Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[David HD]

The playoff money payouts to the non-power five football conferences are a percentage and not a set amount. So, yes, it's reasonable to assume the amount of money they get from the playoff will increase as the overall amount of money that the playoff generates increases.

I also think that in the next ten years the chances of the playoff expanding from four teams to eight teams, and generating yet still money are certainly not 100 percent, but are still greater than 50 percent.

[_lh]

I never said finances were NOT an issue. They are a big issue for UCONN. As you cited, I have said that numerous times. UCONN is in bad financial shape without P5 money to bail them out.

I did NOT however talk about there being financial win fall for UCONN by joining the BE. Not once...ever. Sorry.

Right, you never claimed a financial windfall for UConn moving to the Big East. BUT you did repeatedly claim that money and finances are the problem that will become so great not just now but in the future, that BE membership will become their "best option".

How is the BE their "best option" If it doesn't solve the financial issues that you've repeatedly identified as being the problem in the first place?

You incorrectly summarized my position and continue to. I never said the BE would be UCONN's best option. I have said that without P5 money, some tough choices will have to be made sooner rather than later on keeping football at its current state.

[_lh]

You're singling out UConn, but there is nothing unique about their situation. You're going to have to establish that NO PROGRAM outside the P5 can sustain football to legitimize your argument. Is everyone from BYU to UMass and everyone in between dropping or deemphasizing football? Everyone in the MAC, the AAC, the Mountain West, the Sun Belt, and the Big West? You can't repeatedly claim that football at UConn is unsustainable while ignoring that there are dozens of others who will also be moving forward in FBS football outside the P5.

Wrong again. UCONN is unique in that they have potential options to join the best BBall only conference if they drop football. UMASS, BYU, UC, etc. will never have that option.

[Xudash]

UCONN and UC are clearly the two biggest losers in all this because they at least had once been members of a "BCS 6 Conference" and then found themselves left out in the cold when the NCAA Football world went to its P5 grouping and the playoff format.

Now they are spending a lot of money and a lot of time, walking up and down their fashion runways, peacock'ing themselves for primarily the Big XII and ACC conferences (I suppose, through deduction).

Frankly, I see merit in Bill's logical support of the idea that they are heavily invested - HEAVILY INVESTED - in making football work at the highest level and that, even more important than that, they see their respective athletic departments as drivers for the larger matter of institutional positioning. In short, they want to play the game positioned as big state schools that are well established as strong research universities.

This is clearly not only about football when it comes to the aspirations of UCONN and UC. Anyone who thinks differently about that is thinking solely as a sports fan.

So, let's look at some data to keep the conversation sober: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Let's pull a few schools from the list for comparison:

Rank School Conference Revenue Expense Subsidy % Subsidy
Top Five Schools:
1 Oregon Pac-12 $ 196,030,398 $110,378,432 $2,155,099 1.1
2 Texas Big 12 $161,035,187 $154,128,877 $0 0
3 Michigan Big Ten $157,899,820 $142,551,994 $256,316 0.16
4 Alabama SEC $153,234,273 $120,184,128 $5,997,100 3.91
5 Ohio State Big Ten $145,232,681 $113,937,001 $0 0

UCONN's Grouping:
44 UCONN AAC $71,519,433 $71,396,255 $27,203,031 38.04
45 Purdue Big Ten $71,372,206 $74,604,756 $0 0
46 NC State ACC $70,500,811 $63,958,569 $6,708,651 9.52
47 GA Tech ACC $68,469,538 $68,818,267 $7,107,777 10.38

UC's Grouping:
51 MISS ST SEC $62,275,111 $54,388,802 $2,650,000 4.26
52 UC AAC $59,100,453 $55,433,830 $27,118,373 45.89
53 Utah Pac-12 $56,470,310 $50,531,606 $9,862,106 17.46
54 WASH ST Pac-12 $54,426,818 $68,141,258 $10,104,638 18.57

EDIT: CAN'T GET THIS THING TO FORMAT PROPERLY (WE SHOULD HAVE THE SITE BE CAPABLE OF TAKING IN PDF UPLOADS). EITHER LOOK AT THE LINKED ARTICLE OR PAY ATTENTION TO THE LAST FIGURES - - THE SUBSIDY %'s.

Firstly, please allow me to note what we all know - that how schools account for athletics is creative, at best. Having noted that, it's pretty easy to see which schools are and are not well heeled.

A fair question to ask Re UCONN is how much of that $72mm in revenue is comprised of their share of the BE revenue strip run off being collected by the AAC? How much does UC from that? How much longer do those revenue streams stay alive for both schools?

If not privately donated money, then help drive it through student fees? UCONN has approx. 31k students; UC has approx. 44k students. Well, maybe not so much: at $100 per student, you're talking about $3.1mm and $4.4mm for UCONN and UC, respectively.

Private money and the state legislatures are going to have to (continue to) kick in for both. UCONN has the luxury of being Connecticut's flagship school. UC is up against Ohio State and the public MAC schools in the state.

I have no idea what's going to happen with these two schools, in particular. It would be good for the City of Cincinnati to have a healthy and vibrant UC operating in it.

At the very least, we will go on for the time being, having some fodder to get us through the off-season.

[_lh]

Bill,

We can go round and round on this if you like but we are never going to agree. You believe that UCONN can chase big time football and P5 membership forever and I think they will run out of money in the next decade or so without P5 membership. Time will tell who is correct.

For now, UCONN does not need the BE and the BE does not need UCONN. I am in favor of the BE staying at 10 teams forever but in the small chance either becomes available, I would be on board with adding UCONN and ND only. No other program would be worth it to me.

[NJRedman]

Bill,

We can go round and round on this if you like but we are never going to agree. You believe that UCONN can chase big time football and P5 membership forever and I think they will run out of money in the next decade or so without P5 membership. Time will tell who is correct.

For now, UCONN does not need the BE and the BE does not need UCONN. I am in favor of the BE staying at 10 teams forever but in the small chance either becomes available, I would be on board with adding UCONN and ND only. No other program would be worth it to me.

I'm with you. I don't think UConn wants to drop FB but it could come to it just because they have a realistic option to join a power conference if they drop FB.

[Bill Marsh]

I don't care what UCONN wants and neither does the BE. The BE does not need UCONN. UCONN may not want to be in the BE but it may turn out in 10 years to be the best option for them.

So, now you're accusing me of incorrectly "summarizing" your position?

I didn't "summarize" your position. I quoted it, and I include the post from which I quoted above. Hence, the quotes around "best option" in my previous post. Those were your words!

First, you claim that you never said it was about money and finances. Then I throw up a handful of posts in which you said precisely that. So, you tried to run away from what you said by spinning it with your "windfall" nonsense.

Second, I directly quoted your "best option" and signaled that it was a quote by using quotation marks. But you turn around and criticize me for inaccurately summarizing your position. Nice try.

And you called me stubborn? And ignorant? And refused to answer when I asked you what I was ignorant of? Sheesh!

You have presented no convincing case for why UConn will be an option for the BE either next year or 10 years down the road other than that it makes sense to you due to current financial issues. The issue isn't whether it makes sense to you. It's whether it makes sense to them. I see no evidence that it does now or ever will. Evidence. You can stubbornly hold to your position about a program whose internal workings you are ignorant of. I really don't care.

Further, I see no evidence that UConn is the kind of institution that The Big East is interested in. We fans would love to see UConn added to the roster for basketball reasons. But the university presidents seem quite content to focus on a different kind of profile for the conference. This is the side of the equation that has been completely ignored in this conversation. With all the focus on what UConn will need to do in 10 years, it seems to be just assumed that there will be a spot for them in The Big East if they want it. I highly doubt that there ever will be.

[Bill Marsh]

You're singling out UConn, but there is nothing unique about their situation. You're going to have to establish that NO PROGRAM outside the P5 can sustain football to legitimize your argument. Is everyone from BYU to UMass and everyone in between dropping or deemphasizing football? Everyone in the MAC, the AAC, the Mountain West, the Sun Belt, and the Big West? You can't repeatedly claim that football at UConn is unsustainable while ignoring that there are dozens of others who will also be moving forward in FBS football outside the P5.

Wrong again. UCONN is unique in that they have potential options to join the best BBall only conference if they drop football. UMASS, BYU, UC, etc. will never have that option.

That's your assumption. Where's the evidence that there will be a spot for them in The Big East? You're seriously misreading the tea leaves.

Regardless, my point about UConn not being unique was with regard to the football side, an issue which you're completely dodging.

[Bill Marsh]

UCONN and UC are clearly the two biggest losers in all this because they at least had once been members of a "BCS 6 Conference" and then found themselves left out in the cold when the NCAA Football world went to its P5 grouping and the playoff format.

Now they are spending a lot of money and a lot of time, walking up and down their fashion runways, peacock'ing themselves for primarily the Big XII and ACC conferences (I suppose, through deduction).

Frankly, I see merit in Bill's logical support of the idea that they are heavily invested - HEAVILY INVESTED - in making football work at the highest level and that, even more important than that, they see their respective athletic departments as drivers for the larger matter of institutional positioning. In short, they want to play the game positioned as big state schools that are well established as strong research universities.

This is clearly not only about football when it comes to the aspirations of UCONN and UC. Anyone who thinks differently about that is thinking solely as a sports fan.

So, let's look at some data to keep the conversation sober: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Let's pull a few schools from the list for comparison:

Rank School Conference Revenue Expense Subsidy % Subsidy
Top Five Schools:
1 Oregon Pac-12 $ 196,030,398 $110,378,432 $2,155,099 1.1
2 Texas Big 12 $161,035,187 $154,128,877 $0 0
3 Michigan Big Ten $157,899,820 $142,551,994 $256,316 0.16
4 Alabama SEC $153,234,273 $120,184,128 $5,997,100 3.91
5 Ohio State Big Ten $145,232,681 $113,937,001 $0 0

UCONN's Grouping:
44 UCONN AAC $71,519,433 $71,396,255 $27,203,031 38.04
45 Purdue Big Ten $71,372,206 $74,604,756 $0 0
46 NC State ACC $70,500,811 $63,958,569 $6,708,651 9.52
47 GA Tech ACC $68,469,538 $68,818,267 $7,107,777 10.38

UC's Grouping:
51 MISS ST SEC $62,275,111 $54,388,802 $2,650,000 4.26
52 UC AAC $59,100,453 $55,433,830 $27,118,373 45.89
53 Utah Pac-12 $56,470,310 $50,531,606 $9,862,106 17.46
54 WASH ST Pac-12 $54,426,818 $68,141,258 $10,104,638 18.57

EDIT: CAN'T GET THIS THING TO FORMAT PROPERLY (WE SHOULD HAVE THE SITE BE CAPABLE OF TAKING IN PDF UPLOADS). EITHER LOOK AT THE LINKED ARTICLE OR PAY ATTENTION TO THE LAST FIGURES - - THE SUBSIDY %'s.

Firstly, please allow me to note what we all know - that how schools account for athletics is creative, at best. Having noted that, it's pretty easy to see which schools are and are not well heeled.

A fair question to ask Re UCONN is how much of that $72mm in revenue is comprised of their share of the BE revenue strip run off being collected by the AAC? How much does UC from that? How much longer do those revenue streams stay alive for both schools?

If not privately donated money, then help drive it through student fees? UCONN has approx. 31k students; UC has approx. 44k students. Well, maybe not so much: at $100 per student, you're talking about $3.1mm and $4.4mm for UCONN and UC, respectively.

Private money and the state legislatures are going to have to (continue to) kick in for both. UCONN has the luxury of being Connecticut's flagship school. UC is up against Ohio State and the public MAC schools in the state.

I have no idea what's going to happen with these two schools, in particular. It would be good for the City of Cincinnati to have a healthy and vibrant UC operating in it.

At the very least, we will go on for the time being, having some fodder to get us through the off-season.

Thanks for the detail and analysis. Let me add just one point.

What are the real costs in that $71.5 million? Or in any school's athletic budget?

Every school counts athletic scholarships as a cost as though those seats would be filled by tuition paying students if those spots were not given to athletes. However those numbers are reported, they are not real costs. It doesn't cost them anything to add 1 more student to an existing class. There may be times when the 20+ football scholarships per year actually impact the cost of providing an academic program, but they are rare - few and far between if ever.

There is much creative accounting that goes into producing those numbers at any school, much of it not reliable. But the fact is that a big chunk of that $71.5 million figure is for athletic scholarships, which is not a real cost. No athletic program is going broke as a result of athletic scholarships.

UConn has had football forever although it was I-AA (FCS) prior to the upgrade in 1999. Is UConn going back to that? The difference between FCS and FBS is 20 scholarships. UConn is not dropping football, so would downgrading to FCS and eliminating 20 scholarships save their Athletic Dept? Villanova fields FCS football. Why aren't they going broke? Downgrading to FCS saves 20 scholarships but it also eliminates a minimum of $1.27 million in football playoff revenue. It also means declining attendance, which constitutea a further loss of revenue.

[TBC Alum]

Each version of this thread eventually devolves into the Batley Townswomens' Guild and their presentation of the Battle of Pearl Harbor