Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
Author Message
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-02-2018 08:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 07:33 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 09:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 11:56 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

Well, I think there's an easy explanation for that... Wanting restrictions in the business world is one thing, but when it comes to sports, people are far more likely to want a level playing field. It's why stock car racing has restrictions; to make it about who has the most talent, not about who has the most resources. Of course, in the end, it comes down to the latter usually anyway, but I think that's the thought process.

IMO, a "level playing field" means literally just that - if two universities play a game, the field or court or diamond itself must be level. But the resources each school generates to field its team is not part of that equation.

I don't believe in limiting the resources a school can generate, but restricting what they can do with those resources would create a more balanced field of competitiveness. Imagine what would happen if the schools had to spend some of the money they are spending on putting greens in their football complexes on their academic mission.... the horrors!

Remember, as recently as 1995, a "power" conference school like Baylor had a $7.5m athletic budget. That was their budget for everything related to athletics. That same year, Florida and Nebraska, two powerhouses who played for the national title, had a combined athletic budget of $20m, around $10m each.

So, no matter how little a school like UL-Monroe or Western Kentucky was spending on athletics in 1995, it couldn't have been more than $10m less then what Florida was spending (make it $16m if we adjust for inflation). Today it is probably $100m less.

But point is, schools like Nebraska and Florida were just as much better than the Sun Belt and C-USA schools of 1995 as Alabama and Clemson are now, even though the objective money gap between them has widened dramatically since then.

The competitive gap between the elite P5 programs and the rest doesn't seem to vary much with money spent.

I don’t think this closes the sun Belt/ SEC competitive gap but what it will do is enable a few more schools to be competitive and will reduce the daily news of sport X being cut.

The purported mission of the NCAA is amateur athletics and giving students an opportunity to grow via competition. If you eliminate dual sport athletes like Volleyball/Beach Volleyball or Track/Cross Country, participation rates are falling. In short, despite gobs more money the NCAA is failing at its mission.
05-02-2018 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-02-2018 12:12 AM)McKinney Wrote:  If you're going to have a maximum, I think you should also have an expenditure minimum.

Already have it. It's multi-part but in general you have to award 50% of the scholarships permitted for the sports you offer.

Now that's too low in my opinion but that minimum does exist.
05-02-2018 02:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 550
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 37
I Root For: UMass, Army, Rutgers
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Post: #43
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-02-2018 02:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 12:12 AM)McKinney Wrote:  If you're going to have a maximum, I think you should also have an expenditure minimum.

Already have it. It's multi-part but in general you have to award 50% of the scholarships permitted for the sports you offer.

Now that's too low in my opinion but that minimum does exist.

The minimum would have to go much further than scholarships. It should also go towards coaching salary minimums, athletics infrastructure appraised value minimum.

I'd go so far as to include academics infrastructure appraised value minimum, mean professor salary, things like that.
05-02-2018 02:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #44
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-02-2018 08:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 07:33 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 09:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 11:56 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

Well, I think there's an easy explanation for that... Wanting restrictions in the business world is one thing, but when it comes to sports, people are far more likely to want a level playing field. It's why stock car racing has restrictions; to make it about who has the most talent, not about who has the most resources. Of course, in the end, it comes down to the latter usually anyway, but I think that's the thought process.

IMO, a "level playing field" means literally just that - if two universities play a game, the field or court or diamond itself must be level. But the resources each school generates to field its team is not part of that equation.

I don't believe in limiting the resources a school can generate, but restricting what they can do with those resources would create a more balanced field of competitiveness. Imagine what would happen if the schools had to spend some of the money they are spending on putting greens in their football complexes on their academic mission.... the horrors!

Remember, as recently as 1995, a "power" conference school like Baylor had a $7.5m athletic budget. That was their budget for everything related to athletics. That same year, Florida and Nebraska, two powerhouses who played for the national title, had a combined athletic budget of $20m, around $10m each.

So, no matter how little a school like UL-Monroe or Western Kentucky was spending on athletics in 1995, it couldn't have been more than $10m less then what Florida was spending (make it $16m if we adjust for inflation). Today it is probably $100m less.

But point is, schools like Nebraska and Florida were just as much better than the Sun Belt and C-USA schools of 1995 as Alabama and Clemson are now, even though the objective money gap between them has widened dramatically since then.

The competitive gap between the elite P5 programs and the rest doesn't seem to vary much with money spent.

This is an excellent point.
05-02-2018 03:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrueBlueDrew Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,551
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 486
I Root For: Jawjuh Suthen
Location: Enemy Turf
Post: #45
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-02-2018 08:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 07:33 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 09:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 11:56 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

Well, I think there's an easy explanation for that... Wanting restrictions in the business world is one thing, but when it comes to sports, people are far more likely to want a level playing field. It's why stock car racing has restrictions; to make it about who has the most talent, not about who has the most resources. Of course, in the end, it comes down to the latter usually anyway, but I think that's the thought process.

IMO, a "level playing field" means literally just that - if two universities play a game, the field or court or diamond itself must be level. But the resources each school generates to field its team is not part of that equation.

I don't believe in limiting the resources a school can generate, but restricting what they can do with those resources would create a more balanced field of competitiveness. Imagine what would happen if the schools had to spend some of the money they are spending on putting greens in their football complexes on their academic mission.... the horrors!

Remember, as recently as 1995, a "power" conference school like Baylor had a $7.5m athletic budget. That was their budget for everything related to athletics. That same year, Florida and Nebraska, two powerhouses who played for the national title, had a combined athletic budget of $20m, around $10m each.

So, no matter how little a school like UL-Monroe or Western Kentucky was spending on athletics in 1995, it couldn't have been more than $10m less then what Florida was spending (make it $16m if we adjust for inflation). Today it is probably $100m less.

But point is, schools like Nebraska and Florida were just as much better than the Sun Belt and C-USA schools of 1995 as Alabama and Clemson are now, even though the objective money gap between them has widened dramatically since then.

The competitive gap between the elite P5 programs and the rest doesn't seem to vary much with money spent.

So you're saying if a school like Georgia Southern started spending Alabama money, nothing would change for Georgia Southern?
05-02-2018 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 550
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 37
I Root For: UMass, Army, Rutgers
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Post: #46
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-02-2018 04:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  So you're saying if a school like Georgia Southern started spending Alabama money, nothing would change for Georgia Southern?

I think what they're saying is there's a diminishing return on expenditures.
05-02-2018 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #47
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-01-2018 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 12:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The answer is yes, it is needed. It may not be legal under current law's, but that wasn't the question.

Of course it's not legal just as it isn't legal in any other industry. Unless coaches and other athletic department employees choose to collectively bargain as a union, the NCAA certainly cannot legally put any cost cap on any sports. That's an antitrust violation with collusion to depress wages.

I'm not speaking about the OP here, but it's fascinating to me how the Spin Room is largely made up of pure capitalists in the broader context, but then a lot of them turn into raging socialists when it comes to college sports revenue. I've said this many times before: let the free market reign in college sports. If anything, we ought to be REMOVING constraints as opposed to imposing more of them.

Supreme Court in Board of Regents vs. NCAA seemed to think it would be an appropriate restriction, more specifically capping revenue.

American sports fans are socialists by and large, drafts and salary caps are the norm.

You want unfettered capitalism need to follow soccer outside of the US and Canada.

You mean, American sports team owners are socialists. They want drafts and salary caps to protect the value of their franchises from their own dumb decisions or from other owners whose decisions are much better.

The almost-no-rules capitalism of European soccer leagues hasn't hurt the popularity of their leagues at all.

It's funny how Europe has a more capitalist sports industry than the US despite having generally more socialist economies.
05-02-2018 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-02-2018 04:53 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  So you're saying if a school like Georgia Southern started spending Alabama money, nothing would change for Georgia Southern?

I think what they're saying is there's a diminishing return on expenditures.

A school matches Bama in spending and is in the G5 recruiting is going to be hobbled by the reality of a playoff or major bowl appearance being unlikely, by the lesser television access, the lack of big name home games, etc.

Run the table in any G5 league you go to the access game unless another G5 champion does the same and has a better resume.
05-03-2018 01:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrueBlueDrew Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,551
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 486
I Root For: Jawjuh Suthen
Location: Enemy Turf
Post: #49
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-03-2018 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:53 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  So you're saying if a school like Georgia Southern started spending Alabama money, nothing would change for Georgia Southern?

I think what they're saying is there's a diminishing return on expenditures.

A school matches Bama in spending and is in the G5 recruiting is going to be hobbled by the reality of a playoff or major bowl appearance being unlikely, by the lesser television access, the lack of big name home games, etc.

Run the table in any G5 league you go to the access game unless another G5 champion does the same and has a better resume.

I can't think of a single problem GS has that couldn't be solved with more money. If we had a budget surplus of tens of millions like Bama, we could afford P5 amenities like an indoor practice facility, a modern basketball arena, an athletic village with personal staff, and great coaches that will stick around. All of those things would add to recruiting which in turn would translate to wins which in turn would translate into ticket and merchandise sales and more money. Eventually, we would end up in a P5 conference or the equivalent in the future and tv exposure and CFP access would be a non-issue.

All I'm saying is there are some P5 schools like Northwestern, Rutgers, etc that get P5 money and can't do squat with it while a lot of G5 schools could be great and great for P5 conferences if the spending finish line didn't get moved further away every year.
05-03-2018 08:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
What about agreeing to a spending cap for Olympic sports with FB, BB and Hockey off limits?

Then let the market forces play out in the other 3. Baseball could also be in the revenue category.
05-03-2018 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-03-2018 08:27 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(05-03-2018 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:53 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  So you're saying if a school like Georgia Southern started spending Alabama money, nothing would change for Georgia Southern?

I think what they're saying is there's a diminishing return on expenditures.

A school matches Bama in spending and is in the G5 recruiting is going to be hobbled by the reality of a playoff or major bowl appearance being unlikely, by the lesser television access, the lack of big name home games, etc.

Run the table in any G5 league you go to the access game unless another G5 champion does the same and has a better resume.

I can't think of a single problem GS has that couldn't be solved with more money. If we had a budget surplus of tens of millions like Bama, we could afford P5 amenities like an indoor practice facility, a modern basketball arena, an athletic village with personal staff, and great coaches that will stick around. All of those things would add to recruiting which in turn would translate to wins which in turn would translate into ticket and merchandise sales and more money. Eventually, we would end up in a P5 conference or the equivalent in the future and tv exposure and CFP access would be a non-issue.

All I'm saying is there are some P5 schools like Northwestern, Rutgers, etc that get P5 money and can't do squat with it while a lot of G5 schools could be great and great for P5 conferences if the spending finish line didn't get moved further away every year.

Depends on how you got that money.

If it is because thousands more are now fans of the team, then the P5 issue is likely going to work itself out.

If it is because a billionaire left his fortune to endow the athletic department you aren't going to solve the TV issues, the recruiting issues nor the access issues because no P5 conference and no TV network gives a damn that you have a metric crap ton of money and cool facilities.

If it is because thousands more follow the team, the networks are going to be interested not because of the money you have but the eyeballs you deliver.
05-03-2018 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #52
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-03-2018 01:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-03-2018 08:27 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(05-03-2018 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:53 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  So you're saying if a school like Georgia Southern started spending Alabama money, nothing would change for Georgia Southern?

I think what they're saying is there's a diminishing return on expenditures.

A school matches Bama in spending and is in the G5 recruiting is going to be hobbled by the reality of a playoff or major bowl appearance being unlikely, by the lesser television access, the lack of big name home games, etc.

Run the table in any G5 league you go to the access game unless another G5 champion does the same and has a better resume.

I can't think of a single problem GS has that couldn't be solved with more money. If we had a budget surplus of tens of millions like Bama, we could afford P5 amenities like an indoor practice facility, a modern basketball arena, an athletic village with personal staff, and great coaches that will stick around. All of those things would add to recruiting which in turn would translate to wins which in turn would translate into ticket and merchandise sales and more money. Eventually, we would end up in a P5 conference or the equivalent in the future and tv exposure and CFP access would be a non-issue.

All I'm saying is there are some P5 schools like Northwestern, Rutgers, etc that get P5 money and can't do squat with it while a lot of G5 schools could be great and great for P5 conferences if the spending finish line didn't get moved further away every year.

Depends on how you got that money.

If it is because thousands more are now fans of the team, then the P5 issue is likely going to work itself out.

If it is because a billionaire left his fortune to endow the athletic department you aren't going to solve the TV issues, the recruiting issues nor the access issues because no P5 conference and no TV network gives a damn that you have a metric crap ton of money and cool facilities.

If it is because thousands more follow the team, the networks are going to be interested not because of the money you have but the eyeballs you deliver.

Also, Rutgers' football team plays in the Big Ten east division. Here are the 2015-16 revenue numbers of the four wealthiest programs in that division, per USA Today:

Ohio State $170,789,765

Michigan $163,850,616

Penn State $132,248,076

Michigan State $123,034,495

TV money is only one part of that, and it's not why those programs make more than their division rivals. Those programs are so far ahead because they sell out enormous football stadiums at high ticket prices and also bring in over $30 million each in annual donations. For that year, Ohio State had $61 million in ticket revenue and $33 million in donations.

TV money doesn't help Rutgers (or Maryland or Indiana) to close that revenue gap, because all of their conference mates also get that Big Ten TV money. So you have four football programs ahead of you that are already much more attractive to recruits and potential coaches, in addition to their ability to spend you into the ground year after year. Put any non-P5 football team into Rutgers' place, and they would be just as far behind that division's top four and would face exactly the same obstacles, for which there are no miracle cures.
05-03-2018 03:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #53
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
Yes.
05-03-2018 03:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #54
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-03-2018 08:27 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(05-03-2018 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:53 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  So you're saying if a school like Georgia Southern started spending Alabama money, nothing would change for Georgia Southern?

I think what they're saying is there's a diminishing return on expenditures.

A school matches Bama in spending and is in the G5 recruiting is going to be hobbled by the reality of a playoff or major bowl appearance being unlikely, by the lesser television access, the lack of big name home games, etc.

Run the table in any G5 league you go to the access game unless another G5 champion does the same and has a better resume.

I can't think of a single problem GS has that couldn't be solved with more money. If we had a budget surplus of tens of millions like Bama, we could afford P5 amenities like an indoor practice facility, a modern basketball arena, an athletic village with personal staff, and great coaches that will stick around. All of those things would add to recruiting which in turn would translate to wins which in turn would translate into ticket and merchandise sales and more money. Eventually, we would end up in a P5 conference or the equivalent in the future and tv exposure and CFP access would be a non-issue.

All I'm saying is there are some P5 schools like Northwestern, Rutgers, etc that get P5 money and can't do squat with it while a lot of G5 schools could be great and great for P5 conferences if the spending finish line didn't get moved further away every year.

You seem to refute your own point by noting that many schools do get P5 money and aren't competitive.

In any event, we do know for a fact that 20 years ago the absolute dollar gap between elite powers and G5 was much smaller but results on the field just as wide.
05-04-2018 08:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrueBlueDrew Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,551
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 486
I Root For: Jawjuh Suthen
Location: Enemy Turf
Post: #55
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-04-2018 08:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-03-2018 08:27 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(05-03-2018 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:53 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  So you're saying if a school like Georgia Southern started spending Alabama money, nothing would change for Georgia Southern?

I think what they're saying is there's a diminishing return on expenditures.

A school matches Bama in spending and is in the G5 recruiting is going to be hobbled by the reality of a playoff or major bowl appearance being unlikely, by the lesser television access, the lack of big name home games, etc.

Run the table in any G5 league you go to the access game unless another G5 champion does the same and has a better resume.

I can't think of a single problem GS has that couldn't be solved with more money. If we had a budget surplus of tens of millions like Bama, we could afford P5 amenities like an indoor practice facility, a modern basketball arena, an athletic village with personal staff, and great coaches that will stick around. All of those things would add to recruiting which in turn would translate to wins which in turn would translate into ticket and merchandise sales and more money. Eventually, we would end up in a P5 conference or the equivalent in the future and tv exposure and CFP access would be a non-issue.

All I'm saying is there are some P5 schools like Northwestern, Rutgers, etc that get P5 money and can't do squat with it while a lot of G5 schools could be great and great for P5 conferences if the spending finish line didn't get moved further away every year.

You seem to refute your own point by noting that many schools do get P5 money and aren't competitive.

In any event, we do know for a fact that 20 years ago the absolute dollar gap between elite powers and G5 was much smaller but results on the field just as wide.

I’d say that has more to do with the economy and American consumerism than the potential of those schools though. The reason the financial gap has increased is because of the spending arms race of the top level programs. In the 90’s, SEC schools didn’t have waterfalls in their locker rooms, lazy rivers in their athletic villages, or bowling alleys in their “team lounges.” They are building these things to remain competitive in recruiting. The financial gap between the top and the bottom of the FBS is dramatic but the talent gap has largely stayed the same if not shrunk. Because talent is subjective while money is concrete.
05-04-2018 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,299
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-03-2018 01:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-03-2018 08:27 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(05-03-2018 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:53 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 04:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  So you're saying if a school like Georgia Southern started spending Alabama money, nothing would change for Georgia Southern?

I think what they're saying is there's a diminishing return on expenditures.

A school matches Bama in spending and is in the G5 recruiting is going to be hobbled by the reality of a playoff or major bowl appearance being unlikely, by the lesser television access, the lack of big name home games, etc.

Run the table in any G5 league you go to the access game unless another G5 champion does the same and has a better resume.

I can't think of a single problem GS has that couldn't be solved with more money. If we had a budget surplus of tens of millions like Bama, we could afford P5 amenities like an indoor practice facility, a modern basketball arena, an athletic village with personal staff, and great coaches that will stick around. All of those things would add to recruiting which in turn would translate to wins which in turn would translate into ticket and merchandise sales and more money. Eventually, we would end up in a P5 conference or the equivalent in the future and tv exposure and CFP access would be a non-issue.

All I'm saying is there are some P5 schools like Northwestern, Rutgers, etc that get P5 money and can't do squat with it while a lot of G5 schools could be great and great for P5 conferences if the spending finish line didn't get moved further away every year.

Depends on how you got that money.

If it is because thousands more are now fans of the team, then the P5 issue is likely going to work itself out.

If it is because a billionaire left his fortune to endow the athletic department you aren't going to solve the TV issues, the recruiting issues nor the access issues because no P5 conference and no TV network gives a damn that you have a metric crap ton of money and cool facilities.

If it is because thousands more follow the team, the networks are going to be interested not because of the money you have but the eyeballs you deliver.

Good points. Blanket statements don't take into account unique situations. Probably can't even make an overarching statement per conference. One thing a windfall would provide is sustainability...at least until the money runs out.
05-04-2018 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #57
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-03-2018 09:23 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What about agreeing to a spending cap for Olympic sports with FB, BB and Hockey off limits?

Then let the market forces play out in the other 3. Baseball could also be in the revenue category.

The problem is that this type of approach disproportionately impacts women's sports, so there could be a Title IX compliance issue here. A spending cap for just non-revenue sports also seems to defeat the purpose of the OP's concern - virtually all of the overall athletic department disparities are being driven by football revenue (and, to a lesser extent, men's basketball).

Essentially, all this thread has shown to me is that to the extent that cost caps in college sports (at least in the way that its supporters want them) might solve one "problem", the issue is that the "solutions" are generally illegal (whether it's an antitrust claim or a Title IX/civil rights issue). It reminds me of the "Amendment to Be" Schoolhouse Rock parody on The Simpsons many years ago where the "solution" to passing all of the crazy laws that you want is to "just change the Constitution!"
05-04-2018 03:17 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #58
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-01-2018 04:07 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 08:33 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Most major sports have some form of cost containment to insure costs don’t spiral out of hand and a broad set of teams can compete. Do college sports need an expense cap for revenue sports?

The implication would be:
Less pressure on men’s minor sports
More level playing field
Less likely the same 8 teams go to the national championship

In general, I think NCAA athletics would be better off.

Just drop to a lower division, if you can't keep up. Its not happening. 07-coffee3

Yes, e.g., it doesn't have to be the case that rising football and hoops costs generally among all schools put pressure on a given G5 school to cut men's volleyball. They can keep spending what they have been spending on football and ignore that other schools are spending more.

The way that pressure develops on men's volleyball is because that G5 school chooses to feed the football beast, to spend more money on it at the expense of men's volleyball to keep up with their football Jones's.

But that's entirely their choice, can't blame others for it.

As for men's participation, the NCAA data says that in 1993 there were 187,000 NCAA men's athletes. In 2015 there were 287,000 men's athletes. That's a significantly greater increase in men's participation than USA population growth during that time.
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2018 08:43 AM by quo vadis.)
05-05-2018 08:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-03-2018 09:23 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What about agreeing to a spending cap for Olympic sports with FB, BB and Hockey off limits?

Then let the market forces play out in the other 3. Baseball could also be in the revenue category.


Hahaha.

What exactly would you cut? Sports like Water Polo travel eight hours in a van while Basketball flys.

The costs are in two places: Men’s major sports and providing funding for the required women’s teams. Funding for men’s sports has increased while participation’s rates for men have fallen.
05-05-2018 11:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Should revenue sports have a cost cap?
(05-05-2018 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 04:07 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 08:33 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Most major sports have some form of cost containment to insure costs don’t spiral out of hand and a broad set of teams can compete. Do college sports need an expense cap for revenue sports?

The implication would be:
Less pressure on men’s minor sports
More level playing field
Less likely the same 8 teams go to the national championship

In general, I think NCAA athletics would be better off.

Just drop to a lower division, if you can't keep up. Its not happening. 07-coffee3

Yes, e.g., it doesn't have to be the case that rising football and hoops costs generally among all schools put pressure on a given G5 school to cut men's volleyball. They can keep spending what they have been spending on football and ignore that other schools are spending more.

The way that pressure develops on men's volleyball is because that G5 school chooses to feed the football beast, to spend more money on it at the expense of men's volleyball to keep up with their football Jones's.

But that's entirely their choice, can't blame others for it.

As for men's participation, the NCAA data says that in 1993 there were 187,000 NCAA men's athletes. In 2015 there were 287,000 men's athletes. That's a significantly greater increase in men's participation than USA population growth during that time.

Most of that growth has been in non-scholarship D3 which has grown from
66,903 to 111,409. This growth has largely aligned and exceeded population growth.

Even D2 has grown from 38,852 to 94,682 again with limited scholarships but growing faster than population growth: 263.1M to 325.7M.

Compared with D1 which grew from 84,448 to 94,682. Far short of population growth and significantly short of revenue growth. These numbers also don’t account for the large number of dual sport athletes such as water polo players that also swim to get scholarship money or cross country and track athletes. Real numbers in D1 have most likely declined.

The decline is not just in G5 schools but also in P5 schools.
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2018 12:05 AM by Sactowndog.)
05-06-2018 12:03 AM
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.