Crimson Red Sports

another point of view (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577382292376194220.html)

Well that is a pretty good argument. Why today, why now? I know our athletes are bigger and stronger but what happens in the fast paced college night world when there is no coaches and staff helping these kids? They have more time to get in trouble, like smoking pot, no reason to truly stay in college because football is their life. Well maybe to restate it, that playing of the game keeps most athletes straight and not in trouble. I look forward to other opinions on this debate. RTR!

43% of NCAA schools don't make money on football. Doesn't this mean that 57% do make money?

Another lame ass academian/journalist not getting enough attention or recognition for what he contributes.  Arguing the other side is a slam dunk. While he wants to make readers gasp at CNS's obscene salary he conveniently omitted that University of Alabama revenues greatly increased since he was hired.  Also ignored was the intangibles of PR, enrollment enhancement, and the general enthusiasm around the state by the tax payers that do supplement college programs. The author is, like always, amazed that no one wants to spend $1000 on a weekend to come to town and watch him write.
 >:(

well , it seems we got us a grade A momma's boy here in ole Buzz-kill Bissinger

went from Comics to Chefs: Top Celebrity Tweeters to writing about
 college football ?
somebody has a wedgie , ain't that right Buzzy poo ? 
girlfriend ran off with a football player ? a coach ?
hit on a player and get that ass whooped ?
which is it Buzz ? 

he should have stayed with the make believe High School stuff   :lol:

I have to applaud you. This said more than I could with two keyboards. lol! RTR!

ain't that the truth !  we need to get it Buzzy Poo so she can read it too !

 :lol: #+

College is there for the purpose of preparing someone for a better career than one could have had straight out of High School. Does this not happen with football as well?
  I have long felt that athletes should be able to pursue a degree in "Sports."
Classes should involve such things as A&P, Kinisiology,  (Sports) Psychology, and Money management, among others.

BTW, did the bitter butt hurt writer mention how much $ CNS donates BACK to UA, for start up Schollies?

long live soccer !!!!    #+

Multi-million dollar moneymaker, even if it is for ONLY 57 percent of schools. Yeah, good luck with that Mr. Bissinger.  :eyeroll:

Not a very thoughtful discussion.

While 57% of football teams might make money, the calculation surely does not include the Title IX costs (matching male athletic participation with female athletic participation), or reflect athletic departments asa whole. It also does not include capital project costs like stadium and other facilities renovations.

In the escalating race to attract the best coaches and players much of the profit is returned to the athletic departments. This is the part that spells trouble for the future of college football. Unless the NCAA can come up with an expenditure cap system to maintain parity, the extraordinary resources of a small number of schools are essentially going to price 100 of the 140 div 1 football programs out of business. And the scholly cap is a band-aid that will not fix the problem.

If the mass of people east of Columbus Oh, and north of Knoxville TN stop caring about college football, and it becomes a southern thing, the TV money will dry up, followed by the apparel contracts. Then say goodbye to big-time college football.

The success of a small number of schools will kill the goose that laid the crystal egg.

Take away a school's football program and watch the enrollment numbers decline. The same whiners that brought us Title IX on the pretense of parity are now trying another scheme to destroy college football-- a much loved American tradition.  Ask the taxpayers which campus rat hole they would wish to quit pouring money down and the conversation will quickly turn against tenure and for at will employment agreements.  There is a ton of money being wasted on liberal arts crapola that can be eliminated long before you get to whittling away at athletic department budgets.   

True... but it's your link!

You make some good points Ricky. I do not doubt that a high proportion of at-risk kids who play college football are literally saved from a difficult and dangerous life. On the other hand, these kids represent an infinitesimally small fraction of at-risk kids. We are not saving them for them, we are saving them for us.

To answer why today, why now? I think it's the poor state of state economies. When so many states are cutting funds to their state colleges and universities, it is understandable that some would question why states continue to support football programs that cost money. The other answer to the why now issue is that dollar figures attached to athletic department budgets, particularly for football, are astronomical. That's not a problem for us because our program is a big money maker. But the escalation in the costs to be competitive will soon price many schools out of business. Add the growing concerns about the long-term effects of repetitive closed head injuries (see Cecil's column this morning) and football finds itself in a precarious position.

Hey Al, I agree about the large amounts of money. I would say if the administrators are so worried about their budgets, than give back some of their pay as CNS does. Quit wearing those $1,000 to $2,000 suits and all those expensive settings in their office.
When you actually give to the cause then you can debate about it. Today as we see more people allowed in our country of Freedom, they are jealous of College Football it seems. I can say if you want your sport to increase in revenue, then teach and preach what it does for the kids. College football makes people stronger and less likely to die in a fat pack such as myself.
I do though have an excuse, a Baptist Preacher, and Fried Chicken is my problem. Look forward to your reply. RTR!

First off, to you and especially to CP, the idea that Universities are full of fat cats living the good life off the taxpayers money is simply false. The state supports about 25% of the UA operating budget. Administrators and faculty make about 40-50% of what they could make in the private sector - except maybe philosophers ; ) - and college administrators wouldn't know a good suit from a bad one. Upsetting as it may be to some, fielding a football team is not among the top 10 most important things that go on at a university. Helping a couple dozen unfortunate kids, in a universe of thousands upon thousands of unfortunate kids, doesn't justify maintaining a football program that operates in the red. The university would be fine without football, but at least so far, you can't have a college football team without a college. I don't believe that there is a college or university in the country that wouldn't ultimately do just fine if they dropped their football program.

With that said, I do not begrudge CNS for his salary or the amazing revenue generating ability of our football program. I'd love for college football to continue to be the outstanding national pass-time that it has become. However, I don't think it will last without some form of revenue sharing that goes beyond the conference revenue sharing systems that we currently have.  If a small number of schools like ours become so dominant that the majority of D1 schools simply can't keep up, those schools will stop trying. They will drop to D2 or schedule more regionally without concerns about national ranking, or drop football.

They say, a rising tide (ironic) lifts all boats. If caps are placed on program expenditures, or revenues distributed through the NCAA to all D1 schools, the sport can continue to hold national interest for a long time to come. But a small groups of super teams will not hold national interest, particularly in places that have pro teams. Almost every pro sport has realized this dynamic and put in place some means of preserving parity, whether it is the draft system or salary caps or revenue sharing. CFB needs to do the same.

Upsetting as it may be to some, fielding a football team is not among the top 10 most important things that go on at a university. Helping a couple dozen unfortunate kids, in a universe of thousands upon thousands of unfortunate kids, doesn't justify maintaining a football program that operates in the red.---
OK Al, first can you tell me the 10 most important things to a University. Football might not be one but it sure brings a lot of revenue to somewhere in the school.

How many schools are operating in the RED? We don't and I don't know who might be. If however, going to Div.1AA would help a school I would admit them in a short time. Trying to go over your head to me is living beyond your means.
Also I thank you for the description on the clothing and the Faculty not making a lot of money. I will however say that kind of shocks me. I for one do not believe in paying players to play. Set the amount they need for today's world system and let them have it. Thank you, look forward to you. RTR!

Okay - 10 things more important than football, in no particular order.

1. Basic research
2. Applied research, using basic research to solve practical problems
3. Contract research, solving problems brought to us by the military, corporations, government agencies
4. Teaching/training future researchers
5. Teaching basic information about our physical social economic and political world, including the history of these things
6. Teaching students to understand perspectives on major life questions to which they might not otherwise be exposed
7. Teaching students to think critically, that is, using 4-6 to solve new problems
8. Teaching students to be more effective and responsible citizens.
9. Teaching students to communicate effectively in writing and orally
10. Producing civically and service minded leaders who will use what they have learned to serve their communities.

As for schools in the red, it's apparently hard to pin down the numbers. I read somewhere that there are only 9 Ads that operate in the black without any contribution from the University's operating budget. Who knows though.

I will give my 2 cents.

I agree that educators are not making a lot of money and did not choose that profession because they thought they would become rich.  The great majority of them do it because they enjoy helping kids and young adults.

I disagree with the premise that revenue sharing will make college football better in some way.  Sure, it would make it easier for the smaller schools to compete on the field with the big boys.  But that doesn't translate to a net revenue increase across the system in my opinion.  Likely as not it could actually lead to decreased overall revenue once the fans of traditional powerhouses lose their enthusiasm after years of contributing funds to build up the facilities at NW Directional State, then eventually losing to them on the field once we reach parity.  Is the small fan base of NW Directional State suddenly going to start spending enough money to replace the revenue lost when all the powerhouse schools are suddenly just "also rans"?  I can't see that as being helpful.

As to the powerhouses, those are cyclical.  It wasn't that many years ago that we were in the dumps.  And I have no doubt that we will be again some day, although I hope the next time is measured in seasons and not decades.

You make excellent points coach. I sure would never expect complete socialism when it comes to revenue sharing, just enough to keep a large number of teams from all regions of the country seriously involved in the competition. If that is achieved, and the college game retains it's national status, everything will be fine.

I agree about the cyclical nature of the rankings. But like monopoly, in which the fortunes of various players wax and wane, eventually someone ends up with all the properties and hotels and every time one of the have-nots rolls the die they land on one of those properties and get their azz kicked. Soon the only guy who wants to keep playing is the guy with all the stuff. With revenues as high as they are for successful programs, I'm afraid we are approaching that point in college football.

Let's keep an eye on OSU and USCw, who are clearly among the "haves". By all rights their NCAA sanctions should have had them down for 3-5 years, yet these big powerful programs are ranked #20 and #1 in the 2012 preseason polls.

I'm hoping your arguments, AlLTideUp, are coming from playing the devil's advocate role and not from true conviction. While the expenditures on athletics don't effect a large percentage of the school enrollment directly, they effect the entire university indirectly with school recognition, spirit, and student recruitment (etc). The athletic programs also have a large affect on the local economies.  They allow for 10-15 opportunities a year for school presidents to invite wealthy donors to campus.  They serve as the catalyst for many charitable organizations to form around (Nick's Kids). They serve as a source of pride for the university.

When the English Department has a following of private (millionaire) donors equal to the Athletic Department, then we will talk. This goes for UAB as well as the University of Alabama. In the meantime, I would suggest that where budgetary constaints become restrictive, a hard look should be taken at collective bargaining and tenure. HTH   

I certainly mean what I am saying, but you don't seem to be getting my point (we'll just say that's on me).

There is no disputing that the athletic department brings in a ton of dough, pumps up the local economy, and supports charitable organizations. That's all good.

My first point is that if you are UAB, and the football program is not paying back the University's operating budget, you need to close up shop. I'm fine with including some of your more indirect benefits in the equation, but if it's not paying for itself, it needs to go.

My second point (the most important one) is that we can get too good for our own good. All the benefits you outline depend on CFB being a wildly popular NATIONAL entertainment, especially recognition, enrollment etc. All of the tickets, all of the donors, etc, don't compare to what we take in from TV revenue and licensing. Those things require that CFB have a large national audience. If the entire eastern seaboard decides that no team within 200 miles of I-95 has a prayer of winning the national championship, they will stop watching CFB and focus on the many options they have for pro teams. Or they will follow their local college teams but have no interest in games affecting the top of the polls. If the major population centers turn their TVs off and we're left with a mostly southern (good college teams, few pro options) fan base, TV and licensing will dry up. I frankly don't think 150000 people will show up for a game in Tuscaloosa if it doesn't have national importance. And that's why I think the survival of the sport as a national interest will require serious measures to establish parity.

And back to a point that coach made, when I say keep teams afloat, I'm not talking about NW Directional State. I'm talking about Kansas, I'm talking about Georgia Tech and Iowa and UCLA.



As for your views that universities are sink holes of wasted time and money, those seem pretty entrenched so we'll just agree to disagree.

I never said that universities were sink holes of waste, but am pretty sure I could make up the deficit from a losing football team by targeting sink holes of waste within the overall university curriculum.  Women's "Studies for PMS Mgt." would no longer be offered but that won't make up the money we're talking about. Not giving out golden parachutes to everyone with a few years under their belt will help. Also leaving professors with enough time on their hands to write books and do on the side consultations to the private sector is another money saver. How about charging the faculty what John Q Public pays for a football ticket- get on the wait list and donate for the right to pay. 

But if you want to see a waste land made of college football,-- let the educators and politicians write in the caps or other regulations.  Just like congress getting involved in the BCSNC system. I'm not sure where things will go but I promise they will be worse. Let free markets and supply/demand run its course and see where it leads. I don't see schools clamoring to drop their sports teams yet. The trains still ran on time before Nike contracts or ESPN.  BTW, the Northeast has quit watching football on Saturdays for years-- that ship has sailed and football revenues are still increasing. 

well now , for the life of me I can't figure out why in the world
South Alabama recently fielded a football program and marching band  ...   :dunno:

which also reminds me of a Mickey Mantle quote ...

"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been
playing all your life."

College Athletics Revenues and Expenses -  ALABAMA http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue/_/year/2009


TICKETS  $28,410,419

STUDENTS  $0

AWAY_GAMES $5,500

DONATIONS $29,860,400

UNIVERSITY $4,101,515

MEDIA_RIGHTS  $8,825,964

BRANDING  $4,506,056   

TOTAL REVENUE  $123,769,841

Wow. That's startling. Thanks for the data.

Where does the remaining 40 mil come from?

espn has it all for what is reported to the ncaa here http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=4722523

In ESPN's exclusive online database, delve into the details behind the money that moves college sports. Find out how much athletic departments make from ticket sales, playing away games, donations, outside contracts, media rights and other sources of revenue. And see what they spend on recruiting, athletes' tuition, travel, coaches' pay and other expenses.

click-able categories are
Search for an individual college.http://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c100018b2071a6c844ba59778

See where the money comes from.http://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1000ff135d44666d4dd286d1

See where the money goes.http://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c10007140e4b3408b4f24bc8d

Revenues and expenditures chart.http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue

^ Thanks X

Your figures are correct. So that leaves $38.4 in revenue unaccounted for.

anytime ...

I was amazed at some of those numbers , really thought
we got more TV monies than that too ...

maybe somebody in the know can shed more light on a break down or
can help with the confirmation of the numbers ...

one good thing it has all the schools numbers listed  and I believe espn is doing
a special on the subject soon ...

Let me start from the beginning and address the author of the link instead of ALTideUp:

  I think this commentator made he same mistake that most pundits make:  he made up his mind in advance as to the conclusion he wanted to draw, and then tried to come up with something to support his conclusion.  Not a very honest approach!  New Mexico State?  Give me a break.
        This guy totally ignored the fact that the football programs at the 57% of the 120 schools he makes only snide remarks about (e.g., Alabama and Ohio State) not only fund the other sports at their campuses, but they contribute generously to the academic programs of their universities.  What about schools like WVU, where the Athletic Department is solely self-funded and accepts nothing from the University budget? And since when is it that a scholarship to any university is worthless? Four years at most schools today would cost a student  at least $60,000.
Now add the peripheral benefits of an acclaimed sports program. The boost they provide the local economies. The charities that benefit. School pride and so forth.
  And I would love to hear him explain just how the "NFL Minor League" subsidization concept would work in the real world.  This guy is about as nutty as most political commentators are these days. A real shallow "thinker" that exist in an academic/journalistic vacuum where all that surround him share his idiotic views.  

I just read a piece on that , for example ..

the article said and used LSU as the example ...

"on a game day weekend it pumps in 8.5 million to the local economy"

I don't have the link and don't have time to find it right now ...
if that is correct , I wonder if it is , that's a ton of money ...

First off let me say all these points would win any debate and I don't there is a politcal person who could keep up with you guys.
I am sorry for being so late AlTideUp; I had VA doctor appointments today.
8. Teaching students to be more effective and responsible citizens
One thing I see that you left out in this file is if our kids are to really learn what your talking about now. We need to incorporate the Bible into this. If you look at the players today that I personally know of, when they acknowledge Jesus they all play hard and are stand up citizens. Yes, I bring to the attention (Tim Tebow) I can name others also.
Now all the good points on revenue I can't add to or take away from. I do however think if the schools how are low in funds thought cutting a sport would help they will do that for sure!  :clap: :wall:Look forward to your reply. RTR!