From Xavierhoops

[Pakuni]

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.

[muhs03]

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.

[forgetful]

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?

[Benny B]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[augoman]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[dgies9156]

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?

[augoman]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Nukem2]

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.........

[bilsu]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[GGGG]

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

[brewcity77]

I'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!

[Abode4life]

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%)

[GGGG]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[Benny B]

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?