trib's estimate of a $3-5 million net gain for Notre Dame seems, if anything, optimistic.
I think ND's footbal TV contract was signed quite a while ago. I am not sure when it ends. Prices have gone up since then, so it is possible a new contract could pay a lot more money. However, I am not sure if Notre Dame is as valuable a product as it was when it signed the current contract and therefore they might not get as much when it is time for a new deal.
Kelly's in his 2nd year.
Quote from: PE8983 on September 21, 2011, 07:12:41 PM
Kelly's in his 2nd year.
And will be bringing in some VERY good recruits next year. Of course, this has been said before with previous coaches but....
Quote from: bilsu on September 21, 2011, 07:02:06 PM
I think ND's footbal TV contract was signed quite a while ago. I am not sure when it ends. Prices have gone up since then, so it is possible a new contract could pay a lot more money. However, I am not sure if Notre Dame is as valuable a product as it was when it signed the current contract and therefore they might not get as much when it is time for a new deal.
The contract was extended in 2008 and now runs through 2015.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 21, 2011, 07:28:25 PM
The contract was extended in 2008 and now runs through 2015.
SO I think that means UConn and Rutgers arent going anywhere until ND sees the value of their next contract. They are in no hurry to join a conference right now. If they are satisfied with their new contract and they have a home for their other sports, they will remain independent. Once that next contract is signed and the B1G and ACC realize they cant get ND, I think UConn and Rutgers leave to go to one of those two conferences. Until then, those two teams arent going anywhere.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on September 21, 2011, 06:21:55 PM
What private schools can really thrive in D1 athletics OUTSIDE a BCS?
Stanford, Southern Cal, Boston College, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Duke are all in BCS conferences.
BYU?
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on September 21, 2011, 06:21:55 PM
What private schools can really thrive in D1 athletics OUTSIDE a BCS?
We may be on the verge of a conference realignment epiphany... I'd like to ask instead "How does a public school thrive without the BCS?"
Make no mistake... conference realignment is not just about money, it's about
replacement of lost revenue. Regardless of your political opinion, it's no secret that any program or institution that is heavily funded by taxpayers is under considerable scrutiny and is facing massive budget cuts either now or in the near future. Someone again will soon ask the question as to why the gov't subsidizes "big education" when these institutions are spending (or wasting) hundreds of millions annually on athletics... and Lord help the public schools if that query finally finds traction in the current socioeconomic environment.
I would submit that nearly everyone who is trying to jump on the college football gravy train is doing so because the government-funding gravy train is starting to run low on drippings. Since the public trough merely serves as an appetizer for private schools, a budgetary hatchet job isn't going to hurt an MU, DePaul or Xavier as much as it would a UW, IU or UK.
So don't be looking for Notre Dame (which roughly translates into "we don't need your money, dammit") to be making any drastic moves anytime soon. It simply doesn't share the same motivation as those who have already jumped.
Good observations, Benny. I don't expect public education (or the rest of the public sector) to ever get "lean and mean". It's not in their DNA. But the days of extravagance may be numbered.
UW gets only something like 13% of their revenue from appropriations from the State of Wisconsin. The large public schools aren't going to have anything to worry about because their athletic programs are profitable. That includes UW, IU and UK.
Its the schools like Rutgers that are losing big $$$, not to mention the D2 schools.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 22, 2011, 07:03:01 PM
UW gets only something like 13% of their revenue from appropriations from the State of Wisconsin. The large public schools aren't going to have anything to worry about because their athletic programs are profitable. That includes UW, IU and UK.
Its the schools like Rutgers that are losing big $$$, not to mention the D2 schools.
True, but a significant amount of their operating budget stems from the State and their endowment. Both sources of funding have suffered lately, resulting in hiring freezes and other decreases to educational budgets. It is hard to justify saying the Econ dept. can't hire a new professor while giving big raises and increasing expenditures in the AD.
The argument could become that the AD should support Univ. exposure and fund education and a leaner footprint could greatly improve educ.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 22, 2011, 07:03:01 PM
UW gets only something like 13% of their revenue from appropriations from the State of Wisconsin. The large public schools aren't going to have anything to worry about because their athletic programs are profitable. That includes UW, IU and UK.
Its the schools like Rutgers that are losing big $$$, not to mention the D2 schools.
while currently true, one doesn't need a particularly great memory to remember when the uw-madison athletic department was losing 5 million annually..., and the board of regents requested a raise from the taxpayer and got it.
Completely different era. The athletic department had been run like it was the 1950s and never adjusted. With the renovations to Camp Randall and the Kohl Center they are raking in money. Furthermore they are excluded from using tax or tution money for the capital needs of the athletic department by law. They may be able to draw some sort of base salary from those funds but that's about it. Don't be too excited about UWs programs losing money. They aren't and are set up to be profitable for awhile.
I thought this was a Marquette board?
Good God, this reads more like a bad dream from South Bend.
Granted, we have a lot to worry about these days, but I'm concerned about us, not the Red Rodent or the school that defames Irishmen everywhere (drunk, fighting and seeing small, angry men).
Let's get back on topic, ok?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 23, 2011, 08:07:18 AM
Completely different era. The athletic department had been run like it was the 1950s and never adjusted. With the renovations to Camp Randall and the Kohl Center they are raking in money. Furthermore they are excluded from using tax or tution money for the capital needs of the athletic department by law. They may be able to draw some sort of base salary from those funds but that's about it. Don't be too excited about UWs programs losing money. They aren't and are set up to be profitable for awhile.
not disagreeing, Sultan, just temporizing your facts. They were red (npi) for 30 years and
currently are enjoying financial success.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 22, 2011, 05:17:01 PM
Good observations, Benny. I don't expect public education (or the rest of the public sector) to ever get "lean and mean". It's not in their DNA. But the days of extravagance may be numbered.
I don't expect it either... but the possibility - slim as it may be - does exist, and the downside of such could be as bad as "catastrophic" to some schools. That being said, a college president who doesn't make the slightest attempt to hedge against such a possibility isn't going to be a college president very long.
I agree with the premise that in today's era of state budget cuts that people are going to take an increasingly critical eye to the costs associated with college football. However that will very likely be at the Louisiana-Monroe or Middle Tennessee type level...not at the Wisconsin or Ohio State level.
If you look at this database, you can see what I mean:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm?loc=interstitialskip
The Big Ten schools to a school make the bulk of their money through ticket sales, donations and conference and NCAA shared revenue. Some have small amounts of student fee money (most have none) or direct institutional support.
Now look at schools like Louisiana-Monroe, Layfayette or Middle Tennessee. Those schools have very small ticket sales, donations and shared revenue. But they have huge allocations from direct institutional support and/or student fees. (Which are just another form of tuition.) Frankly some of the BE publics (UConn and Rutgers) get an "uncomfortable" amount from students...while most ACC schools get very little.
Those are the schools that are going to be in trouble. Not the big boys.
As time goes by, will FB be as big as it is due to demographic/societal changes as the population wants Futbol rather than FB....? A ways off (decades), but its coming.........
Quote from: Nukem2 on September 23, 2011, 12:23:31 PM
As time goes by, will FB be as big as it is due to demographic/societal changes as the population wants Futbol rather than FB....? A ways off (decades), but its coming.........
With the younger crowd it seems like it pushes baseball out. When we were kids we spent the summer playing softball or baseball. Now they play soccer.
Quote from: Nukem2 on September 23, 2011, 12:23:31 PM
As time goes by, will FB be as big as it is due to demographic/societal changes as the population wants Futbol rather than FB....? A ways off (decades), but its coming.........
Soccer is my favorite sport, but it's still a long, long ways off. And by long, I mean until Hispanics are up to 40% of the population, and maybe not even then (and that will probably never happen). It will be at best in the 5th-7th range for our lifetimes.
Quote from: Nukem2 on September 23, 2011, 12:23:31 PM
As time goes by, will FB be as big as it is due to demographic/societal changes as the population wants Futbol rather than FB....? A ways off (decades), but its coming.........
I've been hearing that for 30 years. But...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113503/football-remains-runaway-leader-favorite-sport.aspx
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 23, 2011, 12:52:27 PMI've been hearing that for 30 years. But...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113503/football-remains-runaway-leader-favorite-sport.aspx
But that study's three years old! It can't possibly still be accurate!
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 23, 2011, 11:49:02 AM
I agree with the premise that in today's era of state budget cuts that people are going to take an increasingly critical eye to the costs associated with college football. However that will very likely be at the Louisiana-Monroe or Middle Tennessee type level...not at the Wisconsin or Ohio State level.
If you look at this database, you can see what I mean:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm?loc=interstitialskip
The Big Ten schools to a school make the bulk of their money through ticket sales, donations and conference and NCAA shared revenue. Some have small amounts of student fee money (most have none) or direct institutional support.
Now look at schools like Louisiana-Monroe, Layfayette or Middle Tennessee. Those schools have very small ticket sales, donations and shared revenue. But they have huge allocations from direct institutional support and/or student fees. (Which are just another form of tuition.) Frankly some of the BE publics (UConn and Rutgers) get an "uncomfortable" amount from students...while most ACC schools get very little.
Those are the schools that are going to be in trouble. Not the big boys.
You can say the same thing about some of the ACC schools getting an uncomfortable amount from student fees. (Maryland: = 17.21%, Virginia = 14.9%, North Carolina = 9.42%, NC State = 8.49%, Va Tech = 10.3%)
Heh...admittedly I only looked up a couple of the ACC ones. But yeah, you are correct. I tried to look up Pitt but their information isn't in the database. I also think if you looked at FCS or D2 schools that those numbers would be substantially higher.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 23, 2011, 12:52:27 PM
I've been hearing that for 30 years. But...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113503/football-remains-runaway-leader-favorite-sport.aspx
Interesting that football moved past baseball as #1 just when the Super Bowl was implemented to end the fragmented division between fighting leagues. Who would have thought that league stability and a real championship would lead to a sport becoming far more popular than baseball, and with media rights then increasing exponentially even 40+ years later? Doesn't seem logical...oh wait, there was a single man with a vision back then who had a plan to settle owner derision, lawsuits and bankruptcies with a grand plan to win over fans.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 23, 2011, 11:49:02 AM
I agree with the premise that in today's era of state budget cuts that people are going to take an increasingly critical eye to the costs associated with college football. However that will very likely be at the Louisiana-Monroe or Middle Tennessee type level...not at the Wisconsin or Ohio State level.
If you look at this database, you can see what I mean:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm?loc=interstitialskip
The Big Ten schools to a school make the bulk of their money through ticket sales, donations and conference and NCAA shared revenue. Some have small amounts of student fee money (most have none) or direct institutional support.
Now look at schools like Louisiana-Monroe, Layfayette or Middle Tennessee. Those schools have very small ticket sales, donations and shared revenue. But they have huge allocations from direct institutional support and/or student fees. (Which are just another form of tuition.) Frankly some of the BE publics (UConn and Rutgers) get an "uncomfortable" amount from students...while most ACC schools get very little.
Those are the schools that are going to be in trouble. Not the big boys.
Wouldn't you suspect that the public would be much more sympathetic to a MTSU that scrimps and saves just to buy new helmets for its players every other decade? Nobody's talking about doing away with sports, but if you're a politico who has to cut $10M from higher education somewhere, are you going to take it away from a small D-III state school that barely gets by as it is, or are you going to take from the Big Ten school that just received a fat check for twice that much from the BTN?