This is my point too. The NCAA is a club that essentially determines who can be in the "club". I don't agree that the system is open to all comers who have the money to start a university and then also a football program.
Story: Moos plans to keep building & spending despite ath. dept losses
- Thread starter ScottHood
- Start date
It boggles the mind that people today--still, after all the massive failures of state-run industries there are people who still keep dusting off this ridiculous notion. Head in the sand award for your post
Demand drives everything, even in absurd statist economies. Inequality is the fuel that drives demand-driven services, whether they are sports or academics or elsie's perfume. In a hybrid/modified economy such as ours, there are plenty of instances in which an industry (or sport) has regulated itself at the professional level, since it was agreed that a rising tide lifts all boats...to an extent. But controlling salaries, expenditures, etc. in college athletics would be the other half of the pliers that will tear bigtime college sports apart (the other half being the nannies of seattle, SF, Manhattan, etc). You want to see a "professional" sport who is the master at "pretend," at saying that it is an "exciting, premier, fun sport to watch? Tune in to the WNBA. Try and watch a whole game. They exist off the crumbs of the NBA, giving the latter cover to do their own thing. They are sports welfare at their finest.
I think they're greedy and if you bring enough money to the table the NCAA will let you in.
The harder part is getting into a Power 5 conference.
After looking at it a few times in the past few weeks, there is no doubt that the greed of the NCAA (and its member conferences) ensures that any team with enough cash is going to get into the entry level of the club. If the Koch brothers suddenly developed a burning desire to have football at Wichita State and donated $50 million (the equivalent to one of us donating $10-20) to start up a program, Wichita State would be in the Sun Belt, Conference USA or AAC in pretty short order. Big money backing and a Top 100 TV market would probably get them that.
As Biggs says, getting into the Power 5 conference is the issue. The Pac-12 would have no interest. KU and KSU wouldn't want them invited and neither would any one else in the Big 12. They don't meet the requirments to be invited to AAU so the B1G won't have them. The SEC would snort through its nose at the idea of picking up a small market newcomer into their group. That leaves the ACC as their only hope. Given their basketball heritage (and the ACC's basketball heritage), Wichita State might draw a small amount of interest. However, their location is so geographically out of sync with the ACC and any of its member teams, it's hard to imagine that being realistic. Plus, Wichita State's basketball heritage is small potatoes in the big boy world.
If a school wants to be in FBS and is satisfied with a small conference, it can happen. One question that could be asked is why should a small school feel entitled to access to the big dollars of the Power 5 now? As I mentioned above, Yale, Harvard, and schools like that are premier universities without being involved in the FBS. Should football be the primary driver of a university? At the end of the day, the college football experience for a student is only truly relevant 12 days out of the year.....and really on 5-7 days. Outside of that, you can still be a fan of a Power 5 team while attending a different school. God knows we have enough Gonzaga t-shirt fans attending WSU these days, and they are a mid-major still.
But this goes to my first response to you… all you've outlined above is the market isn't big enough for Witchita State.
In an analogy, you just outlined the Italian restaurant trying to open up in Little Italy and wondering why it's so hard to start up, let alone become a national powerhouse of garlic and bread. The market can only bear so much. Not because of some dark force monopoly, not even a caste system although that is the best label to put on it. You eloquently outlined in your second paragraph how there isn't any room in the market. You went through each conference and how they aren't big enough to get in. Getting into a conference isn't the problem. Getting into a big one, is the problem. Witchita State CAN start a football team. But the surrounding competition will stifle the ability to get enough money to expand or get into a Power 5 conference. Witchita State just opened up an Italian restaurant, in Little Italy, surrounded by other restaurants and they are wondering why they can't be just as successful. That isn't asking permission. That isn't needing permission. The market just won't support it. That has nothing to do with the NCAA or other schools. It seems you are saying they should get into a Power 5 conference, even though they won't be able to pull their own weight, financially. As Bigg's said of the NCAA, I believe it would be true of any Power 5 conference, as well. If they had enough money (AKA, a big enough market), they could get into one, no problem. But you are talking about a "saturated market". They can do it. They'll just be fighting an uphill battle. That's what happens when you open up a new store in a saturated market.
To be clear, I get it that they have to be invited into a conference… but if they were financially set, I don't believe they'd have a problem. You keep putting the "invite" before the financial aspect. The financial aspect is, and always will be, first. Then the "invite" will take care of itself. No one wants an anchor attached to them while they are boating. And Witchita State hasn't proven they aren't a financial anchor in the middle of the ocean.
?? You are confusing so many categories I can't take the time to untangle them all. Here's the least controversial, and one that perhaps most of us can agree on. At MANY D3 programs around the country, football as a revenue generator is either (a) highly prized and impossible to get rid of, or (b) the subject of endless debates between board members and faculty and admins. I know. I have fallen asleep in many of them. BY DEFINITION, D1 football is an elite sport, and should never, EVER be used in a meaningful discussion with terms such as monopolies, trusts, equality, etc. It's like trying to make the ultimate square peg into a big fat pumpkin. D1, the power 5, etc, etc. are, by definition, in the elite of sports when it comes to football. They rake in revenue far exceeding non-football schools. When you have a football program, there is a HUGE start-up cost, but the potential for revenue is likewise large....and not just dollars from tickets, apparel, etc. but in more students. And that is a huge bargaining chip.I happen to have a local perspective on this (and no.....it's not KSU).
Wichita State University dropped football in 1986 after years of fan apathy. The Shockers played in the Missouri Valley Conference until it dissolved in 1985 and competed as an independent in 1986. Being an independent (and a small conference before that) meant that it was difficult to get teams to play at Wichita State which, as we know, is a great way to have a lot of road losses. So, after the end of the 1986 season, they announced that football was going to be dropped as an intercollegiate sport and released all their players.
Five times since Wichita State dropped football, there have been initiatives to revive the program. Every one has failed. The current university president, recognizing the valuable role that football plays has started another review of the football program. They estimate that it will take $12 million to get the program started if they use their existing 30,000 seat stadium that was built in the 60's and hasn't had meaningful improvements since then. The cost balloons dramatically if they want a stadium that fans will enjoy using.
The annual cost would be around $4 million per year at the FCS level, $7 million per year as a low level FBS team and double that to compete at the BCS level. Georgia State and UNC Charlotte are two programs that relaunched football after a hiatus and are being used as the blueprint for the current planning for the return of Shocker football. Georgia State moved to FBS after 3 years in the FCS and had their first bowl appearance as a member of the Sun Belt conference in 2015. UNCC joined Conference USA after two years in the FBS last year. Both spend around $6 million per year at this time. Neither is a candidate to jump to a BCS conference any time soon.
One of the primary reasons that Wichita State has not started football back up is that there is a belief (understanding?) that local fans will not be prone to abandon their allegiance to KSU, KU, Nebraska, Oklahoma or Texas for an FCS program or even a non-BCS program, so it would be imperative for Wichita State to advance as quickly as possible in order to keep the financial side of the equation viable. When you factor in that most BCS conference universities are spending far more than $10 million per year on football, there is an economic hurdle that can not easily be crossed. On top of that, merely competing at a high level with energetic fans and a flush budget does nothing to guarantee your opportunity to compete in a BCS conference. We've seen threads on this board asking why Houston is not in the Big 12. Schools like BYU and Boise State would love to join BCS conferences but are not receiving invites. What I am getting at, in my prototypical long-winded fashion, is that there is, without a doubt, a monopoly type situation existing in college football where the have nots are very definitely deprived the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
But just because School X or Y or Z has "made it" to that level saying NOTHING about that being a monopoly, any more than accusing Ford and Honda being in bed together because both make cars! Chances are, many of the established programs got into the game (pun intended) when costs were cheaper, and now the program's "brand" generates revenue (and student enrollment) without doing nearly as much as the effort required to start something up from scratch. But that is not a monopoly! That is an accident of history. You can quit the rat race in bigtime college football, like the Ivy's have done, and focus on their mission, or you can join it at some level. But life or industry never promised anyone anything. I would have loved to prospect the Yukon in 1899, but I was born too late. Does that mean that the state of Alaska or Canada's Yukon Territory "owes" me anything? Absurd.
Which notion? The monopoly notion or the limiting of salaries notion (which depends on the first notion being accepted)?
It doesn't matter how financially set Houston is......they are not getting invited into the SEC or Big 12 any time soon. Regardless of their finances, they don't have the opportunity to choose to enter the market and compete in BCS level bowl games or whatever you want to call them now. All of the money in the world doesn't get them a guaranteed spot. They can finish 12-1 and if another small market team is 13-0, they get stuck in the weedeater bowl while a 10-2 team from the Pac-12 has a shot at the Fiesta Bowl. Heck, they could be undefeated and left out.
The problem with your comment about market saturation is that in reality, if it was truly left to market forces, Washington State, Oregon State, Vanderbilt, and teams like that would probably get rotated out of the Power 5 in favor of teams that had larger markets and fanbases. Fortunately for us, we are in a corrupt system that lets us keep our spot.
Or, we've been in our spot for a historically significant amount of time and have actually won conference championships in football. But I'm sure you considered all that...
I'm not going to address the WSU, OSU and Vandy, as I think Yaki clears that up. I hope you don't think everything is as clear cut as "just about the money". This world is a little more complicated than that. I'll use Witchita State as an example. Lets pretend they do start up football again. But they've ditched football in the past. Don't you think any conference is going to be slightly hesitant to let them in because they've shown they are quitters? Just a small example.
You mention Houston…. as in the school that is surrounded by Texas A&M, University of Texas, Texas Tech, TCU (hmmmm… small school and they started winning perennially and they were in what conference and they were INVITED to what conference? But I digress), Baylor, SMU, and then all the other smaller ones like Texas State, UTEP, etc. all in just one state? You don't think that might be a great example of "saturated market"? I think they've done very well, considering the number of other "italian restaurants" surround them. But lets use it anyways, since you brought it up. Is it possible for Houston to move up? Sure! Just like TCU did! Lets bring that back to the discussion again. They have the right location (the store front location is vital, as in any other business), they are very close to a pool of consumers that love that kind of product. They started winning and they moved up, didn't they? Houston has very similar pressures. I don't know what they have and haven't done but they are in control of their own destiny. Maybe they hired the wrong coach, the wrong president or AD and have had a decade of 8 or 9 wins… I don't know all the little details regarding why they haven't jumped up as much as TCU. That's delving a little too much into the weeds. But TCU has marketed themselves well, don't you think? I submit they moved up because the market was able to support it! It's in Texas where it's a religion. They get the support, they get the eyes on THEIR product, they are relevant. They bring in money. Houston has the same possibilities, more so than any other area because in Texas it's a religion. Good example, Flat. Like it.
And by the way, besides TCU as an example of a small school, winning and getting their share of a market… then getting an invite to a Power5 Conference, as an example:
What is your reaction to University of Texas, San Antonio? Even though in Texas with all the market competition surrounding it, as I outline above, they started a football program in 2011 and have been VERY successful, IMHO. They are a prime example of your Italian restaurant that opened up in Little Italy surrounded by other Italian restaurants, and starting down the very path I mentioned in previous posts! GOOD FOR THEM!!!! They are battling! I've watched them smoke U of I. It was cool to see how many people traveled for them. Would this kind of support happen in Witchita State? Do you know what happened with that program that was the tipping point for starting that program? The Students led an initiative to double their fees, and that is what paved the way. It showed support and they knew they would have it once they started the program. Support equals money. Very Cool.
Last edited:
It comes down to a lack of full understanding of economics/cash flow/supply vrs. demand/markets/etc... I can probably throw in cultural influences as well... They are not dumb individuals, just misinformed...
It is possible that a team like Houston could get invited to the Big 12, but that will only happen when it means that the other teams in the Big 12 can make more money based on the invitation. If you don't think this is "just about the money", you aren't paying attention. TCU was only admitted to the Big 12 because they were gutted by the Pac-12, B1G and SEC and had to add teams to remain a viable conference. Before the shakeup, there was no way in hell that TCU would have been considered for the conference, regardless of their success. Another massive conference shakeup could change things, but the Big 12 has no desire to invite Houston, regardless of their success. The only expansion that the Big 12 will make will be one that brings in new TV markets and they already have enough fans in the Houston TV market because of Texas, Baylor and TCU.
There is, and has been, talk of going after Louisville and Memphis. They considered going after Clemson at one point. There was the briefest flirtation with BYU before the realization that religion can screw up sports was arrived at. Any time that I've heard Houston brought up, they get snorted at the way that we snort at SDSU or BSU. There is no way that SDSU or BSU will be invited into the Pac-12 without other massive movement forcing the decision. Same with Houston or any other school that can't add serious value when it comes to TV sets. It has nothing to do with the quality of product produced, it has everything to do with politics and a corrupt system designed to prevent smaller programs from being able to get in. We are lucky that we have the fortune to be in the system and that politics keeps us in it. UW knows that the Washington State legislature would never allow us to get kicked out of the Pac-12 to allow BSU or SDSU into the conference without serious ramifications. You know those bastards in Montlake would do it in a heartbeat if they could.
There is, and has been, talk of going after Louisville and Memphis. They considered going after Clemson at one point. There was the briefest flirtation with BYU before the realization that religion can screw up sports was arrived at. Any time that I've heard Houston brought up, they get snorted at the way that we snort at SDSU or BSU. There is no way that SDSU or BSU will be invited into the Pac-12 without other massive movement forcing the decision. Same with Houston or any other school that can't add serious value when it comes to TV sets. It has nothing to do with the quality of product produced, it has everything to do with politics and a corrupt system designed to prevent smaller programs from being able to get in. We are lucky that we have the fortune to be in the system and that politics keeps us in it. UW knows that the Washington State legislature would never allow us to get kicked out of the Pac-12 to allow BSU or SDSU into the conference without serious ramifications. You know those bastards in Montlake would do it in a heartbeat if they could.
Flat, I'm so confused on your stance. Pretty much your whole first paragraph outlines the market pressures and why the Texas market is so saturated, that it wouldn't allow Houston to grow. Money. You even say, "If you don't think this is "just about the money", you aren't paying attention." This is YOUR sentence.The only thing that I see that isn't about market pressures and the value (i.e. money value) of the football program that you write is "It has nothing to do with the quality of product produced, it has everything to do with politics and a corrupt system designed to prevent smaller programs from being able to get in." But You said this has everything to do with money? You seem to be flinging mud to see what sticks because now you're bringing in Politics and Corruption… Of course politics is involved. Cripes, hiring a dude to be a cashier at McDonalds can involve Politics! That was my point about Witchita State have a reputation of being a quitter and how that could affect their "invite"… It isn't all about the money… you contradict yourself, here… ?
And after all of that, you still mention TCU and how they were able to get invited while at the same time saying the whole system is about keeping the likes of TCU out of the Power5 conferences... Soooo what is it your trying to say? Half the time you are literally agreeing with CP and I, then a sentence later, you're not. Can't have it both ways, sir.
I saw that Idaho is dropping back to FCS and it reminded me of this thread. My point in this thread was that the system is geared where the only teams that have a choice about what happens are the ones that are already in the club. At this point in time, the only way that they will even consider adding a school is if it generates extra money for the existing members. A secondary part, and this where your second bolded statement comes in, is that even if a team has the money, the other teams can keep them out if they feel that allowing them access to the top level will hurt their recruiting. It would be like a restaurant being told that even though they meet all of the other qualifications, they can't get a license to sell food because the other restaurants in town don't want them as competition. If they want to sell out of a food truck.....go ahead.
As far as TCU goes, there could be a time when conferences are forced to accept the reality that they have to take in new teams or disappear from relevance. That's the only reason why TCU got the invite. That could happen, but that was a circumstance completely out of their control. If the Pac-12 were to successfully take the Oklahoma schools in, it might create a situation where Houston would become appealing, but even then, the Big 12 would look elsewhere first.
Idaho is a great example of how tough it is for a program to survive in the current climate. They've made a lot of bad choices over the years and it caught up to them but it's a danger for any small program. It will be interesting to see if New Mexico State follows them back down. A recent article in the Las Cruces newspaper makes it obvious that the possibility can't be ruled out.
You're aren't making sense.
U of I had a choice. No one stopped them from going FBS, no one is stopping them (or forcing them) from going back to FCS. No one made any choices that inhibited U of I, as you state. "...the system is geared where the only teams that have a choice about what happens are the ones that are already in the club." If there is something I've missed, please show me a link or article or something. And lets please not jump around. Show me something about U of I, not Witchita or NMSU or whomever. If we want to talk about them, then lets do that. But you bring up U of I as an example so I'd like to focus on that, since it's very specific situations that cause failure and success.
The hole in your whole statement is that U of I wasn't excluded. You mention the restaurant thing again. But U of I was was allowed into the FBS. They made the restaurant. They were allowed into the club. There are a boat load of examples of those allowed "into the club". You want them to succeed. That's harder. The FBS is elite. To succeed at that level is going to be hard. But isn't that the point? You only want the best once you get to a certain level, don't you? Are you saying the other schools should help them float financially, more than they already do? I don't get your overall statement, on this point.
You even mention, "They've made a lot of bad choices over the years and it caught up to them but it's a danger for any small program." Well, that's the problem. When you make mistakes, you must pay for them. That's why it's important to make as few mistakes, and certainly big mistakes, as possible in life. You must pay for them. If you don't… well, you're just plain 'ol lucky.
I just don't get your point. I might if you could speak cogently with specific examples to your point. But you speak in platitudes and generalities and when you bring in an example like U of I, none of your generalities and platitudes hold water to that specific example.
Specifics, examples. Whom has been excluded from the FBS and why? You mention U of I and then rail against the system not allowing programs in. Well, U of I was in… ? So what's your point again?
I think there are some giant holes in your argument. TCU is one of them - 15-20 years ago, nobody thought of them as a Big 12 team. Even 10 years ago, it was unlikely. Now they've been in for 4 years. Boise State is another hole - they were invited to the Big East, and chose not to go (as did SDSU). So, while it's hard to transition from small market, mid-major to P-5, if you can put together a successful program, it can be done.
As for Idaho, it never seemed like they fully committed to FBS. They never did anything to increase attendance, or the number of seats in the Kibbie Dome - it's the same size now as it was in 1996. Even when the NCAA made them play in Martin, they didn't do anything. For their first year as an FBS team, Chris Tormey made just under $76,000 as head coach. No, that number is not missing a digit. Nick Holt made $205K, Akey made about $375, and Petrino is shy of $420. The entire staff now makes just over $700K. Numbers like that just don't belong in FBS anymore.
I guess the thing that I feel (that you don't) is that merely being present on the FBS level isn't a good place for a school to be.
None of the schools in the Group of Five feel that they are being treated fairly by the system. In general, they are trapped at a lower status with little hope of changing their situation outside of general chaos in the Power Five conferences. They have no way to effect change themselves and the system is specifically geared to limit their ability to make enough money to compete on anything approaching a level playing field. Any school that tries to jump into the FBS mix is guaranteed to lose money. Near as I can tell, Notre Dame and BYU are the only two programs outside the Power Five conferences that didn't lose money. Check out the link below:
Everybody losing money
One study said that the average Power Five program has a $2 million deficit where the average Group of Five program has a $17 million deficit. The smaller programs are getting killed in the hopes of trying to keep from getting completely trampled by the guys in the club. Idaho merely decided that losing $9 million per year was no longer viable. FWIW, just because TCU and Utah were able to make the leap doesn't mean that it is reasonable for any team that is currently outside the Power Five system to think it's reasonable to get in. When you have about a 1 in 25 chance of success........you're odds are pretty freakin' bad. As for your comments about Boise State and the Big East.....feel free to note that the Big East is dead. They bailed because they could see the disaster that was unfolding. Pick on me about bad examples.....but please don't use the Big East as the basis for your beliefs.
None of the schools in the Group of Five feel that they are being treated fairly by the system. In general, they are trapped at a lower status with little hope of changing their situation outside of general chaos in the Power Five conferences. They have no way to effect change themselves and the system is specifically geared to limit their ability to make enough money to compete on anything approaching a level playing field. Any school that tries to jump into the FBS mix is guaranteed to lose money. Near as I can tell, Notre Dame and BYU are the only two programs outside the Power Five conferences that didn't lose money. Check out the link below:
Everybody losing money
One study said that the average Power Five program has a $2 million deficit where the average Group of Five program has a $17 million deficit. The smaller programs are getting killed in the hopes of trying to keep from getting completely trampled by the guys in the club. Idaho merely decided that losing $9 million per year was no longer viable. FWIW, just because TCU and Utah were able to make the leap doesn't mean that it is reasonable for any team that is currently outside the Power Five system to think it's reasonable to get in. When you have about a 1 in 25 chance of success........you're odds are pretty freakin' bad. As for your comments about Boise State and the Big East.....feel free to note that the Big East is dead. They bailed because they could see the disaster that was unfolding. Pick on me about bad examples.....but please don't use the Big East as the basis for your beliefs.
PRograms losing money is not something new. Most athletic programs operate in the red, and they have for decades. Any program that feels they aren't "being treated fairly by the system" is welcome to leave it. Nobody forces anyone to stay in the game.
The door is open to programs who want to make the leap. It's not easy, and it's not guaranteed, but TCU, BSU, and Utah have proved it can be done.
The Big East is not dead, it just has a different name and several new members. It's the AAC now.
It's dead as a doornail. Every team that could escape the conference bailed on it. West Virginia to the Big 12, Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville went to the ACC, and Rutgers went to the Big 10. When 5 of the 8 members are gone, you've changed names and you are no longer considered one of the best leagues in the country.......your conference is dead.
Pick on you? You set yourself up, particularly in your Own Private Idaho example. You are, however, a victim ("pick on me").
So here is what I've heard. Your initial statement is that you don't think the FBS is fair because they don't allow program "in". We've shown that many schools have been allowed and many are still "in". One in recent history has been highlighted as a massive success. You have no answer regarding TCU. The only response has been that U of I made some bad mistakes. You've not debunked how TCU was able to enter AND succeed on the football field. But you've not shown any material on who has ever been rejected from entering. And for those that have potentially been rejected, you've not shown why.
Now we've moved on to, it's the structure of the NCAA (I'm guessing it's the NCAA as an organization, as you've only made the general statement of "FBS" where in previous posts you mention those "already in" not wanting anyone in) not allowing them to thrive. But your support that you've brought forth is an article showing no one thrives… I'm so lost… So because ALL the programs are subsidized, the lower financially scaled entities are having a harder time thriving in a debt filled environment? Is that your point? So you think UCLA or USC or Alabama should subsidize the Weber States, the Witchita States, the U of I's MORE to make an easier transition for them into the big boy club? They are all losing money but the big boys should give more to those that contribute the least? All in hopes that U of I doesn't continue to make horrid mistakes, judgements and trip-ups?
I think it, again, comes down to conclusions.
I don't think many people are arguing with what Flat is saying (IE general facts, examples), but what they are arguing with are Flat's conclusions FROM those general facts and examples. I think "false positive result" might be an okay descriptor for Flat's conclusions? Something better out there?
NCAA/FBS is not a monopoly, but to compete at the very highest level is exceptionally hard. That sort of, I don't know, reminds me of almost every single commercial industry in America... lol
I don't think many people are arguing with what Flat is saying (IE general facts, examples), but what they are arguing with are Flat's conclusions FROM those general facts and examples. I think "false positive result" might be an okay descriptor for Flat's conclusions? Something better out there?
NCAA/FBS is not a monopoly, but to compete at the very highest level is exceptionally hard. That sort of, I don't know, reminds me of almost every single commercial industry in America... lol
Last edited:
And here's the thing… Regardless of any other point, no one is forcing them to go from a small pond where most have dominated at some point, like U of I, to a big pond where it will be VERY difficult to surpass the Alabama's and USC's of the world. They choose to put themselves in that environment, with no force pushing them. But somehow it's being framed as "not fair". And in that light, has any program come away from this with any form of press release saying they were mistreated? So this is just about public perception that it isn't fair. The guys in the boxing ring are OK with the rules, it's the ones sitting outside the ring that are complaining?
I agree, it's this form of conclusion that is completely off, to me. They willingly jump into shark infested waters. They aren't even wondering why it's hard to swim. They knew what they were in for. No complaint has ever been lodged that remotely touches on this, is there? They took/take a calculated risk and either fail or succeed. Done.
Why does crap have to be easier to this society? Love it when the world is against me! Some of the hardest things I've ever done in my life are the proudest moments of my life. The easy crap is just… easy. Anyone can do it. When it's hardest, it's what makes it elite. Very few can do it. That's what FBS is supposed to be.
I think the restaurant analogy is misplaced. A better analogy is the lottery. Anyone can buy a ticket. The odds of winning are extremely low. But people buy tickets anyway.
Schools can choose to play football. They can choose to try to play at the FBS level. It's well known that most FBS athletic programs are subsidized and are not profitable. It's well known that new and/or small programs have very little chance of becoming P-5 programs, much less becoming known, popular, and profitable. Yet they keep joining the FBS. Texas-San Antonio, Charlotte, Texas State, South Alabama, UMass, Georgia Southern, Appalachian State, Georgia State, Old Dominion, Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic, and Florida International have moved up to FBS since 2016. Coastal Carolina is coming up this year, UAB is re-instating their program in 2017.
So, knowing that their odds of winning are very small, schools have been buying a ticket consistently for the last decade. If they think it's so unfair, I don't think that would be happening.
I could could acknowledge your analogy. The only minutia that I don't like is, it gives more idea that they are completely rudderless on their outcome. While there are things outside of their realm of control, they control quite a bit regarding the condition of their "house" fiscally, PRIOR to entering the FBS. And that truly does increase their odds.
I also saw on twitter this morning, Witchita State is working the angle about starting up again. Trying to stir up support. I've yet to see if they are wanting to be FCS or FBS. As we've outlined, 2 completely different worlds. They would do well to do the FCS route, IMHO.
Along that line, here is a priceless quote with regards to Wichita State: Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson said he did not have direct contact with Bardo or Wichita State officials. He added that if Wichita State plans to park its basketball program in a new conference, “It ain't going to be us."
So yeah.......any program that wants to move up just has to ask.
Just... Stop... Lots of different individuals have used analogy after analogy to explain a rather simple concept to you...
Actually, the analogy is that anyone can start a state lottery system. But, of course, they can't.
Ugh what are you yapping about now?
Athletic departments are making more money now then they ever have in their history. This is a fact.
Small schools have always made small money....because they are small.
If a small school wants to move up they have to invest in the infrastructure. Just like anything in life. You want a new house? You will have to take out a loan to get new house (going into a debt). After you sell that house you will have money to move into a bigger house, or just stay in the same sized house and pocket the money you would be spending on a mortgage.
You want better academics? Invest in better professors. Invest in better research faciliities....surprise! You will get better results! But that doesn't happen when you don't want to invest. It's not like oh magically good professors will just show up and through the gratitude and graciousness of their hearts they will want to teach for free and for the crappy salary we offer. NO. That isn't how the world works.
If Tinyshit A&Tech took out a 100 million dollar loan and build amazing facilities do you think they would attract better players? Yup. Do you think they would win more games in Whogivesa**** Conference? Yup. Would their attendance go up? Yup. Would they be on TV more earning more revenue? Yup. Get invited to better conferences? Yup. And it all started with going in debt.
You don't like the massive contracts/big expenditures? Well you will have to destroy your Television, cancel your cable, boycott the games, not buy merchandize, and get everyone else in the country to do it too. Oh wait. You won't do that...because that's stupid, and so is any argument bitching about the economics of college football. By being a fan...you are contributing to the way things are. Reading the sports section allows the newspapers to earn money through advertising on the page. That revenue pays for the journalists to do the research and write about the team.
When you watch the games on TV. The ad revenue goes to the network...who pays the conference to show the game...which pays the teams. You love sitting on your fatass at home watching the game right? But you don't like the money in college football? Oh lord help me. This is like explaining to an alcoholic that it's his own drinking that is making him see double and to quit bitching at the magical double fairy who is conspiring to make copies of everything in the world.
Athletic departments are making more money now then they ever have in their history. This is a fact.
Small schools have always made small money....because they are small.
If a small school wants to move up they have to invest in the infrastructure. Just like anything in life. You want a new house? You will have to take out a loan to get new house (going into a debt). After you sell that house you will have money to move into a bigger house, or just stay in the same sized house and pocket the money you would be spending on a mortgage.
You want better academics? Invest in better professors. Invest in better research faciliities....surprise! You will get better results! But that doesn't happen when you don't want to invest. It's not like oh magically good professors will just show up and through the gratitude and graciousness of their hearts they will want to teach for free and for the crappy salary we offer. NO. That isn't how the world works.
If Tinyshit A&Tech took out a 100 million dollar loan and build amazing facilities do you think they would attract better players? Yup. Do you think they would win more games in Whogivesa**** Conference? Yup. Would their attendance go up? Yup. Would they be on TV more earning more revenue? Yup. Get invited to better conferences? Yup. And it all started with going in debt.
You don't like the massive contracts/big expenditures? Well you will have to destroy your Television, cancel your cable, boycott the games, not buy merchandize, and get everyone else in the country to do it too. Oh wait. You won't do that...because that's stupid, and so is any argument bitching about the economics of college football. By being a fan...you are contributing to the way things are. Reading the sports section allows the newspapers to earn money through advertising on the page. That revenue pays for the journalists to do the research and write about the team.
When you watch the games on TV. The ad revenue goes to the network...who pays the conference to show the game...which pays the teams. You love sitting on your fatass at home watching the game right? But you don't like the money in college football? Oh lord help me. This is like explaining to an alcoholic that it's his own drinking that is making him see double and to quit bitching at the magical double fairy who is conspiring to make copies of everything in the world.
It's great that you don't really read the thread and just pile on like a fool. If you look at the link that I provided on Monday, it showed that a study found that all but 2 programs from the Group of Five teams are losing huge sums of money each year. On average, Power 5 teams lose $2 million (generally scholarship writeoffs for football). Group of five teams lose $17 million on average (god knows where that much is going). They aren't making more money than ever, they are losing more money than ever in the hopes of keeping up wit the Joneses.
Love the partial info without context. So I looked up the issues for The Shockers, specifically what Mr. Thompson said. Have you read the whole statement? Might wanna. It's economics. The MW is locked into contracts with the TV rights and so instead of being able to go the the networks and say, "Hey, we have 12 teams now! So now you can give us a 12th more money to distribute equally!", they are locked into the current contract for several, several years. So they would have to split the money up into smaller portions in order to give The Shockers they're conference TV revenue money. Every team would get less annual money from the TV rights, in order to bring in Witchita State basketball. So that makes no sense. And to be clear, that has NOTHING to do with any "system" other than what a general contract is like, in the general world. This specific situation is about TV and the conference, and what both sides thought were equitable at the time of signing. That is all. No NCAA conspiracy, no conference not wanting to expand so they place some 'catches' in the 'system' to make it difficult. You do realize, most conferences WANT to expand, for this very reason. They can get more money if they expand! They just want to make sure it's a positive move for them, as well.
But back to this specific situation...oddly the AAC and USA have also been mentioned and have had positive feedback! What?! Wait a sec?! I thought the NCAA Control of Small Programs and the Ability to Squish Them at Will Board nixed them from ever moving up?! Didn't James Bond attend that meeting and confirm the Boards decision to disallow their movement up?
The one caveat regarding USA is they will not accept a basketball only program. SO again, that decision back in the 80's to drop Football is still biting them in the @$$. It's almost like bad choices can follow you around or something. It's almost like they have their own destiny in their hands, they just have to live with the choices they've made. But it sounds like this could dovetail nicely for them, if they could drum up enough support to start up football again. But again, that is in THEIR control.
So it looks like they'll be able to move up. It honestly sounds like they could move up any time they wanted. They just have to pull the trigger. It's a matter of what conference and timing. Man, what a monopoly ( I know, we've all agreed it isn't but the innuendo is still there)… They get to pick… Harsh.
You make such broad strokes, you don't even see how every conference, every team, every division is different and comes to the table with different luggage, different views, different "wants". It's a lot like people! Huh! Who'd a thunk? It seems like you are stating "Every conference, every team, should just be equal…" BS. One conference won't want them, another will. Your inability to see the obvious, to see that it isn't going to be given to them but they can make moves to better themselves, it just won't be overnight, is starting to get a bit, Laurel and Hardy'ish. I'm no fan of the NCAA but your literal conspiracy theory on this specific issue is truly comical.
How many of those programs spent money on facility / infrastructure upgrades? Did you look into that? No.
You can look up any and ALL athletic department income and expenditures for operating their program with this link. Which doesn't include facility expenditures.
Let's look at the top of the list in the link you provided.
UNLV
Total Operating Expeditures -
$39,028,683
Total Revenue -
$39,926,403CAVEAT
Gain of $898,000
Now did UNLV spend money on facilities? Why yes.. Yes they did.
They had a 50 million dollar facilities upgrade project plan that they are still implementing. Just like we have when we started the cougar football project.
So are they losing money? NO. Did they raise money to fund their upgrade? Yes. Do they still owe money on it? Yes. But as I said. Just like anything you invest and then you make payments on the capital you borrowed to do the project.
So NO they aren't all losing money.
But let's continue on your stupid assumptions. Let's go to the next one.
Houston!
It says they have a deficit of 26.8 million.
Let's see what Houston is doing athletically
Houston
Total Operating Expenditures
$45,437,943
Total Revenue
$45,437,943
Breaking even (like most)
Did Houston have any facilities expenditures?
Oh wait... They just built a 128 million dollar stadium? Wow! It's almost as if there would be some debt associated with something like that. What a shocker there is. So how has Houston done in football since the Stadium was put into use in 2014?
Finished #8 Beat FSU in the Peach bowl. And that's why Athletic departments don't take cues from Flatland "I found this artcile look everybody is loosing money!, yet I don't understand what the word deficit means".
Every team on that list had massive expenditures in facility upgrades so of course the balance sheet in total will be off, but teams aren't losing money. They are making more in revenue then ever before.
Last edited:
Looky looky somebody other than me understands the mechanics of finance!
Schooled again? Understand finance?
You are acting like they don't have to pay off those facilities that they are building. The sad thing is about the time that they finish writing off their current losses, they'll have to spend the same money again trying to renovate to keep up with the latest "keep up with the joneses" thing.
As for Wichita State and the whole story....the only story that matters is that they went to the MWC and got their asses handed to them publicly. Of course it's about economics. That's been my point the whole freakin' time. It doesn't matter how much money a school can make if they can't bring enough to the table for everyone else to get more. You are the ones pretending that it's not. Even if Wichita State had football and a better value proposition than other teams in either league, they don't get in.
We should thank our lucky stars for the corruptness of the system, because WSU most definitely benefits from this.
You are acting like they don't have to pay off those facilities that they are building. The sad thing is about the time that they finish writing off their current losses, they'll have to spend the same money again trying to renovate to keep up with the latest "keep up with the joneses" thing.
As for Wichita State and the whole story....the only story that matters is that they went to the MWC and got their asses handed to them publicly. Of course it's about economics. That's been my point the whole freakin' time. It doesn't matter how much money a school can make if they can't bring enough to the table for everyone else to get more. You are the ones pretending that it's not. Even if Wichita State had football and a better value proposition than other teams in either league, they don't get in.
We should thank our lucky stars for the corruptness of the system, because WSU most definitely benefits from this.
You have continually implied that the system holds programs back. Me and others have pointed out a good dozen of programs that have come up through the ranks. And in modern times, we've shown TCU as an example of doing so and have incredible success.
You recently brought up Witchita State as a program that got their ass handed to them, publicly. Even after I've pointed out that they have 2 other viable options for their quest towards moving upwards. So I really don't get your point. Is it that it isn't happening the way you believe it should? They shouldn't work their way up, step by step, slowly? They should just "have it"? Do you believe any conference should be required to consider them, that they shouldn't have autonomy and the ability to make choices they believe are best for their conference, as a lone unit? t just don't get your point, in any way. I brought up finance, and you literally argued it wasn't finance. It was a system that held them back. Now it's only finance. But that isn't the NCAA system, that's how the world works. Yet name a conference that doesn't want to expand? At least do so and be successful. See, that's what it seems to be your argument. They should have their way, regardless of how messy their house it, regardless of whatever given conference's situations are. If a conference is going to lose money, that shouldn't matter. If the conference would become watered down and less successful as a unit, that shouldn't matter. You're implications are incredibly naive. Almost as if you believe money shouldn't be involved in the definition of "success".
Similar threads
