Knight Commission

[GP1]

I mentioned in an earlier post the Knight Commission Report on the financial state of college athletics. This is the report. I find it to be an eye opener and cause for concern. It's rather long so give yourself some time.

[g-mann17]

I mentioned in an earlier post the Knight Commission Report on the financial state of college athletics. This is the report. I find it to be an eye opener and cause for concern. It's rather long so give yourself some time.

Very good find. There was also an ESPN Outside the Lines segment talking about the state of College sports and the Media and sighting this very report.The real question is, what can be done. It seems anti-capitalist to suggest a more even split of the money, and it was declared an anti-trust issue when they tried to stop the excessive pay wars for the top coaches.

[GP1]

It seems anti-capitalist to suggest a more even split of the money

It is. I posted one of my brilliant posts about what college football should do to reform itself. The answer is not splitting the money more evenly.The answer is creating a separate division of college football with the best 40 teams of the last 40 years. Four divisions of ten teams. Those 40 teams must play everyone in their division and only teams from the other divisions. Out of division games are against the teams that finished in the same ranking in their divisions from the previous year. 12 games a year. At the end of the year, the first place teams of every division have a four team playoff. Then they can have the playoff everyone wants. They should also pay the players who play in this 40 team group. If universities are going to rake in cash, so should the players...most at these schools are bringing in money under the table, they my as well pay them in the open.The answer isn't to limit the money, the answer is to let the money teams have theirs while letting the lesser money producers more effectively compete against one another at their own level.

[g-mann17]

It seems anti-capitalist to suggest a more even split of the money

It is. I posted one of my brilliant posts about what college football should do to reform itself. The answer is not splitting the money more evenly.The answer is creating a separate division of college football with the best 40 teams of the last 40 years. Four divisions of ten teams. Those 40 teams must play everyone in their division and only teams from the other divisions. Out of division games are against the teams that finished in the same ranking in their divisions from the previous year. 12 games a year. At the end of the year, the first place teams of every division have a four team playoff. Then they can have the playoff everyone wants. They should also pay the players who play in this 40 team group. If universities are going to rake in cash, so should the players...most at these schools are bringing in money under the table, they my as well pay them in the open.The answer isn't to limit the money, the answer is to let the money teams have theirs while letting the lesser money producers more effectively compete against one another at their own level.

Except for the most part "lesser money" teams have had more success.Texas and the Big 12 don't even sniff 1/3 of what OSU and Florida make. USC and the PAC 10 have had huge success and the conference only makes around 60 million a year in TV money. Utah, Boise State, and TCU all get minimal cash (at least until recently) and compete better than most of the money teams.I know you said "top 40" except the problem with that there is no way to "qualify" who the top 40 are. They can't even justify the Top 25 and they have been doing that for over 60 years now. What's to keep media and coaches from making that an exclusive group?No, one of the fastest solutions is to actually make each big conference give fair portions of the TV money (the money that is in question) to the lesser conference they kick the crap out of every year.The Big 10 plays somewhere between 18-24 games against the MAC. One third of the schedule, they make big money of their network and kicking that game to affiliates. Pay up. As of right now the MAC get's about $1 million from TV revenue (ESPN mostly). They get nothing from the Big 10 or Big East.Additionally the NCAA and the Federal government needs to support regulations preventing excessive salaries and "strong arm buy outs" of coaches. The Big 10 and SEC deserve the money they make. But they also should be paying the teams and conferences they make that money off of. Another quick and non-socialist fix, is the NCAA says you have a cap on what you can spend on your sport. 100% of gate and sport related sales (concessions and merchendise), and 10% or TV revenue, the remainder must go to other non-revenue sports and academics.There is no reason there can't be a spending and salary cap for programs and coaches.

[GP1]

It seems anti-capitalist to suggest a more even split of the money

It is. I posted one of my brilliant posts about what college football should do to reform itself. The answer is not splitting the money more evenly.The answer is creating a separate division of college football with the best 40 teams of the last 40 years. Four divisions of ten teams. Those 40 teams must play everyone in their division and only teams from the other divisions. Out of division games are against the teams that finished in the same ranking in their divisions from the previous year. 12 games a year. At the end of the year, the first place teams of every division have a four team playoff. Then they can have the playoff everyone wants. They should also pay the players who play in this 40 team group. If universities are going to rake in cash, so should the players...most at these schools are bringing in money under the table, they my as well pay them in the open.The answer isn't to limit the money, the answer is to let the money teams have theirs while letting the lesser money producers more effectively compete against one another at their own level.

Except for the most part "lesser money" teams have had more success.Texas and the Big 12 don't even sniff 1/3 of what OSU and Florida make. USC and the PAC 10 have had huge success and the conference only makes around 60 million a year in TV money. Utah, Boise State, and TCU all get minimal cash (at least until recently) and compete better than most of the money teams.I know you said "top 40" except the problem with that there is no way to "qualify" who the top 40 are. They can't even justify the Top 25 and they have been doing that for over 60 years now. What's to keep media and coaches from making that an exclusive group?No, one of the fastest solutions is to actually make each big conference give fair portions of the TV money (the money that is in question) to the lesser conference they kick the crap out of every year.The Big 10 plays somewhere between 18-24 games against the MAC. One third of the schedule, they make big money of their network and kicking that game to affiliates. Pay up. As of right now the MAC get's about $1 million from TV revenue (ESPN mostly). They get nothing from the Big 10 or Big East.Additionally the NCAA and the Federal government needs to support regulations preventing excessive salaries and "strong arm buy outs" of coaches. The Big 10 and SEC deserve the money they make. But they also should be paying the teams and conferences they make that money off of. Another quick and non-socialist fix, is the NCAA says you have a cap on what you can spend on your sport. 100% of gate and sport related sales (concessions and merchendise), and 10% or TV revenue, the remainder must go to other non-revenue sports and academics.There is no reason there can't be a spending and salary cap for programs and coaches.

I agree, the problem is difficult and finding the top 40 teams would be difficult. The first thirty would probably be pretty easy. That's why only the Great GP1 would be qualified to pick the top 40.However, given I have a real job, I would permit a group of journalists along with a group similar to the one that selects the NCAA field of 64 to pick the teams. A top 40 group would actually be a good topic on this board. I also think the joining of the top 40 would be voluntary and schools would have to petition for entry. At any point, a team could drop out of the top40 and another could be selected.One thing I am certain of is any regulations/restrictions placed on schools would not work. Just like the tax laws, these regulations could be maneuvered around. Also, I think the federal government is having trouble regulating it's own spending and I don't trust them to regulate university athletics spending. If anyone really listens to the average politician speak, they are actually very stupid people. If you read the report above closely, it is clear that the market will eventually take care of salaries because schools simply will not be able to spend more. Even if you restricted salaries, coaches would find other means of generating income, ie: endorsements.There has been a lot of talk about bubbles in the past few years. In the 90s we had the dot com bubble. This decade we had the housing bubble. Soon, we are going to have to face up to our government spending bubble and it is going to make all of the other bubbles seem small. Most of these schools are state school programs. If private funding slows and public money is in a pinch, we could see a "building" bubble in the near future for universities. See the word unsustainable in the report above....have we been hearing that word much in the past couple of years? Let's keep that in mind as we consider a new soccer field and bb arena. Only 20% of the lifetime cost of a building is the construction of the structure. The other 80% is maintenance. As we ponder or futurer building, are we sure we can pick up the other 80% over the next 80 years? Do we have $512 million over the next 80 years to maintain The Big Phone Booth? What about the fieldhouse? What if we build a bb arena? What if we build a new soccer stadium? I hope someone it thinking about this. I hope UofA doesn't have to sacrafice what I consider to be a good education over sports facilities. Hofstra just had to make that choice and we know what they decided.

[g-mann17]

It seems anti-capitalist to suggest a more even split of the money

It is. I posted one of my brilliant posts about what college football should do to reform itself. The answer is not splitting the money more evenly.The answer is creating a separate division of college football with the best 40 teams of the last 40 years. Four divisions of ten teams. Those 40 teams must play everyone in their division and only teams from the other divisions. Out of division games are against the teams that finished in the same ranking in their divisions from the previous year. 12 games a year. At the end of the year, the first place teams of every division have a four team playoff. Then they can have the playoff everyone wants. They should also pay the players who play in this 40 team group. If universities are going to rake in cash, so should the players...most at these schools are bringing in money under the table, they my as well pay them in the open.The answer isn't to limit the money, the answer is to let the money teams have theirs while letting the lesser money producers more effectively compete against one another at their own level.

Except for the most part "lesser money" teams have had more success.Texas and the Big 12 don't even sniff 1/3 of what OSU and Florida make. USC and the PAC 10 have had huge success and the conference only makes around 60 million a year in TV money. Utah, Boise State, and TCU all get minimal cash (at least until recently) and compete better than most of the money teams.I know you said "top 40" except the problem with that there is no way to "qualify" who the top 40 are. They can't even justify the Top 25 and they have been doing that for over 60 years now. What's to keep media and coaches from making that an exclusive group?No, one of the fastest solutions is to actually make each big conference give fair portions of the TV money (the money that is in question) to the lesser conference they kick the crap out of every year.The Big 10 plays somewhere between 18-24 games against the MAC. One third of the schedule, they make big money of their network and kicking that game to affiliates. Pay up. As of right now the MAC get's about $1 million from TV revenue (ESPN mostly). They get nothing from the Big 10 or Big East.Additionally the NCAA and the Federal government needs to support regulations preventing excessive salaries and "strong arm buy outs" of coaches. The Big 10 and SEC deserve the money they make. But they also should be paying the teams and conferences they make that money off of. Another quick and non-socialist fix, is the NCAA says you have a cap on what you can spend on your sport. 100% of gate and sport related sales (concessions and merchendise), and 10% or TV revenue, the remainder must go to other non-revenue sports and academics.There is no reason there can't be a spending and salary cap for programs and coaches.

I agree, the problem is difficult and finding the top 40 teams would be difficult. The first thirty would probably be pretty easy. That's why only the Great GP1 would be qualified to pick the top 40.However, given I have a real job, I would permit a group of journalists along with a group similar to the one that selects the NCAA field of 64 to pick the teams. A top 40 group would actually be a good topic on this board. I also think the joining of the top 40 would be voluntary and schools would have to petition for entry. At any point, a team could drop out of the top40 and another could be selected.One thing I am certain of is any regulations/restrictions placed on schools would not work. Just like the tax laws, these regulations could be maneuvered around. Also, I think the federal government is having trouble regulating it's own spending and I don't trust them to regulate university athletics spending. If anyone really listens to the average politician speak, they are actually very stupid people. If you read the report above closely, it is clear that the market will eventually take care of salaries because schools simply will not be able to spend more. Even if you restricted salaries, coaches would find other means of generating income, ie: endorsements.There has been a lot of talk about bubbles in the past few years. In the 90s we had the dot com bubble. This decade we had the housing bubble. Soon, we are going to have to face up to our government spending bubble and it is going to make all of the other bubbles seem small. Most of these schools are state school programs. If private funding slows and public money is in a pinch, we could see a "building" bubble in the near future for universities. See the word unsustainable in the report above....have we been hearing that word much in the past couple of years? Let's keep that in mind as we consider a new soccer field and bb arena. Only 20% of the lifetime cost of a building is the construction of the structure. The other 80% is maintenance. As we ponder or futurer building, are we sure we can pick up the other 80% over the next 80 years? Do we have $512 million over the next 80 years to maintain The Big Phone Booth? What about the fieldhouse? What if we build a bb arena? What if we build a new soccer stadium? I hope someone it thinking about this. I hope UofA doesn't have to sacrafice what I consider to be a good education over sports facilities. Hofstra just had to make that choice and we know what they decided.

The difference being Hofstra is private, has an enrollment roughly half of UA's, and an endowment that between 20-50 million dollars less.I understand sustainability. But only two schools in the country have "sustainable athletics" OSU (makes a profit) and Texas (because it rapes the rest of the conference). Every other school puts money into athletics. There are about 96% of the D-1 FBS presidents that want a change. I'm pretty sure something will give, and it won't be the number of D-1 FBS schools. As far as UA's growth (I know you are a government fearing libertarian) but every project has to be approved by the University, Board of Trustees, State University oversight committee and then the actual senate. These projects and budgets and the ability to pay are scrutinized ad nauseum. You can't predict 12% unemployment and the toll that takes on taxes and private donations. But for the most part nothing has been approved that wasn't considered to be "sustainable".But I also have to remember that you are a "know your place, no reason to grow" kind of person and that does not align with the vision of the University.

[GP1]

But I also have to remember that you are a "know your place, no reason to grow" kind of person and that does not align with the vision of the University.

I don't think you could find a quote of mine saying we need to stop improvements. We need to improve what we have and do so within our means. Let's pay for what we have before we grow ourselves into too much debt.As far as knowing our place. I know what we are. We are a MAC school and that's it. Let's be the best MAC school possible.

[Zip Watcher]

But I also have to remember that you are a "know your place, no reason to grow" kind of person and that does not align with the vision of the University.

I don't think you could find a quote of mine saying we need to stop improvements. We need to improve what we have and do so within our means. Let's pay for what we have before we grow ourselves into too much debt.As far as knowing our place. I know what we are. We are a MAC school and that's it. Let's be the best MAC school possible.

I sort of agree with GP1 here, but don't think it means we're choosing permanent membership in the MAC. The objectives ought to be the dominant team in the MAC. You can only win championships in the conference in which you play. You can seek to improve in all sports and make your facilities the best the school can offer. That, combined with good coaching decisions and some talent, hard work and luck may lead to ascendence in the conference pecking order.If doing so causes some gentlemen from another conference office to come calling inquiring about Akron moving conferences .. then so be it. Then, and only then .. is there a decision to be made.Go Zips!!

[ZachTheZip]

Football is the albatross around NCAA D-I's neck.Within a few years, more schools will drop the sport or at least drop scholarships or become a club team. Others will move up from FCS to FBS. The sport will be consolidated with only the schools that can afford to support it still fielding a team. The key for Akron is to ride out the storm and do what we can to improve our standing in the big picture.

[GP1]

Football is the albatross around NCAA D-I's neck.

Is football the albatross, or are non-revenue producing sports the albatrosses?

[ZachTheZip]

Football is the albatross around NCAA D-I's neck.

Is football the albatross, or are non-revenue producing sports the albatrosses?

Depends on what the focus of collegiate athletics is. Is it to make money and advertise for the university, or is it to provide a competitive and unique experience for talented athletes while they get an education?

[g-mann17]

Football is the albatross around NCAA D-I's neck.

Is football the albatross, or are non-revenue producing sports the albatrosses?

Football for the most funds itself. So I would say non-revenue sports. But I'm sure your question was rhetorical. Some would actually criticize Title IX. 85 scholarships for male athletes (football) must be equaled by 85 scholarships for female athletes. Now in a school where they can fund all of those scholarships through generous alumni donors no big deal, but for the most part schools are similar to us. Scholarships for 2009 alone total $6.7 million. Z-Fund contributions to date are roughly $600 thousand.But we also have to remember that sports in general were not designed to be "money makers" it was to create a well rounded student and scholarships for sports were designed to open the door to the university for individuals who were academically capable but had no other means to attend. The real problem is ESPN

[Captain Kangaroo]

Football is the albatross around NCAA D-I's neck.

Is football the albatross, or are non-revenue producing sports the albatrosses?

Football for the most funds itself. So I would say non-revenue sports. But I'm sure your question was rhetorical. Some would actually criticize Title IX. 85 scholarships for male athletes (football) must be equaled by 85 scholarships for female athletes. Now in a school where they can fund all of those scholarships through generous alumni donors no big deal, but for the most part schools are similar to us. Scholarships for 2009 alone total $6.7 million. Z-Fund contributions to date are roughly $600 thousand.But we also have to remember that sports in general were not designed to be "money makers" it was to create a well rounded student and scholarships for sports were designed to open the door to the university for individuals who were academically capable but had no other means to attend. The real problem is ESPN

Hey...ESPN is the only reason we'll have TWO solid OOC opponents coming to the JAR this year!ESPNU is evil.

[Zipmeister]

Football is the albatross around NCAA D-I's neck.

Is football the albatross, or are non-revenue producing sports the albatrosses?

For all but a few schools football is a non-income producing sport.

[Z.I.P.]

Football is the albatross around NCAA D-I's neck.

Is football the albatross, or are non-revenue producing sports the albatrosses?

Football for the most funds itself. So I would say non-revenue sports. But I'm sure your question was rhetorical. Some would actually criticize Title IX. 85 scholarships for male athletes (football) must be equaled by 85 scholarships for female athletes. Now in a school where they can fund all of those scholarships through generous alumni donors no big deal, but for the most part schools are similar to us. Scholarships for 2009 alone total $6.7 million. Z-Fund contributions to date are roughly $600 thousand.But we also have to remember that sports in general were not designed to be "money makers" it was to create a well rounded student and scholarships for sports were designed to open the door to the university for individuals who were academically capable but had no other means to attend.

Now THAT is anti-capitalist. (Please pardon my radical and subversive pro-democracy position. And Merry Christmas to one and all!)

[g-mann17]

But we also have to remember that sports in general were not designed to be "money makers" it was to create a well rounded student and scholarships for sports were designed to open the door to the university for individuals who were academically capable but had no other means to attend.

Now THAT is anti-capitalist. (Please pardon my radical and subversive pro-democracy position. And Merry Christmas to one and all!)

How do you figure? Athletics started when most Universities started (17-1800's), and trust me they weren't running Track to earn revenue. Football started out as intramurals with Rutgers.