(07-19-2018 12:18 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  2) This gripe I don't get. I like it when institutions that generate revenue keep it, and college athletics is largely that way. The P5 schools generate the money so they should keep it, otherwise you are talking socialism.

Without too long of an answer: is college sports about college athletes or is it about just money?

I understand that the state takes some revenue from rich school districts to assist impoverished school districts. The state sees the benefit of better educated students statewide/systemwide. It seems to me a mechanism can be devised to share some of this multi-billion dollar wealth to provide more opportunities to more student athletes, while still rewarding the top brands who draw the eyeballs.

That mechanism already exists. It's call the CFP, the G5 gets about 18% of the revenue from the CFP even though interest in the CFP is rooted basically 100% in the interest in the P5.

Perhaps some of that money that currently goes to the G5 should be hived off to FCS, DII and DIII? Unfortunately, right now the CFP money provides an incentive for FCS and lower division schools to "upgrade" to FBS, usually at the cost of hiking fees paid by students.

(07-19-2018 12:02 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:46 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:38 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:31 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

Why would anyone in New Mexico care about hockey? It's pretty hard to get into a sport that no one grows up playing.

Like in Las Vegas where they have sold out all their season tickets and games when many were saying it will be a disaster.

Like in Brookings where the NAHL team is drawing well but no one under 50 played the games and they still don’t have HS sponsored hockey.

Like Sioux Falls where the USHL Stampede is the biggest thing ever where hockey was virtually unknown.

But hockey will be forever hard to get into for old codgers like you.

Again you post total ignorance.

Vegas is the newest team in the biggest league in a major city. Of course there will be initial enthusiasm. I thought hockey was really big in the Dakotas? I guess I was wrong. In either case that's a different animal than college hockey. Especially when you have to travel across the country to find teams to play.

And I'm willing to bet you're older than me, but that doesn't really matter.

Once Vegas experiences mediocrity their attendance will drop. They might end up like the Arizona Coyotes, who had a strong start when they first moved to Phoenix and are now near dead last in league attendance. Hockey in the desert can work, but the teams need to be successful (and not have arenas that are almost inaccessible)

(07-19-2018 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That mechanism already exists. It's call the CFP, the G5 gets about 18% of the revenue from the CFP even though interest in the CFP is rooted basically 100% in the interest in the P5.

Another mechanism for sharing revenue is the tournament shares from the NCAA "March Madness" Tournament. The tournament is enhanced by the Cinderella's like UMBC and Loyola. If it was just the usual teams all the time, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, Florida, Ohio State, etc., I think many would lose interest.

So mechanisms exist for sharing the windfall from major college sports contracts. I would argue that those mechanisms should be expanded to provide more athletic scholarship opportunities for more students.

Of course, the NCAA controls the basketball tournament. Competing conferences control football. Hence the arms race driven by greed and fear. The result: bigger salaries for P5 coaches and administrators, but fewer opportunities for student athletes outside the P5.

*One the NCAA.org website, you are greeted in 47-point block letters: "CREATING A PATHWAY TO OPPORTUNITY".
The irony: there are fewer opportunities.

i don't understand if the sate of NM wants to put money into thier athletic dept of thier unerversity,
just like the arts, museums, parks,
how is it anybody bussiness not from NM

(07-19-2018 02:57 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  i don't understand if the sate of NM wants to put money into thier athletic dept of thier unerversity,
just like the arts, museums, parks,
how is it anybody bussiness not from NM

Apparently their decision was strongly influenced/determined by the Federal Government (Title IX) and the Mountain West Conference.

(07-19-2018 03:07 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 02:57 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  i don't understand if the sate of NM wants to put money into thier athletic dept of thier unerversity,
just like the arts, museums, parks,
how is it anybody bussiness not from NM

Apparently their decision was strongly influenced/determined by the Federal Government (Title IX) and the Mountain West Conference.

How so? If it was a title IX compliance issue I wouldn't expect to see so many women's sports on the chopping block. And don't see why MWC would care if they have sports not sponsored by the MW in other conferences.

It's a shame. Good soccer program. Big loss for CUSA Soccer.

(07-19-2018 10:31 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

Outside of the northeast and the midwest. Hockey is one of the very least popular sports here in the US. It would be even more of a money drain on the schools like New Mexico.

Here is the problem that I see.

Title 9 have caused a lot of issues at colleges and universities. It seems at most of the schools? Women sports have been a money drain. For schools to even keep the women sports? They wind up dropping their cash cow of football. Some schools wind up still losing more money, and have to cut more sports. The schools who cut football happened to fall further behind. Lets say UC-San Diego kept their football? Would they have made the move to D1 back in the 1980s or 1990s and not until 2020? CSU-LA wound up in D2, and their facilities are falling apart, and they used to have football. Big West schools have no other options to upgrade to another conference for all sports since that MWC is the only landing place, and that you have to have football. Fullerton State, Long Beach State or any LA area base school, if they kept football, may have been invited to the MWC instead of San Jose State. The Title 9 came about until after the NCAA wound up splitting into 3 or you can say 4 groups since the NAIA schools before the first year the NAIA formed where among the Power schools now at D1. It is hard to compensate to the changes which schools from the NAIA all the way up to the P5 schools are struggling to keep up with. These rules that the NCAA came up with actually hurt the schools like New Mexico to schools like California who wind up cutting sports.

I'm not sure any womens program anywhere turns a profit for their athletic department. Perhaps UConn basketball or a womens hockey program somewhere has done it. But even SC basketball, which annually leads the nation in attendance, is a net drain.

All but men's soccer are obscure sports. And it is one that few schools play because of Title IX.

I guess this shows why New Mexico, despite its excellent fan support for basketball (been top 10 in attendance the majority of the last 40-50 years), didn't make the final 11 in the Big 12 expansion sweepstakes.

This is very sad. We need to look at college sports not just through the financial lens of profit and loss.

The reality is that almost all overall college sport programs ‘lose’ money, apart from a handful of of major schools (Ohio State, Texas A&M, etc.), and even those individual sports programs (like ice hockey at my school, Denver) that do make more money than they cost will not offset the costs of other money-losing sports programs at the same school. This is not a bad thing, at least to me. We don’t expect University theatre departments or orchestras to cover all their costs with their ticket sales, either. Sports are an investment in people, opportunities and in community-building.

UNM’s high national levels of success with men’s soccer and skiing make these cuts even more frustrating.

The only real solution to Title IX discrepancies is for there to be a women’s sport as populous as football.

(07-19-2018 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:18 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  2) This gripe I don't get. I like it when institutions that generate revenue keep it, and college athletics is largely that way. The P5 schools generate the money so they should keep it, otherwise you are talking socialism.

Without too long of an answer: is college sports about college athletes or is it about just money?

I understand that the state takes some revenue from rich school districts to assist impoverished school districts. The state sees the benefit of better educated students statewide/systemwide. It seems to me a mechanism can be devised to share some of this multi-billion dollar wealth to provide more opportunities to more student athletes, while still rewarding the top brands who draw the eyeballs.

That mechanism already exists. It's call the CFP, the G5 gets about 18% of the revenue from the CFP even though interest in the CFP is rooted basically 100% in the interest in the P5.

Perhaps some of that money that currently goes to the G5 should be hived off to FCS, DII and DIII? Unfortunately, right now the CFP money provides an incentive for FCS and lower division schools to "upgrade" to FBS, usually at the cost of hiking fees paid by students.

Why? I thought your arguments have been that athletic programs should be self supporting.

Now go out and support your football team!

Davie has done an admirable job resurrecting that program. Hell, they beat Boise! David K, doesn't that warrant a Pac invite???

(07-19-2018 02:41 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That mechanism already exists. It's call the CFP, the G5 gets about 18% of the revenue from the CFP even though interest in the CFP is rooted basically 100% in the interest in the P5.

Another mechanism for sharing revenue is the tournament shares from the NCAA "March Madness" Tournament. The tournament is enhanced by the Cinderella's like UMBC and Loyola. If it was just the usual teams all the time, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, Florida, Ohio State, etc., I think many would lose interest.

So mechanisms exist for sharing the windfall from major college sports contracts. I would argue that those mechanisms should be expanded to provide more athletic scholarship opportunities for more students.

Of course, the NCAA controls the basketball tournament. Competing conferences control football. Hence the arms race driven by greed and fear. The result: bigger salaries for P5 coaches and administrators, but fewer opportunities for student athletes outside the P5.

*One the NCAA.org website, you are greeted in 47-point block letters: "CREATING A PATHWAY TO OPPORTUNITY".
The irony: there are fewer opportunities.

So you think it is "greedy" to take as much money as a TV network is willing to give you? If your boss offers to pay you $100,000 a year, should you say "no, that would be greedy of me to take that, so you can pay me $90,000 instead"? If a network offers the PAC about $3 Billion for their TV rights, should the PAC say "well no, that would make us greedy, so we will sign for $2 Billion instead"? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

And fewer opportunities than when? In 2000, when there was far less overall money in these various contracts, there were about 360,000 NCAA student-athletes. Today there are about 490,000.

I don't know what the US population growth has been during that time, but I bet that exceeds it by a pretty fair margin. Bottom line is that the boom in money has in fact led to more opportunities.

And that makes sense: If your money goes up significantly, you can afford to add another sport or two, and still pay that offensive line coach twice what he was making five years ago to keep up with State U. down the road.

(07-19-2018 10:44 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Could be a tough loss for CUSA soccer. 8 member is pretty thin, I wonder if SC and UK might eventually look elsewhere

Hartwick is an associate member of the Sun Belt for men’s soccer and they’ve recently announced they’re dropping the sport. That leaves the Sun Belt with 5 teams: Appalachian State, Coastal Carolina, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, and Howard, with the latter also being an associate member. I don’t think the Sun Belt should necessarily be sponsoring a sport played by only 4 of 12 members, so it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if the SBC teams went to CUSA.

(07-19-2018 12:58 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:02 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:46 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:38 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:31 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

Why would anyone in New Mexico care about hockey? It's pretty hard to get into a sport that no one grows up playing.

Like in Las Vegas where they have sold out all their season tickets and games when many were saying it will be a disaster.

Like in Brookings where the NAHL team is drawing well but no one under 50 played the games and they still don’t have HS sponsored hockey.

Like Sioux Falls where the USHL Stampede is the biggest thing ever where hockey was virtually unknown.

But hockey will be forever hard to get into for old codgers like you.

Again you post total ignorance.

Vegas is the newest team in the biggest league in a major city. Of course there will be initial enthusiasm. I thought hockey was really big in the Dakotas? I guess I was wrong. In either case that's a different animal than college hockey. Especially when you have to travel across the country to find teams to play.

And I'm willing to bet you're older than me, but that doesn't really matter.

Once Vegas experiences mediocrity their attendance will drop. They might end up like the Arizona Coyotes, who had a strong start when they first moved to Phoenix and are now near dead last in league attendance. Hockey in the desert can work, but the teams need to be successful (and not have arenas that are almost inaccessible)

Building in Glendale was OK for football, but hockey makes no sense. Have relatives that live in the East Valley and they had to commute in tough traffic weeknights. They dropped their old season tickets and now just go to weekend games, when traffic is not so bad and they actually don’t have to be rushed when thing are at a standstill. The Coyotes have recognized the location issue and are trying to get an arena built in downtown, Scottsdale, or Tempe.

The entire AHL affiliate for west coast NHL teams have moved to the west coast and those teams are drawing splendidly. California now produces so much hockey talent that it could have several college teams with its own players. The Ducks, Kings, Sharks, and Knights are really kranking up the game out there. Phoenix should be up there, but ownership couldn’t have made worse moves. Listening to Glendale developers was one of the worst.

(07-19-2018 06:24 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:44 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Could be a tough loss for CUSA soccer. 8 member is pretty thin, I wonder if SC and UK might eventually look elsewhere

Hartwick is an associate member of the Sun Belt for men’s soccer and they’ve recently announced they’re dropping the sport. That leaves the Sun Belt with 5 teams: Appalachian State, Coastal Carolina, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, and Howard, with the latter also being an associate member. I don’t think the Sun Belt should necessarily be sponsoring a sport played by only 4 of 12 members, so it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if the SBC teams went to CUSA.

The MAC only has four of their own playing the sport (Akron, NIU, BGSU, WMU) plus affiliates SIU-Edwardsville and West Virginia).

(07-19-2018 05:43 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The only real solution to Title IX discrepancies is for there to be a women’s sport as populous as football.

That's why so many schools have taken up women's rowing that very few women do. Not as many athletes as football, but a big number.