Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
They got me thinking
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,237
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1
They got me thinking
ALLTIDEUP's idea
http://csnbbs.com/thread-830242-post-146...id14684899


Post: #6RE: Starting over from the top
You know what a very reasonable ACC would be?

North: West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke

South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest


JR"S idea
[url=http://csnbbs.com/thread-829637-post-14680539.html#pid14680539][/url]

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.


1) straight swap: Pitt for Maryland
2) straight swap: Louisville for West Virginia
3) gift from the SEC to the Big 12: Missouri (for future considerations)
4) SEC adds South Florida
5) Big 12 adds: Cincinnati (as well as the SEC's gift of Missouri and the swap of Louisville for WVU)
6) ACC retains Syracuse and Boston College
10-18-2017 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #2
RE: They got me thinking
Why would the SEC want to give up Missouri to add USF?

I like UCF and USF but Missouri bring considerably more to the table and will for some time.
10-18-2017 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #3
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 07:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  ALLTIDEUP's idea
http://csnbbs.com/thread-830242-post-146...id14684899


Post: #6RE: Starting over from the top
You know what a very reasonable ACC would be?

North: West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke

South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest


JR"S idea
[url=http://csnbbs.com/thread-829637-post-14680539.html#pid14680539][/url]

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.


1) straight swap: Pitt for Maryland
2) straight swap: Louisville for West Virginia
3) gift from the SEC to the Big 12: Missouri (for future considerations)
4) SEC adds South Florida
5) Big 12 adds: Cincinnati (as well as the SEC's gift of Missouri and the swap of Louisville for WVU)
6) ACC retains Syracuse and Boston College

So this...

B1G
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Rutgers, Pittsburgh

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Clemson, Florida St, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Maryland

SEC
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
East:Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, South Florida

XII
South: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
North: Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, Missouri, Louisville, Cincinnati
10-18-2017 08:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #4
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 07:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  ALLTIDEUP's idea
http://csnbbs.com/thread-830242-post-146...id14684899


Post: #6RE: Starting over from the top
You know what a very reasonable ACC would be?

North: West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke

South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest


JR"S idea
[url=http://csnbbs.com/thread-829637-post-14680539.html#pid14680539][/url]

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.


1) straight swap: Pitt for Maryland
2) straight swap: Louisville for West Virginia
3) gift from the SEC to the Big 12: Missouri (for future considerations)
4) SEC adds South Florida
5) Big 12 adds: Cincinnati (as well as the SEC's gift of Missouri and the swap of Louisville for WVU)
6) ACC retains Syracuse and Boston College

Ultimately, moves have to be voluntary. Conferences can't swap schools like Monopoly properties.
10-18-2017 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 07:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  ALLTIDEUP's idea
http://csnbbs.com/thread-830242-post-146...id14684899


Post: #6RE: Starting over from the top
You know what a very reasonable ACC would be?

North: West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke

South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest


JR"S idea
[url=http://csnbbs.com/thread-829637-post-14680539.html#pid14680539][/url]

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.


1) straight swap: Pitt for Maryland
2) straight swap: Louisville for West Virginia
3) gift from the SEC to the Big 12: Missouri (for future considerations)
4) SEC adds South Florida
5) Big 12 adds: Cincinnati (as well as the SEC's gift of Missouri and the swap of Louisville for WVU)
6) ACC retains Syracuse and Boston College

Ultimately, moves have to be voluntary. Conferences can't swap schools like Monopoly properties.

Well, they do it in cyber space every day.

The simple truth of all realignment is this.

Schools with cachet and brand move to larger better paying conferences comprised of schools with cachet and brand because the business synergy exponentially enhance their pay. Note I did not say it enhanced their play.

They are doing this largely due to social and cultural changes. Sports has been grossly overexposed to the public for so long that it has little appeal as an experience to be attended to any but the rabid fan and then only to the subset of rabid fan with money.

Being the top dog in a conference with a couple of challenging dogs and about 11 other also rans isn't garnering enough to cover what they are missing out on elsewhere.

So now that the totally bogus market model is starting to collapse and content is emerging again as the key factor in acquisitions those who have cachet, are from states with at least a sustainable economy (key to the earning power of the rabid fans to have enough money to be able to afford the experience), and can profit from the move, those schools all face choices. Do we stay put and slowly watch the revenue stream dwindle, or do we move and risk identity?

It's a valid question. I say if you have cachet and your state is economically sound it is feasible. If you aren't a sports brand, or your state isn't economically healthy then you probably shouldn't move.

When movement happens the of course lesser brands try to move up to fill the vacated slots.

Because of this the SEC and Big 10 will continue to pick up valuable brands looking for economic synergy.

The SEC's economic impact potential is 7.3 billion. The Big 10's is 5.7 billion. The Big 12's is 3.5 billion. The PAC's is 3.0 billion. And the ACC's is 2.7 billion without Notre Dame in fully and 3.2 billion with them in fully.

There's the reality of the pecking order. Sports is about money, even for the Big 10.

If a school meets or surpasses the MEAN of the SEC's Gross Total Revenue, or the MEAN of our economic impact valuations then they might be a candidate. If not, they aren't.

The Average for the SEC's gross total revenue was 131 million dollars per school last year. I think our economic impact average was around 638 million.

The former is what the schools earned before expenses and the latter is their measured impact upon the business economy.

Two schools from the Big 12 would be on the SEC & Big 10's radar and Kansas would be questionable for both. There aren't many in the ACC that meet the metrics for total earnings, but there are a few that impact business model enough to be considered.
10-18-2017 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,237
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #6
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 07:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  ALLTIDEUP's idea
http://csnbbs.com/thread-830242-post-146...id14684899


Post: #6RE: Starting over from the top
You know what a very reasonable ACC would be?

North: West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke

South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest


JR"S idea
[url=http://csnbbs.com/thread-829637-post-14680539.html#pid14680539][/url]

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.


1) straight swap: Pitt for Maryland
2) straight swap: Louisville for West Virginia
3) gift from the SEC to the Big 12: Missouri (for future considerations)
4) SEC adds South Florida
5) Big 12 adds: Cincinnati (as well as the SEC's gift of Missouri and the swap of Louisville for WVU)
6) ACC retains Syracuse and Boston College

Ultimately, moves have to be voluntary. Conferences can't swap schools like Monopoly properties.

Well, they do it in cyber space every day.

The simple truth of all realignment is this.

Schools with cachet and brand move to larger better paying conferences comprised of schools with cachet and brand because the business synergy exponentially enhance their pay. Note I did not say it enhanced their play.

They are doing this largely due to social and cultural changes. Sports has been grossly overexposed to the public for so long that it has little appeal as an experience to be attended to any but the rabid fan and then only to the subset of rabid fan with money.

Being the top dog in a conference with a couple of challenging dogs and about 11 other also rans isn't garnering enough to cover what they are missing out on elsewhere.

So now that the totally bogus market model is starting to collapse and content is emerging again as the key factor in acquisitions those who have cachet, are from states with at least a sustainable economy (key to the earning power of the rabid fans to have enough money to be able to afford the experience), and can profit from the move, those schools all face choices. Do we stay put and slowly watch the revenue stream dwindle, or do we move and risk identity?

It's a valid question. I say if you have cachet and your state is economically sound it is feasible. If you aren't a sports brand, or your state isn't economically healthy then you probably shouldn't move.

When movement happens the of course lesser brands try to move up to fill the vacated slots.

Because of this the SEC and Big 10 will continue to pick up valuable brands looking for economic synergy.

The SEC's economic impact potential is 7.3 billion. The Big 10's is 5.7 billion. The Big 12's is 3.5 billion. The PAC's is 3.0 billion. And the ACC's is 2.7 billion without Notre Dame in fully and 3.2 billion with them in fully.

There's the reality of the pecking order. Sports is about money, even for the Big 10.

If a school meets or surpasses the MEAN of the SEC's Gross Total Revenue, or the MEAN of our economic impact valuations then they might be a candidate. If not, they aren't.

The Average for the SEC's gross total revenue was 131 million dollars per school last year. I think our economic impact average was around 638 million.

The former is what the schools earned before expenses and the latter is their measured impact upon the business economy.

Two schools from the Big 12 would be on the SEC & Big 10's radar and Kansas would be questionable for both. There aren't many in the ACC that meet the metrics for total earnings, but there are a few that impact business model enough to be considered.

The only caveat JR is that at some point even the SEC and the B1G will have to start to cull out some of the weaker teams in their own conferences.
Purdue and Mississippi State won't make the final cut as they will be eventually pushed out by teams like Florida State and Southern Cal. When you have to start killing off you own is when things will get really messy. Does Missouri make the cut?....what about Indiana? Once you start that process, where do you stop?
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 01:53 PM by XLance.)
10-18-2017 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #7
RE: They got me thinking
USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.
10-18-2017 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 02:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.

While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.
10-18-2017 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,237
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #9
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.

While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.

I wouldn't give up Miami for Kentucky.


Five conference realignment moves, trades to improve college football
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-football/
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 03:50 PM by XLance.)
10-18-2017 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #10
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 03:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.

While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.

I wouldn't give up Miami for Kentucky.


Five conference realignment moves, trades to improve college football
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-football/

That just means that Fornelli is another clueless hack that got a job as a writer with a clueless news service. Kentucky for Miami wasn't the worst trade on that list. I didn't see one that would make sense even if trading were possible.
10-18-2017 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,237
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #11
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 03:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.

While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.

I wouldn't give up Miami for Kentucky.


Five conference realignment moves, trades to improve college football
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-football/

That just means that Fornelli is another clueless hack that got a job as a writer with a clueless news service. Kentucky for Miami wasn't the worst trade on that list. I didn't see one that would make sense even if trading were possible.

Never-the-less, when contraction starts to occur, moving lesser schools "out" and greater schools "in" is going to be tricky when GORs can be up to 20 years.
10-18-2017 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #12
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 06:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 03:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.

While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.

I wouldn't give up Miami for Kentucky.


Five conference realignment moves, trades to improve college football
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-football/

That just means that Fornelli is another clueless hack that got a job as a writer with a clueless news service. Kentucky for Miami wasn't the worst trade on that list. I didn't see one that would make sense even if trading were possible.

Never-the-less, when contraction starts to occur, moving lesser schools "out" and greater schools "in" is going to be tricky when GORs can be up to 20 years.

Well then all contracts should be for 6 or 7 years and all GOR's should have the same duration.
10-18-2017 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #13
RE: They got me thinking
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.

While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.

This is all yet another reason I wouldn't mind taking 3 additional TX schools...especially if that 4th school is Houston as they are trending upwards. TX is another vibrant and growing economy much like FL if not already better off than FL. But yeah, same thing applies to UCF and USF too.

The only difference here is that I would advocate taking them sooner than later. We can help them grow, mold them in our image, and help them maximize their potential much sooner. Basically, if you know you want to marry a woman then take her off the market...
10-19-2017 03:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #14
RE: They got me thinking
(10-19-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.

While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.

This is all yet another reason I wouldn't mind taking 3 additional TX schools...especially if that 4th school is Houston as they are trending upwards. TX is another vibrant and growing economy much like FL if not already better off than FL. But yeah, same thing applies to UCF and USF too.

The only difference here is that I would advocate taking them sooner than later. We can help them grow, mold them in our image, and help them maximize their potential much sooner. Basically, if you know you want to marry a woman then take her off the market...

This is why we need athletic conferences separate and distinct from academic ones. It would be much simpler to develop product if we were simply looking at athletics. Right now academics get in the way such ventures.
10-19-2017 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #15
RE: They got me thinking
(10-19-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  This is why we need athletic conferences separate and distinct from academic ones. It would be much simpler to develop product if we were simply looking at athletics. Right now academics get in the way such ventures.

This would be an interesting concept. Perhaps have an SEC that would divided into SEC I and SEC II. SEC I would be the athletically-focused schools and SEC II would be the academically-focused schools. This isn't to say the SEC I schools have poor academics or the SEC II schools have poor athletics. It would be a division based upon perception.

This would pave the way for some schools to be promoted to the power conferences by way of academic excellence. This could elevate Rice, SMU, and Tulane to be in a conference with Vanderbilt, Duke, and Wake Forest.
10-19-2017 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #16
RE: They got me thinking
(10-19-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.

While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.

This is all yet another reason I wouldn't mind taking 3 additional TX schools...especially if that 4th school is Houston as they are trending upwards. TX is another vibrant and growing economy much like FL if not already better off than FL. But yeah, same thing applies to UCF and USF too.

The only difference here is that I would advocate taking them sooner than later. We can help them grow, mold them in our image, and help them maximize their potential much sooner. Basically, if you know you want to marry a woman then take her off the market...

This is why we need athletic conferences separate and distinct from academic ones. It would be much simpler to develop product if we were simply looking at athletics. Right now academics get in the way such ventures.

I don't think we'll ever be able to completely divorce the two.

When it comes to professional athletics, the point of the endeavor is to entertain and make money doing so. It's easy to prioritize in that context. All you have to do is keep your customers happy and you'll succeed.

When it comes to college athletics, the endeavor is inextricably tied to promotion of the school itself. Divorce the two to any significant degree and one of them isn't necessary.

It's one of the reasons I'm not for paying players because once you cross the line into professionalism then you can't go back. Ultimately, the schools and the teams they sponsor have a strange symbiotic relationship. It also means the priorities of academia and athletic prowess are always at odds on some level. It's a weird thing and a beautiful thing all at the same time.

I don't know if the Feds will end up changing things as far as how taxation works, but I don't see these schools relinquishing their effort to have the best of both worlds. I think they'll fight dividing schools up by academic focus versus athletic focus because if they do then the pendulum starts to swing one way or the other. They want every dime and every ounce of exposure that comes with excelling at both endeavors.
10-19-2017 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: They got me thinking
(10-19-2017 02:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:09 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  USF for Mizzou is a terrible trade.

Yes, UM is struggling right now but they're the only flagship/P5 school in a state of 6 million people. USF is a commuter school that plays in a NFL market/stadium in a state we already have the Flagship school of.

While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.

This is all yet another reason I wouldn't mind taking 3 additional TX schools...especially if that 4th school is Houston as they are trending upwards. TX is another vibrant and growing economy much like FL if not already better off than FL. But yeah, same thing applies to UCF and USF too.

The only difference here is that I would advocate taking them sooner than later. We can help them grow, mold them in our image, and help them maximize their potential much sooner. Basically, if you know you want to marry a woman then take her off the market...

This is why we need athletic conferences separate and distinct from academic ones. It would be much simpler to develop product if we were simply looking at athletics. Right now academics get in the way such ventures.

I don't think we'll ever be able to completely divorce the two.

When it comes to professional athletics, the point of the endeavor is to entertain and make money doing so. It's easy to prioritize in that context. All you have to do is keep your customers happy and you'll succeed.

When it comes to college athletics, the endeavor is inextricably tied to promotion of the school itself. Divorce the two to any significant degree and one of them isn't necessary.

It's one of the reasons I'm not for paying players because once you cross the line into professionalism then you can't go back. Ultimately, the schools and the teams they sponsor have a strange symbiotic relationship. It also means the priorities of academia and athletic prowess are always at odds on some level. It's a weird thing and a beautiful thing all at the same time.

I don't know if the Feds will end up changing things as far as how taxation works, but I don't see these schools relinquishing their effort to have the best of both worlds. I think they'll fight dividing schools up by academic focus versus athletic focus because if they do then the pendulum starts to swing one way or the other. They want every dime and every ounce of exposure that comes with excelling at both endeavors.

In College football and basketball the two are in total conflict with the academic side now. As to pay for play it's been going on since before I was born, it has only gotten exponentially worse. What I choose to do is see it for what it is. I suspect the Feds will as well. I think that both systems would benefit by an admission of the truth and a separation of objectives.
10-19-2017 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #18
RE: They got me thinking
(10-19-2017 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 02:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  While I'm not advocating for trading anyone 10th, I would be interested in USF down the road for reasons I've stated and which you have either not engaged or read.

There is a leveling coming in about 15 years. The last monied generation, the Boomers, will be dying out at numbers the WWII generation died out in the 90's and 2000's. Statistically speaking it will be economically devastating to the support level of college athletics in terms of high dollar ticket sales and donations. But of particular note moving forward from 2035 the large living alumni advantages that the huge state flagships have had for my entire lifetime will be gone with me.

At that time UCF and USF will have living alumni bases as large as those of Florida State and Florida, and in UCF's case likely much larger.

To ignore the future potential of these schools would be foolish for the ACC and SEC.

Florida is growing state with a healthy economy.

X was doing a bit of light trolling with his swap proposal. But commuter school or not those two will be viable. South Florida is already approaching research numbers that would rival the bottom 1/3rd of the SEC and those will only get stronger.

You have to think past tomorrow to succeed in life. Otherwise you'll always trail the results.

I think when the FBI gets done there is a high probability that college for profit sports lose their tax exempt status. It would clean up a lot of legal issues that waste time and money for enforcement oversight and the government. And the Federal Government is broke as hell and only survives because of our military's technological advantages. When we lose that the United States could be facing an economy which in terms of catastrophe could rival South American countries. That now 21 trillion in debt is actually just the interest on the debt. We quit counting the principal under the Clinton Administration. 21 trillion is what we have to budget for the annual payment, which of course we borrow even more to cover.

But needles to say when programs like Men's basektball and football and in some areas baseball or hockey are taxed and donations lose their tax deductible status the weeding out of weaker teams will happen without conferences having to kick them out.

With flagship advantages in living alumni gone by 2035 the larger alumni bases will start to receive advantages in state funding. All but the best endowed privates will suffer. And state schools who control votes will be in good shape commuter school or not.

There aren't many nationally better positioned than USF and UCF. Texas is already P5 poor. A reduction of P status to just Texas, A&M, Tech, and maybe Houston would be in order. S.M.U. is actually better endowed for the purposes of moving forward than T.C.U. or Baylor.

The nut cuttin' is gonna get tough and the results of who survives and who doesn't is going to surprise a helluva lot of folks.

And for the geographically ignorant Central Florida has a culture alien to North Florida and the Panhandle, but distinctly different from the Southernmost region of the state. The SEC would be very wise to consider adding from Central Florida which Tampa is.

And by the way, having a stadium you don't have to bear the cost of overhead to maintain will probably be a plus moving forward as opposed to having a landlocked facility on campus where parking is sparse.

This is all yet another reason I wouldn't mind taking 3 additional TX schools...especially if that 4th school is Houston as they are trending upwards. TX is another vibrant and growing economy much like FL if not already better off than FL. But yeah, same thing applies to UCF and USF too.

The only difference here is that I would advocate taking them sooner than later. We can help them grow, mold them in our image, and help them maximize their potential much sooner. Basically, if you know you want to marry a woman then take her off the market...

This is why we need athletic conferences separate and distinct from academic ones. It would be much simpler to develop product if we were simply looking at athletics. Right now academics get in the way such ventures.

I don't think we'll ever be able to completely divorce the two.

When it comes to professional athletics, the point of the endeavor is to entertain and make money doing so. It's easy to prioritize in that context. All you have to do is keep your customers happy and you'll succeed.

When it comes to college athletics, the endeavor is inextricably tied to promotion of the school itself. Divorce the two to any significant degree and one of them isn't necessary.

It's one of the reasons I'm not for paying players because once you cross the line into professionalism then you can't go back. Ultimately, the schools and the teams they sponsor have a strange symbiotic relationship. It also means the priorities of academia and athletic prowess are always at odds on some level. It's a weird thing and a beautiful thing all at the same time.

I don't know if the Feds will end up changing things as far as how taxation works, but I don't see these schools relinquishing their effort to have the best of both worlds. I think they'll fight dividing schools up by academic focus versus athletic focus because if they do then the pendulum starts to swing one way or the other. They want every dime and every ounce of exposure that comes with excelling at both endeavors.

In College football and basketball the two are in total conflict with the academic side now. As to pay for play it's been going on since before I was born, it has only gotten exponentially worse. What I choose to do is see it for what it is. I suspect the Feds will as well. I think that both systems would benefit by an admission of the truth and a separation of objectives.

What I'm getting at though is that football and basketball bring attention to a university it wouldn't otherwise get if it focused simply on promoting its academic achievements. The headaches are many on the part of academicians dealing with athletics, but they might very well have just as many headaches(albeit different ones) if they didn't have to worry about athletics.

The cumulative effect of decades worth of athletic participation pad the budgets and the enrollment. They turn schools into household names and generate revenue from individuals who never go to college and wouldn't give the slightest rip about the academic side.

My point about having 2 types of conferences is that it really doesn't serve a purpose. The point of athletics is to maximize the exposure and revenue of the school itself and that must always be the prime objective. In reality, we already have academic conferences, but we don't think of them in those terms because they don't involve athletic endeavors...the AAU for example. In other words, there's nothing keeping schools from aligning themselves along a purely academic set of priorities. They do it all the time, but most people have never heard of these associations because they focus on academic priorities rather than something for popular consumption.

By contrast, the athletic associations help the academic side succeed by creating a product that is desired by the public. The public buys it and the school benefits. Same reason schools help develop new technology or products. The University of Florida benefited tremendously from the creation of Gatorade. It stands to reason then that you want to create the best product you can so that you can generate as much revenue as you can. So for the purpose of athletics, you align yourself into the best athletic conference you can get into so that your product is top notch.

Florida didn't have to share their benefit from Gatorade because it's a material substance and there's no reason to share the rights to it. By contrast, to field an athletic team requires another athletic team to compete against. Boom, you've got conferences. They collectively share rights for mutual benefit because they need each other to be successful at this particular endeavor.

So in short, I don't see an academically focused athletic conference serving much of a purpose. It works for the Ivy league because they don't need the money. For virtually everyone else though, the money and exposure is beneficial.

On a side note...

I'm not really referencing pay to play, but since we're talking about it...what's the answer? Is the system messed up? Filled with corruption? Absolutely, but perhaps the only way to truly eliminate that would be to professionalize the system and remove the incentive to operate in the shadows. But no one's going to do that.

It's not really that I mind the idea of donations being taxed or certain athletic revenues being taxed. As long as the rules are reasonable and don't kill off the incentive to engage in athletics in the first place...

But none of that is really going to stop the cheating. People evade taxes every day in every industry in America. People cheat on their spouses. People find ways to lie and steal. Basically, human beings suck and we invent new forms of wickedness all the time. Point being, people who care about college athletics' success will find ways to cheat the system if they feel like they need to. There's too much money tied up into it.
10-19-2017 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #19
RE: They got me thinking
(10-19-2017 03:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 02:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-19-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  This is all yet another reason I wouldn't mind taking 3 additional TX schools...especially if that 4th school is Houston as they are trending upwards. TX is another vibrant and growing economy much like FL if not already better off than FL. But yeah, same thing applies to UCF and USF too.

The only difference here is that I would advocate taking them sooner than later. We can help them grow, mold them in our image, and help them maximize their potential much sooner. Basically, if you know you want to marry a woman then take her off the market...

This is why we need athletic conferences separate and distinct from academic ones. It would be much simpler to develop product if we were simply looking at athletics. Right now academics get in the way such ventures.

I don't think we'll ever be able to completely divorce the two.

When it comes to professional athletics, the point of the endeavor is to entertain and make money doing so. It's easy to prioritize in that context. All you have to do is keep your customers happy and you'll succeed.

When it comes to college athletics, the endeavor is inextricably tied to promotion of the school itself. Divorce the two to any significant degree and one of them isn't necessary.

It's one of the reasons I'm not for paying players because once you cross the line into professionalism then you can't go back. Ultimately, the schools and the teams they sponsor have a strange symbiotic relationship. It also means the priorities of academia and athletic prowess are always at odds on some level. It's a weird thing and a beautiful thing all at the same time.

I don't know if the Feds will end up changing things as far as how taxation works, but I don't see these schools relinquishing their effort to have the best of both worlds. I think they'll fight dividing schools up by academic focus versus athletic focus because if they do then the pendulum starts to swing one way or the other. They want every dime and every ounce of exposure that comes with excelling at both endeavors.

In College football and basketball the two are in total conflict with the academic side now. As to pay for play it's been going on since before I was born, it has only gotten exponentially worse. What I choose to do is see it for what it is. I suspect the Feds will as well. I think that both systems would benefit by an admission of the truth and a separation of objectives.

What I'm getting at though is that football and basketball bring attention to a university it wouldn't otherwise get if it focused simply on promoting its academic achievements. The headaches are many on the part of academicians dealing with athletics, but they might very well have just as many headaches(albeit different ones) if they didn't have to worry about athletics.

The cumulative effect of decades worth of athletic participation pad the budgets and the enrollment. They turn schools into household names and generate revenue from individuals who never go to college and wouldn't give the slightest rip about the academic side.

My point about having 2 types of conferences is that it really doesn't serve a purpose. The point of athletics is to maximize the exposure and revenue of the school itself and that must always be the prime objective. In reality, we already have academic conferences, but we don't think of them in those terms because they don't involve athletic endeavors...the AAU for example. In other words, there's nothing keeping schools from aligning themselves along a purely academic set of priorities. They do it all the time, but most people have never heard of these associations because they focus on academic priorities rather than something for popular consumption.

By contrast, the athletic associations help the academic side succeed by creating a product that is desired by the public. The public buys it and the school benefits. Same reason schools help develop new technology or products. The University of Florida benefited tremendously from the creation of Gatorade. It stands to reason then that you want to create the best product you can so that you can generate as much revenue as you can. So for the purpose of athletics, you align yourself into the best athletic conference you can get into so that your product is top notch.

Florida didn't have to share their benefit from Gatorade because it's a material substance and there's no reason to share the rights to it. By contrast, to field an athletic team requires another athletic team to compete against. Boom, you've got conferences. They collectively share rights for mutual benefit because they need each other to be successful at this particular endeavor.

So in short, I don't see an academically focused athletic conference serving much of a purpose. It works for the Ivy league because they don't need the money. For virtually everyone else though, the money and exposure is beneficial.

On a side note...

I'm not really referencing pay to play, but since we're talking about it...what's the answer? Is the system messed up? Filled with corruption? Absolutely, but perhaps the only way to truly eliminate that would be to professionalize the system and remove the incentive to operate in the shadows. But no one's going to do that.

It's not really that I mind the idea of donations being taxed or certain athletic revenues being taxed. As long as the rules are reasonable and don't kill off the incentive to engage in athletics in the first place...

But none of that is really going to stop the cheating. People evade taxes every day in every industry in America. People cheat on their spouses. People find ways to lie and steal. Basically, human beings suck and we invent new forms of wickedness all the time. Point being, people who care about college athletics' success will find ways to cheat the system if they feel like they need to. There's too much money tied up into it.

While I acknowledge that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the point would be that little upside existed to cheat once it was all taxable.

And who would want to do that? The Treasury Department! There are millions changing hands that go as unreported taxes on the earning end, and taxable deductions on the cheating/paying end. And that is both corporate and private entities involved. We are talking about a nice chunk of change nationally. And the government is woefully in debt. So they have the motive, the means, and the justification to do so.
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2017 06:39 PM by JRsec.)
10-19-2017 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #20
RE: They got me thinking
(10-19-2017 04:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  While I acknowledge that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the point would be that little upside existed to cheat once it was all taxable.

And would want to that? The Treasury Department! There are millions changing hands that go as unreported taxes on the earning end, and taxable deductions on the cheating/paying end. And that is both corporate and private entities involved. We are talking about a nice chunk of change nationally. And the government is woefully in debt. So they have the motive, the means, and the justification to do so.

Oh I agree, wouldn't shock me at all if they find a way to tax these revenues. I'm just saying I don't think that would necessarily stop cheating with regard to paying players.
10-19-2017 06:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.