Time for Football to Pick a Side

May 19, 2011 at 1:39p    by Jason Priestas    
7 Comments
"The revenue the national office made from football amounted to $420,000, the total of the licensing fees paid by the 35 bowl games. That’s not even enough to cover the NCAA’s estimated $500,000 loss that the Association takes putting on the FCS tournament." (NCAA.org)
7 Comments

Comments

Nik's picture

Interesting article, but I never figured out what side the writer is on

Nik's picture

On second thought I guess that's a good thing. He managed to discuss both sides well without interjecting his opinion, but still informing us.

NW Buckeye's picture

Interesting enough.  He does maintain a neutral approach to it all, however he does take a stab at the B1G proposal of paying stipends to athletes.  And, his analogy of non revenue sports at Portland is not the way to make a point.  The Northwest happens to be a hot bed for soccer and cross country, hence the success they have can be much different than the revenue generating sports.  Consider this - would an athlete accept a scholarship at a AQ school that pays stipends only to sit on the bench for 4 or 5 years?  The answer for some may be yes, but there will be just as many opting to start on other teams and forgo the money.  A better analogy would be how Boise State has managed to build successful teams with no 4 and 5 star rated recruits.  There are plenty of quality athletes (rated highly or not) to go around, and some are more hungry for time than others. 

The real bugaboo in all of this is that the AQ conferences will have a decision to make.  They obviously have the reins at this point.  The government is breathing down their necks to have a playoff and spread the wealth.  Why should the major conferences be willing to share with other conferences that do not offer the variety of sports programs or generate similar in season revenues?  All this push for a NC will eventually lead to the formation of a new association of the AQ's with the others on the outside looking in.  There is no requirement that you open up an association to all comers.  You can set standards that involve such things as the number of sports offered by the conferences, average attendance at revenue producing sports, etc.  So it is quite possible that the governments' push for an NC will simply split things up and give the profits of a NC (which I do believe are over estimated, however they will be substantial) to the big conferences. 

The recent discussion by the B1G has drawn mostly favorable comments from the AQ's. Not so much from the others.  Is there any doubt that a split is not coming?  It may take 5 to 10 years, but the writing is on the wall. 

Nik's picture

I'm not sure a split would be an entirely bad thing.  It would probably lead to a more even playing field, and would at least in part keep people from complaining that team X is playing teams like Citadel, Eastern Michigan, Appy St, etc.  That of course assumes that we wouldn't be allowed to play any games against them, or just 1 per season or something like that.

NW Buckeye's picture

There in lies the rub.  Schools would not be able to fill their schedules with home games as most teams would demand a home and home match up.  OSU would probably lose 2 home games per year.  Others could lose 3.  The offset would have to be shared  income for all members from the NC, but in some cases that is a huge deficit to fill.  And, the schools in the "other" association would not get big paydays from scheduling teams that will fill huge stadiums.  While the schedules would bring about a decline in the complaints about the Citadel, Eastern Michigan, Appy St, etc. the net result could be a much narrower field of teams overall because those smaller schools may no longer be able to afford to field a team.  Yes, this is a conundrum.  The only thing certain is that the game we all love is about to undergo some drastic changes.  The Justice Department will see to that.  And, like it or not, all of us will just have to take the bad with the good because there will obviously be some downsides to the changes.  I actually am not a pessimist, but it would seem that "Future Shock" may present us with a scenario that is not maintainable. 

Nik's picture

excellent point, i wasn't even thinking about the money, even though that's obviously gonna be the biggest factor, haha

RBuck's picture

It would be the end of one and ones against name brand schools.

"It's just another case of there you are". ~ Doc (1918-2012)