Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

College Football 2020 ?!?!

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by shipfbfan1 View Post
    As for college football I believe that the P5 schools could afford to pay for testing for all their players and seclude them to get the games played against other P5 schools but the G5 schools and lower level schools lack Booster financial support and the schools certainly don't have the cash to pay for 200+ test for players/coaches/staff as well as housing them separate from other students...
    Is that theory from the Mike Gundy School of Logic? These players aren't sheep or slaves. Do we really want to sequester 18-21 year-old young men so schools can make coin on TV deals?

    How would you sequester 85 young players? Build a prison camp-style wall around campus? They aren't allowed to leave for 6 months? No parties. No girls. No trips off-campus? Sounds like a tremendous college experience.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by IUPbigINDIANS View Post

      Is that theory from the Mike Gundy School of Logic? These players aren't sheep or slaves. Do we really want to sequester 18-21 year-old young men so schools can make coin on TV deals?

      How would you sequester 85 young players? Build a prison camp-style wall around campus? They aren't allowed to leave for 6 months? No parties. No girls. No trips off-campus? Sounds like a tremendous college experience.
      Me personally I think if the country isn't fully opened there should be no college FB or NFL season in 2020 if there are no fans involved but the NCAA and more in particular the P5 presidents who believe they're above the law and can do what they want. I agree if school can't resume there should be no college athletics. I don't see how they're going to open college dorms with no vaccine and you have students from all over the country at those larger schools.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by IUPbigINDIANS View Post

        Is that theory from the Mike Gundy School of Logic? These players aren't sheep or slaves. Do we really want to sequester 18-21 year-old young men so schools can make coin on TV deals?

        How would you sequester 85 young players? Build a prison camp-style wall around campus? They aren't allowed to leave for 6 months? No parties. No girls. No trips off-campus? Sounds like a tremendous college experience.
        Outside of permission to leave campus, this probably isn't far off from what Mike Gundy was doing before.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by IUP24 View Post

          The misconception about collegiate athletics is that these schools are just swimming in profits. That's really not true. I wrote a paper about this for a persuasive essay I had to write in college for my English Composition requirement. The information that I learned was staggering. There's actually only 12-15 athletic departments each year that actually make a profit. It's the ones you would expect. The rest of them either break even or actually lose money simply fielding sports teams. We can disagree all we want, but the way of the future is going to be schools cutting certain programs.

          At nearly 100% of college athletic programs, there's only two sports that actually make money. Football and Men's Basketball. Hockey and Baseball at a few schools, but not many. The money generated from the football and basketball programs actually allow the school to fund "Olympic Sports" and all of the things that lose money. That's why all of these ADs are saying if they're going to play a season it won't be without fans.
          Seems like athletics at a school are held to a higher standard than other areas of the college. Folks that want to kill all or most of the Athletic Department always point out that athletics is not profitable. I would ask, what other part of a college IS profitable? Is student housing held to the same standard...must turn a profit or they should be closed and torn down. Does the new academic building generate a profit for the school? How about meals...are they expected to turn a profit or face the prospect of being shut down? How about campus wide wifi?

          People will say the latter programs pull additional students to the school that bring their tuition and R&B $'s to the school. Of course the same people who say this ignore the extra students athletics pulls to the school. Football team as an example. Assuming a 100 team roster and the maximum 36 scolly equivs, that's 64 students paying full tuition that are attending the school BECAUSE of athletics. Cut athletics and the school is going to lose all/most of the tuition $'s that the school gets for the MANY non scholly athletes that will take their money to a place that has a the athletic team of their choice.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by IUP24 View Post

            The misconception about collegiate athletics is that these schools are just swimming in profits. That's really not true. I wrote a paper about this for a persuasive essay I had to write in college for my English Composition requirement. The information that I learned was staggering. There's actually only 12-15 athletic departments each year that actually make a profit. It's the ones you would expect. The rest of them either break even or actually lose money simply fielding sports teams. We can disagree all we want, but the way of the future is going to be schools cutting certain programs.

            At nearly 100% of college athletic programs, there's only two sports that actually make money. Football and Men's Basketball. Hockey and Baseball at a few schools, but not many. The money generated from the football and basketball programs actually allow the school to fund "Olympic Sports" and all of the things that lose money. That's why all of these ADs are saying if they're going to play a season it won't be without fans.
            Actually, the majority, if not all of Big Ten athletic programs have been profitable lately because of features such at BTN, lucrative TV contracts for football and basketball, and heavy donations and sales of premium seating. The problem with this arrangement, of course, is that it depends on lucrative football and basketball programs to keep the whole athletic program afloat. According to a recent article in Sports Illustrated, the average Big Ten program made $42.7 million on football and $8.6 million on men's basketball in 2018, but lost $22.9 million on the other athletic teams. So the implications for that are obvious if football is taken out of the equation.

            Big football schools such as Ohio State and Michigan pull in more money (a combined $125 million), but also lose more in other sports (about $80 million) because they tend to sponsor more teams. One way the SEC remains a constant powerhouse in football is by putting a higher percentage of its money into football and sponsoring fewer teams as a whole than some of the other conferences.

            Obviously, for the non-Power 5 schools that can't bring in the lucrative media contracts and big donors, it's going to be all the tougher.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by boatcapt View Post

              Seems like athletics at a school are held to a higher standard than other areas of the college. Folks that want to kill all or most of the Athletic Department always point out that athletics is not profitable. I would ask, what other part of a college IS profitable? Is student housing held to the same standard...must turn a profit or they should be closed and torn down. Does the new academic building generate a profit for the school? How about meals...are they expected to turn a profit or face the prospect of being shut down? How about campus wide wifi?

              People will say the latter programs pull additional students to the school that bring their tuition and R&B $'s to the school. Of course the same people who say this ignore the extra students athletics pulls to the school. Football team as an example. Assuming a 100 team roster and the maximum 36 scolly equivs, that's 64 students paying full tuition that are attending the school BECAUSE of athletics. Cut athletics and the school is going to lose all/most of the tuition $'s that the school gets for the MANY non scholly athletes that will take their money to a place that has a the athletic team of their choice.
              You aren't telling me a thing that I don't know.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Ship69 View Post

                Actually, the majority, if not all of Big Ten athletic programs have been profitable lately because of features such at BTN, lucrative TV contracts for football and basketball, and heavy donations and sales of premium seating. The problem with this arrangement, of course, is that it depends on lucrative football and basketball programs to keep the whole athletic program afloat. According to a recent article in Sports Illustrated, the average Big Ten program made $42.7 million on football and $8.6 million on men's basketball in 2018, but lost $22.9 million on the other athletic teams. So the implications for that are obvious if football is taken out of the equation.

                Big football schools such as Ohio State and Michigan pull in more money (a combined $125 million), but also lose more in other sports (about $80 million) because they tend to sponsor more teams. One way the SEC remains a constant powerhouse in football is by putting a higher percentage of its money into football and sponsoring fewer teams as a whole than some of the other conferences.

                Obviously, for the non-Power 5 schools that can't bring in the lucrative media contracts and big donors, it's going to be all the tougher.
                The whole point is that if you look at the balance sheet for the entire college across the board, and then get deeper into athletics, it's not as profitable of a venture as you think. When I researched this all years ago, there were 12 schools the previous academic year who had athletic departments that turned profits (3 were in the big ten and I'm sure you could guess them). Everybody else just about breaks even or loses money. Without the money that comes in from football and men's basketball, most of these schools couldn't have fully functioning athletic departments.

                You are correct about the SEC model. Alabama pumps every cent into football while sponsoring the minimum number of programs they are required to have based on Title 9.

                To Boat's point, athletics absolutely raises attendance, thus generating money for the university in other ways. There's zero dispute in that whatsoever. What's not included in the "profits" is the private donations that are coming in. And I think that's my point in all of this. On the surface, athletic departments aren't as profitable as many people want to believe. It's not as cut and dry as saying "(INSERT BIG TEN FOOTBALL SCHOOL NAME HERE) brought in (INSERT # OF MILLIONS HERE) during the 2019 season." How much does it cost to keep all of those other programs running that are drains on the athletic department? Schools like Ohio State and Penn State will always be strong because they have large alumni bases who pump money into the athletic department. MOST schools don't have that. College athletics is a huge business, but it's not as simple to say that every school that plays sports is swimming in profits because of them, because they aren't.

                Comment


                • #23
                  This is for those who are hungry to watch some competition. I always root for the underdog. Love the outcome.

                  Last edited by iupgroundhog; 04-11-2020, 10:25 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by IUP24 View Post

                    The whole point is that if you look at the balance sheet for the entire college across the board, and then get deeper into athletics, it's not as profitable of a venture as you think. When I researched this all years ago, there were 12 schools the previous academic year who had athletic departments that turned profits (3 were in the big ten and I'm sure you could guess them). Everybody else just about breaks even or loses money. Without the money that comes in from football and men's basketball, most of these schools couldn't have fully functioning athletic departments.

                    You are correct about the SEC model. Alabama pumps every cent into football while sponsoring the minimum number of programs they are required to have based on Title 9.

                    To Boat's point, athletics absolutely raises attendance, thus generating money for the university in other ways. There's zero dispute in that whatsoever. What's not included in the "profits" is the private donations that are coming in. And I think that's my point in all of this. On the surface, athletic departments aren't as profitable as many people want to believe. It's not as cut and dry as saying "(INSERT BIG TEN FOOTBALL SCHOOL NAME HERE) brought in (INSERT # OF MILLIONS HERE) during the 2019 season." How much does it cost to keep all of those other programs running that are drains on the athletic department? Schools like Ohio State and Penn State will always be strong because they have large alumni bases who pump money into the athletic department. MOST schools don't have that. College athletics is a huge business, but it's not as simple to say that every school that plays sports is swimming in profits because of them, because they aren't.
                    The recent TV contracts and lucrative TV rights changed things drastically in the B1G and some of the other conferences. Even Illinois has been making considerable money from football recently. I doubt any Big 10 athletic program outside of perhaps Rutgers lost money last year. But that model obviously only holds up in the P5 conferences, and schools at any level below D1 obviously have to scramble to fund athletics. And even the big schools are obviously in a pickle without football and BB revenue.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      One silver lining...If there is no 2020 season, IUP can't get robbed of a regional playoff spot, nor can their fans get upset over a scoreboard message...Chin up!!!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by WarriorVoice View Post
                        One silver lining...If there is no 2020 season, IUP can't get robbed of a regional playoff spot, nor can their fans get upset over a scoreboard message...Chin up!!!
                        And East Stroudsburg can't fail to meet expectations.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by iupgroundhog View Post

                          And East Stroudsburg can't fail to meet expectations.
                          Going from 2 wins to 6 exceeded most people's expectations last season. Can you say the same about IUP?...Doubtful...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by WarriorVoice View Post

                            Going from 2 wins to 6 exceeded most people's expectations last season. Can you say the same about IUP?...Doubtful...
                            Can they replicate that in the next season - whenever that may be?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by WarriorVoice View Post

                              Going from 2 wins to 6 exceeded most people's expectations last season. Can you say the same about IUP?...Doubtful...
                              Six wins. Throw a parade.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by IUPbigINDIANS View Post

                                Six wins. Throw a parade.
                                Better yet. Call a timeout.

                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X