Something is about to go down in California

With all due respect... that's not correct. I did read your article, and it points out that (as of 2014), at GT a mere 7% of the athletics budget was covered by student fees. And the loans the athletic associations take out are ultimately repaid by donors and/or fans (in the form of ticket sales, television rights, licensing fees, etc.).

I wasn't linking the article necessarily regarding student fees and their percentage impact on a school's athletic budget. The article linked was highlighting the ridiculous arms race for the schools to build bigger, bigger, bigger athletic facilities/amenities in hopes of attracting recruits. Many of these activities are funded by big time program donations where as a school like GT is having to take out loans using future revenue streams to try and compete. Yes, those are ultimately paid for by fans. The question to me is when is the breaking point for smaller programs like GT to when it isn't feasible anymore? Is it when the TV contracts get renewed for less $? Attendance goes down even more?
 
I wasn't linking the article necessarily regarding student fees and their percentage impact on a school's athletic budget. The article linked was highlighting the ridiculous arms race for the schools to build bigger, bigger, bigger athletic facilities/amenities in hopes of attracting recruits. Many of these activities are funded by big time program donations where as a school like GT is having to take out loans using future revenue streams to try and compete. Yes, those are ultimately paid for by fans. The question to me is when is the breaking point for smaller programs like GT to when it isn't feasible anymore? Is it when the TV contracts get renewed for less $? Attendance goes down even more?

It will be feasible for GT because we now have someone that cares about the program and will be the custodian of our school football program that we have deserved since Dodd renovated this house.
 
It will be feasible for GT because we now have someone that cares about the program and will be the custodian of our school football program that we have deserved since Dodd built this house.

I'll take the bait.

The previous coaches cared as well (the admins on the other hand...). I was struck by something that CPJ said regarding Stansbury--WTTE, he gets "it," the it being the funding needed to try and compete against the better programs, that Mbob couldn't be bothered to think about and Braine dead was unaware of.

The biggest issue for GT is the next generation of donors. Student attendance at GT (and a lot of college football) has been trending down over the last 2 decades. GT doesn't have any rabid support to overcome not connecting and cultivating tomorrow's financial supporters when they graduate. I expect the TV dollars to level off unless Div. I adopts a true playoff system and scraps the silly bowl games. So, where does that leave GT? Will the gulf between the haves and have nots in collegiate athletics continue to grow?
 
The question to me is when is the breaking point for smaller programs like GT to when it isn't feasible anymore? Is it when the TV contracts get renewed for less $? Attendance goes down even more?
I think this kind of talk is somewhat uninformed. Using "breaking point" language suggests that GT football is under some kind of enormous pressure or strain and is really struggling to keep it together. But that's not true.

In the grand scheme of American college football – which covers hundreds of Div. I, Div. II, Div. III, junior college, and NAIA teams – GT is in the very top echelon. Even in the ACC – which has won two of the past three national championships – GT is in the top 5 or 8 programs in recent years. While we are all frustrated to be behind UGA in football, we're pretty far ahead of most P5 programs, and miles ahead of the typical G5 program, and light years ahead of everyone else.

For all the hand-wringing about Alabama and Clemson's apparent endless dominance at the very very top... well, in the past 30 years people have argued that a new dynasty dominated by USC... or Miami... or Nebraska... or Notre Dame... was upon us. But all of those programs had success and then struggled to stay on top, cycled through coaches, had embarrassing losses, etc.

At heart college football is an endeavor which is *overwhelmingly* controlled not by the support staff, or the donors, or the administrators, but by 85 boys and about 15 men. And the guy at the top of *that* chain – the head coach – is by far the single most important factor in whether teams do well or not. Bama was remarkably consistent and excellent for decades under Bear. The coaches that followed had some good years (including Stallings' NC) but no one came close to him. Until Saban came along! He will not coach there forever.

Some of us are old enough to remember when Bobby Bowden was a football god among men. FSU finished in the Top 5 for 14 years in a row. (To put that in perspective, in 12 years at Alabama, Saban has finished in the Top 5, 8 times. He has more national championships than Bowden because he's coaching in the playoff era.) Then he started to get too old, and FSU became a shell of its former self. Look where they are today. I will be both sad and happy when that happens to Saban and Alabama. Sad because something so amazing and beautiful has finally met its fate on this mortal coil; happy of course because that's one less obstacle for Tech to get through to get a NC.

None of this means the current business model will continue indefinitely (I hope it doesn't – I hope we stop paying coaches so much – I hope we stop building such amazing facilities) but when that happens it will happen to everyone, because it's been the power of television to harness enormous audiences for even minor football games that has driven the creation of all the sports networks, and hence all the money. At some point we'll reach the saturation point where audiences don't want more football (we may be there already), and salaries and donations will start to plateau. I look forward to that day!
 
I'm ok w/this. Let Alabama, Ugag, Clemson, Texas, etc. form their own semi-pro league of 20 or so teams and go from there. GT can join liked minded other schools where the kids are students as well. I'd still support GT and go to games even though I realize that I'm in the vast minority here of college football fans.

THIS!!! I'm just ready for it to happen already. If we are not going to play the game the way those schools are then I'm a-ok with them forming their own thing and we will keep playing college football. There is zero reason for me to worry about the fact that the amateur-college team I support struggles to compete with NFL developmental programs.
 
I think this kind of talk is somewhat uninformed. Using "breaking point" language suggests that GT football is under some kind of enormous pressure or strain and is really struggling to keep it together. But that's not true.

<snip>

None of this means the current business model will continue indefinitely (I hope it doesn't – I hope we stop paying coaches so much – I hope we stop building such amazing facilities) but when that happens it will happen to everyone, because it's been the power of television to harness enormous audiences for even minor football games that has driven the creation of all the sports networks, and hence all the money. At some point we'll reach the saturation point where audiences don't want more football (we may be there already), and salaries and donations will start to plateau. I look forward to that day!

It's not uninformed. I'm not suggesting that GT is at a breaking point in terms of being financially solvent or fielding programs. What I am suggesting is I wonder if we are near a tipping point for when the schools within the NCAA membership decide that they are better off splitting into 2 divisions--let the big state schools run a semi-pro league (above the table this time) and the rest of the 70-80 schools form a separate division (similar to the old Div. Iaa). The majority of the schools have no chance to win a championship and if the TV dollars/donations plateau as you suggest, more schools will realize that it is foolhardy to try and keep up with the joneses with athletic spending (that they may no longer be able to afford). The schools will be affected quite unequally by the bubble bursting a bit for Div. I football.
 
It's not uninformed. I'm not suggesting that GT is at a breaking point in terms of being financially solvent or fielding programs. What I am suggesting is I wonder if we are near a tipping point for when the schools within the NCAA membership decide that they are better off splitting into 2 divisions--let the big state schools run a semi-pro league (above the table this time) and the rest of the 70-80 schools form a separate division (similar to the old Div. Iaa). The majority of the schools have no chance to win a championship and if the TV dollars/donations plateau as you suggest, more schools will realize that it is foolhardy to try and keep up with the joneses with athletic spending (that they may no longer be able to afford). The schools will be affected quite unequally by the bubble bursting a bit for Div. I football.
There are only 65 P5 teams already. Just how small do you think the "big schools" (whoever they are) want their league to be? I guess NFL sized? This would mean breaking apart all of the P5 conferences – an incredibly difficult task. Do you remember when UVA wouldn't agree to the expansion of the ACC unless VT were given an invitation? Do you really think the South Carolina legislature is going to let Clemson leave behind S.Car.? The legal and political complexity of these kinds of wild hypotheses are staggering... and the pressures to make them happen are modest.

You say the majority of P5 schools have no chance to win a championship... but in fact almost every P5 school has had a few good seasons in the past decade or two. Northwestern and Stanford and Kansas State and Boston College and Baylor and Texas Tech and a host of others that have historically stunk have actually had competitive, championship- or big bowl-winning teams in the past decade. Heck, Duke was in the ACCCG a few years ago, and Kansas – Kansas – lost one game in 2007. That's better than any season than UGA has had in almost two decades!
 
There are only 65 P5 teams already. Just how small do you think the "big schools" (whoever they are) want their league to be? I guess NFL sized? This would mean breaking apart all of the P5 conferences – an incredibly difficult task. Do you remember when UVA wouldn't agree to the expansion of the ACC unless VT were given an invitation? Do you really think the South Carolina legislature is going to let Clemson leave behind S.Car.? The legal and political complexity of these kinds of wild hypotheses are staggering... and the pressures to make them happen are modest.

There are 125 teams playing in Div. 1/FCS. I would guess that about 26-30 schools/teams would fit for the semi-pro league. Yes, the conference obstacle is interesting, but I do think that it can be overcome, especially given the $$$ that the semi-pro league would pay those schools (including TV revenue as well).

You say the majority of P5 schools have no chance to win a championship... but in fact almost every P5 school has had a few good seasons in the past decade or two. Northwestern and Stanford and Kansas State and Boston College and Baylor and Texas Tech and a host of others that have historically stunk have actually had competitive, championship- or big bowl-winning teams in the past decade. Heck, Duke was in the ACCCG a few years ago, and Kansas – Kansas – lost one game in 2007. That's better than any season than UGA has had in almost two decades!

A Nat'l Championship. Until there is a true playoff system (that auto incorporates a conference champion), only 20-30 schools have a legit chance to win a title. Again, my speculation/wondering is at what point does Boston College/K State/others come to the realization that spending the millions and millions and millions that they have to leverage now to spend on facilities/coaches/etc. is futile? Collegiate athletics is a business, period. And I'm suggesting that the business model isn't sustainable for the majority of schools playing the game that don't have rabid support and/or big donors footing the bills (largely upfront) as the schools won't be able to leverage (i.e. issue debt against future revenues) to try and compete indefinitely.
 
There are 125 teams playing in Div. 1/FCS. I would guess that about 26-30 schools/teams would fit for the semi-pro league. Yes, the conference obstacle is interesting, but I do think that it can be overcome, especially given the $$$ that the semi-pro league would pay those schools (including TV revenue as well).



A Nat'l Championship. Until there is a true playoff system (that auto incorporates a conference champion), only 20-30 schools have a legit chance to win a title. Again, my speculation/wondering is at what point does Boston College/K State/others come to the realization that spending the millions and millions and millions that they have to leverage now to spend on facilities/coaches/etc. is futile? Collegiate athletics is a business, period. And I'm suggesting that the business model isn't sustainable for the majority of schools playing the game that don't have rabid support and/or big donors footing the bills (largely upfront) as the schools won't be able to leverage (i.e. issue debt against future revenues) to try and compete indefinitely.
Obviously I think you are totally wrong, and you think I am totally wrong. C'est la vie! Peace –
 
Yeah, the NCAA-conspiracy-theorist argument is well known. And lacking evidence.

^ Responds to list of evidence citing lack of evidence.

*Looks around*

Am I on a debate on MSNBC or something?
 
^ Responds to list of evidence citing lack of evidence.

*Looks around*

Am I on a debate on MSNBC or something?
I agree completely. This is actually exactly how debates on MSNBC go... 9/10 of your "evidence" is rampant speculation support by conspiracy theories. There is no actual evidence that waivers are granted based on revenue. There is no evidence that getting hammered for cheating depends on revenue. (Ever hear of USC?) There is no evidence that minor programs don't enjoy the opportunity to play big programs for reasons other than the check. (Did you see the UT/Ga St game?) I could go on, but I don't think we're likely to agree!
 
I agree completely. This is actually exactly how debates on MSNBC go... 9/10 of your "evidence" is rampant speculation support by conspiracy theories. There is no actual evidence that waivers are granted based on revenue. There is no evidence that getting hammered for cheating depends on revenue. (Ever hear of USC?) There is no evidence that minor programs don't enjoy the opportunity to play big programs for reasons other than the check. (Did you see the UT/Ga St game?) I could go on, but I don't think we're likely to agree!

Then you can easily recast my statements to say "waivers are disproportionately granted to individuals perceived to generate more revenue" and it's just a statement of what can be observed.

The CFP happening right after a record-low-revenue BCS happened and is not speculation. FCS schools getting paid to play Bama is happening. Games being scheduled for TV revenue is happening. TCU getting passed for OSU happened, but you can argue with the merits if you want (the entire CFB world called that a head-scratcher). Terelle Pryor did get busted for accepting benefits, did get suspended, and did play in the Rose Bowl, serving his sentence during the weak games to start the following season. None of that is speculation. The Fields/Martell waivers contrasting Ezzard's denial despite a coaching change happened.

Whether the mountain of observable facts amounts to evidence the NCAA fails to meet the criteria of "amateur sports" depends more on your definition of "amateur" than on anything I listed.
 
Well we got Bubba Parham's waiver approved today, so there's that. :)
 
Back
Top