And the rich keep getting richer....SEC schools see major revenue boost in 2015-16
- Thread starter Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
- Start date
I don't have a problem with them having more money. That's the American way. What there needs to be is some kind of cap to what they can make, or if they surpass it the have to pay a "tax" that gets distributed to all the other schools. Some kind of system needs to be in place to level the playing field. The biggest leveler in college football came with teh reduction in scholarships down to 85. Multiple things, such as additionally looking into things like allowing non-G5 schools to have 2-3 more additional scholarship slots per school per year (or something). The point is a lot could be done to help level the playing field, without treating it as "The Have's versus the Have Not's". That is always going to exist.
Sure the problem is worsening. But it will surely get even worse because there's no mechanism or incentive to do otherwise. The P5 schools are ecstatic with the status quo, even doormat schools that reap a windfall from being in the SEC or Big Ten, the two wealthy conferences. Note also, that U. of Texas has the largest budget but that hasn't helped lately. But it all makes sense if you look at it the way sports business scholars do (hint: it's not about winning and titles):
The P5 and NCAA is orchestrated by and for the benefit ONLY of coaches and ADs. The rules are rigged so it does not benefit in any way the athletes, student bodies, the schools, alums, or taxpayers. Once you realize that, everything makes sense. The desired result is achieved: maximum number of coaching and athletic department jobs at the highest possible compensation. Everywhere else in the world, these non-pro sports jobs are volunteer or side responsibilities.
Schools don't benefit from sports programs. Donors don't give any more to academic programs than non-sports donors. Most athletic programs require a subsidy (student fees, state funding, etc.), and anything left is spent at the bowls or for other NCAA required money-losing sports. Ticket price hikes and cable contract deals get spent on escalating coaching salaries and hiring even more assistant coaches and staffers. Conferences use revenue sharing to subsidize bottom feeders for the privilege of being cannon fodder yet another year.
No other universities in the world sponsors semi-pro sports teams. Why? Because it makes zero sense. Such activities have nothing to do with the education and research mission of a college. It even adds to lower students-as-spectator fitness and obesity. Student athletes aren't paid nor awarded compensation for lifelong and life-shortening injuries. They'd be better off pursuing their sports dreams (and they are dreams for most) full time. If there were no college sports league, the NFL would simply fund semi-pro and instructional leagues like baseball does (though baseball relies increasingly on Latin America supply lines). Same for basketball, along with the zillions of leagues worldwide. The U.S. is unique in its high school sports, too. Leagues would and do exist outside schools for dads to curse at the refs.
Has no one ever told the Florida congressional delegation that they could lower the tuition rate for every student at UCF and USF overnight by forcing their way into a conference with a higher tv deal? Increase the school's tv revenue and reduce the athletic fees
It's not the "school's revenue." It's the athletic program's. Moreover, like every other major school, athletic programs at public universities become "foundations" that financially insulate them even from state budget cuts (like the 48% one UCF took during the recession). It's a cool racket.
I think that schools (not just the athletic department) make money off of the :
1. enrollment increases (demand)
2. Clothing and logo sales
3. _________fill in the blank (s)
1. enrollment increases (demand)
2. Clothing and logo sales
3. _________fill in the blank (s)
"Merch revenue" goes to the athletic program, not the school.
Enrollment not affected at state universities by athletic program (although men do enroll at private schools with sports); in any case, there's not advantage to a state university from larger enrollment (and tuition checks are sent to the state, not the school, so even the university budget has little to do with enrollment: USF's budget much bigger than UCF's).
Let's dispel the notion that the Power 5 doesn't know what they're doing, they know exactly what they're doing
So what was the big expansion debacle about? Were they really going to expand and then ESPN said...NO...here's more money?
ESPN called the Big 12's bluff and offered virtually nothing. UT runs the conference and is full of itself. They first thought the SEC would welcome Texas on their own terms. When the SEC balked and the raided the Big 12, Texas waited too long to expand while other conferences cleaned the cupboard. The other schools would leave if they could (and Nebraska, Mizzou, Colorado, and A&M did); Oklahoma will almost surely leave unless Texas lets them share a bit of their power. But they won't.So what was the big expansion debacle about? Were they really going to expand and then ESPN said...NO...here's more money?
I really think with the cable cutting movement that the days of the huge TV revenue deals are over when contracts are up in the next five years. Just a theory.
