UNI Cuts Football Program

[GonzoCat]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

Speaking of conspiracy nuts.

He's right about you in this case. I spell out simple facts and you call it a nuts conspiracy theory. You need to get some real world life experience before you try to discuss somewhat complicated topics like this. It's doubtful you'll ever get much smarter though.

As for did athletic programs ever make money, I would guess they were expected to at least break even back when they were initiated. It wouldn't have been that difficult in the pre title 9 days and before the big programs with unlimited revenue streams drove all the costs thru the roof. Before the days of college tuition going up 20% per year for the past couple decades as states decreased their share of the cost.

Now they are all losing a significant amount of money and everbody is looking to cut those kind of costs. The best thing the non-BCS conferences could do is tell the NCAA to stick it and form their own association. Nobody has the balls to make that kind of move anymore though, so they will just be slowly bleed dry until there are no non-BCS athletic programs left. And then the BCS will also be in big financial trouble.

[SteinPizza]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

Now they are all losing a significant amount of money and everbody is looking to cut those kind of costs. The best thing the non-BCS conferences could do is tell the NCAA to stick it and form their own association. Nobody has the balls to make that kind of move anymore though, so they will just be slowly bleed dry until there are no non-BCS athletic programs left. And then the BCS will also be in big financial trouble.

That might sound good to some, but the non-BCS teams need the revenue the NCAA feeds them. If they leave, they don't make it up. Again, it's media revenue that drives the bus.

You're always going to have haves and have nots in anything, just like college sports is always going to have majors, mid-majors, and low majors. Just like pro sports has major and small markets. The small markets need to be affiliated with the majors so all can be healthy. If you doubt this, watch what would happen if the NFL ever did away with revenue sharing (which would be dumb and I never want to see). The Vikings and Chiefs would be in the AFL before long. College sports operates under some of the same economic principals since media revenue is such a huge part of both.

[GonzoCat]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

That might sound good to some, but the non-BCS teams need the revenue the NCAA feeds them. If they leave, they don't make it up. Again, it's media revenue that drives the bus.

You're always going to have haves and have nots in anything, just like college sports is always going to have majors, mid-majors, and low majors. Just like pro sports has major and small markets. The small markets need to be affiliated with the majors so all can be healthy. If you doubt this, watch what would happen if the NFL ever did away with revenue sharing (which would be dumb and I never want to see). The Vikings and Chiefs would be in the AFL before long. College sports operates under some of the same economic principals since media revenue is such a huge part of both.

You are making my point, and I'm shocked to see it Stein. You are normally a totally free market unfettered capitalism kind of guy, which would never allow for revenue sharing. College sports does operate under the same economic principals, but without the revenue sharing. You have programs with $100 million plus in revenues and programs with $4 million in revenues supposedly operating at the same level. Without the poor you cannot have the rich. The rich almost never grasp this though until it's too late, the NFL being a notable exception. They would not long exist if the only franchises were in the top 5 cities. That's what the NCAA is moving towards.

[SteinPizza]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

You are making my point, and I'm shocked to see it Stein. You are normally a totally free market unfettered capitalism kind of guy, which would never allow for revenue sharing. College sports does operate under the same economic principals, but without the revenue sharing. You have programs with $100 million plus in revenues and programs with $4 million in revenues supposedly operating at the same level. Without the poor you cannot have the rich. The rich almost never grasp this though until it's too late, the NFL being a notable exception. They would not long exist if the only franchises were in the top 5 cities. That's what the NCAA is moving towards.

I am a revenue sharing guy when it comes to sports. It makes for more competitive balance, and it's different from the traditional business/political world. The key is competitive balance amongst equals. In other words, no college team should get a dime from the NFL.

The NCAA already shares revenue. UNI gets some kind of cut from the NCAA media agreements - even if it's only for tourney participation. The argument is about how much you should share. I don't believe in equality of outcome, therefore, the smaller schools aren't entitled to the same share as the big time BCS schools. Michigan and Indiana State shouldn't get the same cut, just like Wartburg shouldn't get the same cut as UNI. They should get some, which they do now. The debate is how much. I'm certainly open to the mid major type schools getting more, but they aren't entitled to a share of Big Ten Network revenue (just using that as an example).

Again, I'd be shocked if someone can show that smaller schools ever had profitable athletic programs. They may not have been massive money losers, but they were almost certainly never profit centers. Or, they made a little but it was more a break even, no growth expected type of deal.

[TH1974]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

He's right about you in this case. I spell out simple facts and you call it a nuts conspiracy theory. You need to get some real world life experience before you try to discuss somewhat complicated topics like this. It's doubtful you'll ever get much smarter though.

As for did athletic programs ever make money, I would guess they were expected to at least break even back when they were initiated. It wouldn't have been that difficult in the pre title 9 days and before the big programs with unlimited revenue streams drove all the costs thru the roof. Before the days of college tuition going up 20% per year for the past couple decades as states decreased their share of the cost.

Now they are all losing a significant amount of money and everbody is looking to cut those kind of costs. The best thing the non-BCS conferences could do is tell the NCAA to stick it and form their own association. Nobody has the balls to make that kind of move anymore though, so they will just be slowly bleed dry until there are no non-BCS athletic programs left. And then the BCS will also be in big financial trouble.

Don't lecture me about needing 'real world life experience'. College sports is not the real world and is not an 'industry' as you like to refer to it. Your comparisons don't work because of that and because most schools lose money on sports. It's always been that way -- they're not designed to make money. There are certainly 'haves' and 'have nots', but no one is out to bleed anyone dry or put anyone out of business. The NCAA isn't trying to get rid of smaller schools as your horsecrap conspiracy theory contends.

[GonzoCat]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

Don't lecture me about needing 'real world life experience'. College sports is not the real world and is not an 'industry' as you like to refer to it. Your comparisons don't work because of that and because most schools lose money on sports. It's always been that way -- they're not designed to make money. There are certainly 'haves' and 'have nots', but no one is out to bleed anyone dry or put anyone out of business. The NCAA isn't trying to get rid of smaller schools as your horsecrap conspiracy theory contends.

Get back to me it 10 years. By then you'll see how prophetic my predictions are and maybe you'll also have matured a bit.

While I'm not happy about where things are going, I've been able to follow and enjoy the Panthers for 35 years and I"m only going to be able to follow them closely for another 5 years at the most anyway. Most people on here will never enjoy that kind of longevity.

[Newsbreaker]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

It is inaccurate (and possibly disingenuous) to call the NCAA money model true "revenue sharing."

Major League Baseball engages in revenue sharing. The Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox, Mets and others sell their media rights. They sell tickets. They sell merchandise. Then, at the end of the year, they send some of their self-generated income to the franchises that generate only a fraction of the income the major-market teams make.

The "big" clubs generate revenue, then they "share" that with the others. Revenue Sharing. Meanwhile MLB signs an over-all media package for select games/series/events. This is shared amongst teams because the entire league is the product - all teams contribute to that product equally. This is not revenue sharing, it's compensation, much like the NCAA.

The NCAA sells media rights to the NCAA tournament. Those rights are generated because of the entire field of NCAA participants, and they are distributed according to participation. That isn't revenue sharing. That's giving the revenue to the people who created the demand for the product. (It is, however, something closer to true revenue sharing when you consider that the Men's NCAA tournament basically funds every other college sport other than football).

The same is true in the BCS. The BCS sells media rights, tickets and merchandise, and then distributes that to the leagues that actually create the product. That's direct reimbursement, not wealth redistribution.

It's even true in leagues like the Big Ten. They sign a TV contract, but that TV contract exists because of the participation of all 11 schools. They choose to believe that all 11 schools contribute to that product equally, and thus they are rewarded equally. Without any of them you have a poorer, less desirable, and therefore less financially lucrative product. (Note that the Big Ten does engage in limited sharing for tickets sold by each school, but I believe that is only for league games where, again, the "product" being sold is the 11 teams in the league, not the home school standing alone.)

These are not true "revenue sharing" models, and it is inaccurate to describe them as such.

Without the poor you cannot have the rich.

This is unequivocally and unquestionably untrue. When I make more money, I don't do it at the expense of another. Wealth is not a finite resource. There isn't a "pie" which must be divided up, meaning if I get a bigger slice then you must take a smaller slice. Money is an infinite pie - more can always be created (and I'm not talking about printing it, I'm talking about creating it). We have rich, and we have comparatively poor, but one does not occupy that station because of the other. To have "rich" you do not have to have "poor." One is not at the expense of the other.

[TH1974]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

Get back to me it 10 years. By then you'll see how prophetic my predictions are and maybe you'll also have matured a bit.

While I'm not happy about where things are going, I've been able to follow and enjoy the Panthers for 35 years and I"m only going to be able to follow them closely for another 5 years at the most anyway. Most people on here will never enjoy that kind of longevity.

*laughs*

.

[GonzoCat]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

It is inaccurate (and possibly disingenuous) to call the NCAA money model true "revenue sharing."

Major League Baseball engages in revenue sharing. The Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox, Mets and others sell their media rights. They sell tickets. They sell merchandise. Then, at the end of the year, they send some of their self-generated income to the franchises that generate only a fraction of the income the major-market teams make.

The "big" clubs generate revenue, then they "share" that with the others. Revenue Sharing. Meanwhile MLB signs an over-all media package for select games/series/events. This is shared amongst teams because the entire league is the product - all teams contribute to that product equally. This is not revenue sharing, it's compensation, much like the NCAA.

The NCAA sells media rights to the NCAA tournament. Those rights are generated because of the entire field of NCAA participants, and they are distributed according to participation. That isn't revenue sharing. That's giving the revenue to the people who created the demand for the product. (It is, however, something closer to true revenue sharing when you consider that the Men's NCAA tournament basically funds every other college sport other than football).

The same is true in the BCS. The BCS sells media rights, tickets and merchandise, and then distributes that to the leagues that actually create the product. That's direct reimbursement, not wealth redistribution.

It's even true in leagues like the Big Ten. They sign a TV contract, but that TV contract exists because of the participation of all 11 schools. They choose to believe that all 11 schools contribute to that product equally, and thus they are rewarded equally. Without any of them you have a poorer, less desirable, and therefore less financially lucrative product. (Note that the Big Ten does engage in limited sharing for tickets sold by each school, but I believe that is only for league games where, again, the "product" being sold is the 11 teams in the league, not the home school standing alone.)

These are not true "revenue sharing" models, and it is inaccurate to describe them as such.



This is unequivocally and unquestionably untrue. When I make more money, I don't do it at the expense of another. Wealth is not a finite resource. There isn't a "pie" which must be divided up, meaning if I get a bigger slice then you must take a smaller slice. Money is an infinite pie - more can always be created (and I'm not talking about printing it, I'm talking about creating it). We have rich, and we have comparatively poor, but one does not occupy that station because of the other. To have "rich" you do not have to have "poor." One is not at the expense of the other.

Well you got half right, which is way above your average.

Let me ask you something. If every man woman and child suddenly had $10 million magically appear in their bank account, would we all be rich? Would $10 million be worth as much as it is now? If everyone were rich how could you tell? You cannot measure wealth if you have nothing to measure it against. You cannot have rich without poor. I didn't say anything about making it at others expense, you made that up and tried to attribute it to me.

Good job on the revenue sharing point though.

[Newsbreaker]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

If what you meant is that the word "rich" means nothing without having some baseline measurement, you're partially right. Everyone could be "rich", it would only mean the word is meaningless. Even if we assume that the category of "rich" is dependent upon someone else being not-rich, that doesn't require the other person to be poor. I'm not poor - far from it - but I'm not rich, either. People can be rich, others can be not-rich, and there still might not be anyone who is comparatively "poor."

If what you mean is that you can only become, comparatively speaking, "rich" by doing so at the expense of someone else (taking from them and rendering them "poor") than I totally disagree. Wealth is not finite.

[TH1974]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

Either way, the NCAA isn't scheming to get rid of non-BCS teams.

[Mudrafan]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

No, but the state of Iowa is (BOTR). If you don't believe that, then you have your head further in the sand than you already do.

[Panther AC]

Re: UNI Cuts Football Program

i think this is a watershed year for UNI. there is no defined leadership at this point and a lot of major question marks. we need someone to step up and lead by example, or else we will be stuck in a rut similar to iowa was int he middle of this decade for the same reasons.

Two words: Tirrell Rennie