A bit more detail on BIG10 expansion possibility.....
A little update from 247 insider nevadabuck. He was one of the first to originally break the story on Sunday. His latest:
--Firstly, he says Texas A&M was very unhappy, as we all know, with the Oklahoma/Texas expansion move by the SEC. They complained to the SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey. He says Sankey told them if you don't like it leave. Texas A&M voted in favor of expansion. And he says, the BIG10 doesn't have leadership like that.
--The BIG10 will only accept any expansion if it adds money to the team share $$'s they already have, and doesn't dilute it. The BIG10 wants guarantees of bigger money.
--USC has been spearheading PAC12 movement to the BIG10, because they feel they are viewed as a Pacific time zone only team. They want to be viewed as a National team. They want a regular schedule of games in other time zones. (I wonder if Oregon and Washington feel that way?)
--USC moving to the BIG10 is attractive to FOX TV because it would capture the LA area market, adding huge $$'s, also making the deal what the BIG10 wants.
--USC willing to go it without UCLA now, since UCLA wouldn't add enough value to the LA market to make FOX and the BIG10 happy. USC is enough for the LA market.
--USC trying to take at least one PAC12 team with them. At this point it looks like it would be Colorado, as that would capture the Colorado market. But, Oregon and/or Washington are more attractive, and could still be part of it.
Disclaimer: As with all the BIG10/PAC12 expansion talk, ALL OR NONE of it could happen.
I am reluctant to post the video that has the interview with nevadabuck because it is from an Ohio St related YouTube channel. I know some will bristle at that. But don't freak out. Just watch for the information.
I'm expanding my ass
With what? I’m eating rice crispies, glued together with peanut butter & honey, & drizzled with a delicious layer of chocolate.
They make, like, butt hole expanders for this stuff mate. Can find a solid deal on a used one on ebay. Search for seller name ZachSmithFuckeyeToys
Cookies are my drug of choice.
I would love USC, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, but then we would have 18 teams, which seems like a screwball number.
Then again 14 is pretty screwball already.
The big problem I see with this is travel costs for secondary sports. It would blow budgets through the roof if every Big 10 team had to make west coast trips.
You know what's not a screwball number? Ten. It's even in the goddamned name of the conference.
I'm sorry, it just breaks my heart to watch the MBA's continue to sterilize college athletics. When are we going to admit me have enough money? My God, we already have waterfalls in the locker rooms. What's next, Rodin sculptures? Maybe every player should get their own Eames Chair. How about putting IMAX projection equipment in the film rooms? Totally worth only playing for the Jug every 15 years. Want to take the family to Chicago for a weekend and catch a Michigan in Evanston? Better hope the timing works out because otherwise you'll be in a retirement home the next time we're on NW's schedule.
What a joke.
This. The heart and soul of college football are regional rivalries between amateurs who love the game. College football is turning into both a pale imitation of the NFL and a pale imitation of itself. If things continue the way they are going, I don't think there will ultimately be much interest left.
Not this...big concern is that at some point players will ask to receive money from schools. TV/streaming revenue will become very significant. On top of that, the direction fan attendance is heading is down and ticket prices are reaching levels of absurdity. You have to offset what future attendance shortfalls and TV will be you best option.
My concern is the B1G will be driven by nitwits like Schlissel who may have little knowledge of college sports and likely could care less.
"At some point players will ask to receive money from schools"..why do the schools have to act as a middleman? Since there's not an endless supply of money that could go to the University (through donations), the Athletic department (donations, corporate tie-ins and ticket sales) and directly to players (NIL), somebody's going to lose out.
Because the true measure of an elite university president is whether he appreciates football. Maybe consider adding some perspective.
I get that a university is first and foremost an academic institution.
Having said that, if you think athletic performance has no impact on perception and the number of applications for admission you are living in a parallel universe. I have become with many things Schlissel has done or should have done including the initial handling of Dr. Anderson and his handling of the pandemic on many fronts, Then there is the gutless manner he handled both the athletic teams and the B1G last year. He is reactive and not proactive and there is a strong undercurrent among alums that Michigan would be better off with Schlissel going somewhere else.
The point though is that the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision delivered a very clear message and college sports is going through a major change. The SEC is in the driver's seat and at best the B1G will be able to mitigate some of the damage. They can't do that if university presidents provide constraints. I don't trust them to see the big picture and to have the ability to separate athletics from academics. It's all about the money.
Hey man, Rodin did have some pretty sweet sculptures if you THINK about it! Ha! Okay, you kids keep talking imma head out.
Get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’.
I’ve been a huge college football fan in general and beyond Michigan, and even with the playoff, my interest is waning. If expansion continues as it’s going, shredding tradition as it happens, I don’t know what will draw me to watch.
College football was the funny-looking apple to the NFL’s orange. But if college football is becoming an orange itself, losing a lot of its character along with it, I just can’t see myself watching the orange with the inferior talent.
What do you expect. It’s all money now. It’s a professional sport. We have to pay college athletes now. Probably won’t be long before high school kids want money to play Playing for the love of the game and your school are completely gone. The whole thing is a circus anymore
I hate it too. I think we should rethink referring to the “student-athlete” for some of the scholarship athletes in revenue sports at many schools. Some of them may very well be student-athletes but many are just athletes.
The real students and student-athletes on many of these teams are ironically the members who are pejoratively labeled “walk-ones”, as if trying out for a team like you used to do all the way through high school is somehow a bad thing.
I appreciate the sentiment, but this ship has long since sailed. The Big Ten must play the hand it is dealt. At this point it can either adapt or die off.
The University of Michigan is getting a $50 million payout from the Big Ten in 2018, according to a financial presentation the school gave on Thursday. Once this deal runs out the speculation is this deal could double. You don't think that would be enough to supplement those budgets?
Create a Big 10 East and a Big 10 west.
20 teams total. Put Michigan in the west to maintain the relevance of the fight song.
Oh good one!
The relevance of the fight song!
Had not thought of that reason yet!
This might be a good time for colleges to assess whether they really need to keep these secondary athletic programs. I don't get why football has to continue to subsidize the existence of teams like rowing. You can still keep them as a club team, but it might be best to save costs and just eliminate most of them. For the average student at UM, these secondary sports provide little in the way of benefits. They just use up money and put more of an emphasis on athletics over academics. I'm sure some people will miss them, but the school should be focused on doing whatever it can to make schooling more affordable for the majority of students that are there for the academics.
Yes, this
Not this.
While athletic departments should regularly reassess what sports it supports, for financial reasons AND other reasons, such as a sport's fit with student interest, with the department and its university's mission, alumni interest.
But football and basketball already significantly threaten the primary goal of academics, while the secondary sports provide a major chunk of athletes in high academic standing. (And they're not "secondary" to those who devote major chunks of time, energy and thought to them.)
Also, the Athletic Department budget barely overlaps with the main University budget, so more or less money in basketball and football have little effect on affordability.
Yes, this.
I went to Cornell as an undergrad -- and I've been a Michigan football season ticket holder for decades -- and honestly (and unfortunately), after following all the NIL, conference, unionization, and player-salary chatter lately, I'm becoming convinced that the Ivy League may have the better model for sports.
They saw this coming from thousands of miles away, and they also made it very clear from the get-go that this was never going to be what they were about.
"I went to Cornell."
"I went to college in Boston."
So M joins the Ivy League, drops athletic scholarships, and concentrates on academic excellence. All the football and basketball players become true student-athletes, with a corresponding drop in team quality, but if you're playing Columbia, that's not so bad.
With tOSU moving to the SEC, as is rumored, that storied rivalry would become history (not that it's been much of a rivalry in the past dozen years or so anyway). Then is the next step to become a private institution? With state appropriations making up only about 20% of its buget, M could take its $12 billion endowment and go private. M could then charge ivy-league level tuition to make up for the chump-change $300 million or so it had received from the cheap state legislature. M would be relieved of athletic scholarships and the possbility of player salaries; the savings there alone would make up a good chunk of the money lost from the state.
I dunno, might not be so bad after all.
So we become the University of Chicago East.
Guy with cross country runner as his handle wants running gone from College athletics(first sport to go with the above plan imo). Sounds like you weren’t worth a shit at cross country
Cross country is boring af, lol
So don't watch.
I was wondering that myself about a xc runner indifferent to that sport. College athletics is vital to student development. It's more than just learning about competition but also team comradery. One learns to revel in victory and accept defeat and learn from that. There's the physical growth as well as learning about hard work and discipline involved that one puts into their sport. It makes for a well round student athlete. I know; been there, done that and it was a great experience.
College athletics is much more than just football, basketball and maybe hockey, baseball and softball.
August 1st, 2021 at 11:38 AM ^
That all remains at the club level though. You don't need to pay a bunch of money to run xc against Washington and USC when you can run against MSU and WMU.
Maybe he’s just running across the country.
Great point, cobra. I didn't even notice the contradiction. (And I was a cross-country runner.)
"Guy with cross country runner as his handle wants running gone from College athletics"
He was running way back in 1617 when XC was a bit more interesting, dodging bears, wolves, highwaymen, various groups of bloodthirsty mercenaries, smallpox, and cholera.
What "benefit" does football provide to the average student at UM?
UM's athletic department is independent of the school, so if anything these non-revenue sports are already funneling money to the academic side.
But anyway, looking at 2019 numbers (2020 was such a weird year in terms of revenue and expenses it's not going to be representative of an average year), UM spent about $191M while raising $198M in revenue. It's difficult to get exact numbers on the breakdown of those expenses beyond generalities, but the majority of that money was spent on coaching salaries and facilities/capital expenditures, money that I assume the AD wouldn't just hand over to the school. Like, salaries for coaches that were around would just keep rising if that money became available, especially as the arms race in college athletics kicked up. Same with facilities - there are always weight rooms to remodel, new buildings to erect for athletic development, etc. Maybe you free up $15M from that budget
And about $28M was set aside for scholarships; we know ~100 scholarships are available to basketball and football. I don't know your views on baseball and hockey, two sports that have high-paying professional leagues behind them. But let's say we disband those two/make them club level. So that means you're spending about $4M/yr on the 100 scholarship athletes, freeing up $24M.
The rest are in "other" costs, which I assume are various additional expenses related to marketing, administration, etc. Let's be optimistic and figure you can shake loose $20M.
That adds up to $59M. UM has about 45k students. Divide that $59M evenly amongst the 45k students and that gives you a once-a-year check of...$1300. So at the cost of every women's sport and the vast majority of men's sports, you are cutting the cost of attendance for students at Michigan less than one month of average rent in the city. If you want to restrict it to just undergrad (32k), you're giving everyone a single $1800 check. Hell, if you just disband the entire athletic department (so no football/basketball) and put all that money into academics, that $190M split amongst all 32k undergrads gives everyone about $6k a year - at a school where the in-state tuition costs $17k and out-of-state is $52k. And that doesn't take into account Room and Board, books and supplies, etc.
Again, if you want to address the cost of attendance at major universities in this country (and we should), we need to look well beyond the relative pittance spent on non-revenue athletics. It's why I get annoyed with all the Title IX complaints around college sports; it reads mostly as people just disliking women having athletic pursuits in college they don't find interesting, not some truly principled concern with fiscal responsibility.
Yeah you laid it all out pretty well. I was just gonna say, sending the women’s volleyball team to LA for a weekend game would cost what, maybe $25k? That’s a drop in the bucket in an AD with a few hundred million.
Yeah, it really isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure there are cost savings to be had but I still marvel at the fact that under Dave Brandon they had (I believe) dozens of people in the marketing and sales departments making over $250k. For comparison, Carol Hutchins made $450k and Beverly Plocki made $244k last year, and the latter won the damn national title in a sport that is pretty popular.
The very legitimate criticism of Title IX is that it treats the massively profitable sport of football the same way as the non-revenue sports. So what happened is that women’s sports were added (that’s good) and men’s sports were dropped (that’s bad).
The whole enterprise is driven by the previously (and possibly currently) under-compensated male athlete. “Fiscal responsibility” concern is a straw man to cover up the unfair labor practices between the university and its male employees, who happen to consist of black men in disproportionately larger numbers than the general population.
While well-meaning in the abstract, Title IX has allowed, even encouraged, the continued race-based discrimination in this country. But White Becky from the ‘burbs got a scholarship to swim, and no one watches, but Bobby Baseball and ‘Rasslin’ Randy are working minimum wage jobs because their programs were cut.
I’m all for equality of opportunity, but to expect equality in outcomes is a liberal fantasy that ends up hurting real people.
I don't even understand what you're arguing here. Compliance with Title IX is not, in fact, leading to equal expenditures for women's athletics in college. I don't have updated numbers but from 2012 only 42% of scholarship money was provided to women's sports despite the majority of college students being female. AFAIK, there's never been any penalty inflicted on a school for failure to provide "equal" resources to men and women, thought there have been some lawsuits filed this year in response to across-the-board cuts of both male and female sports under the guise of COVID-19.
Yes, some men's sports have been cut, but the only reason virtually any women's sports exist in college is because a law requires schools to at least provide lip service to it. And only a handful of schools even make money on football, so it's not even true that schools are subsidizing these programs with the riches from football and basketball.
So no, there isn't anything close to "equality" now and if we eliminate college athletics for women then, in fact, many thousands of "real" women would be hurt because of it and the (mostly white, mostly male) coaches and administrators who run college athletic programs would simply benefit more.
I noticed that you didn’t address my main point that treating the multi-billion dollar business of college football the same as non-revenue sports is ridiculous. Take away the 85 scholarships for men’s football, that are essentially payments for services rendered in the money making business of college football and your 42% increases towards parity.
If you really believe colleges aren’t making money on football, you are extremely gullible.
At no point did I argue that "colleges aren't making money on football", because the vast majority of their revenue comes from licensing and media contracts related to their 2-3 most prominent sports.
Your actual main point was that this was being made off the underpaid efforts of young black men, which is correct but also more generally just "on the backs of football and basketball players of all ethnicities". And that because of that a bunch of "Becky's from the Burbs" were getting free rides to college and that those poor, defenseless men in...baseball and wrestling were getting screwed. My evidence was that women are not, in fact, receiving anything close to parity in terms of Title IX and that the vast majority of a school's expenses continue to be related to the football and basketball teams, especially salaries and buyouts of coaches. I mean, behold this absurd number.
Louisville dropped a staggering $16,999,251 on football coaches’ buyouts during the 2019 fiscal year, compared to the $14.4 million it spent on athletic student aid. It spent almost three times as much on buyouts as it did on team travel, more than seven times as much on severance than it did on meals for athletes and 10 times as much on fired coaches as it spent on medical expenses and insurance.
So no, I didn't miss your point, you just made an incorrect one and I pointed out why you were wrong. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your "women are the root of everyone's problems", but that's a you problem.
I tried saying this in another thread and got neg bombed for it. People on here don’t understand title ix at all. It in no way means you have to spend the same dollar amount on every sport or even the same dollar amount on all men and women across an AD.
Yeah, it's never been the case and, if anything, it's gotten worse.
What I've generally perceived about this place is that college football and basketball fans like it when women sports do well but otherwise don't really get why those sports exist or why anyone has an issue with how they're treated.
If it all becomes about money. Then you have to ditch all the female sports. Most if not all those programs lose the athletic department money.
All of those transgender athletes will have to ask for the their balls back.
s/
It will be interesting to see how NIL impacts the smaller sports. As a donor with $100k over 4 years, would you rather be an 8th tier sponsor of the football team & get an autographed poster of the backup slot receiver or be a top sponsor of the women’s field hockey team & be treated like a VIP? It’s an interesting question & suggests that while most will struggle, I could see some of the non-revenue sports doing well financially if/when the men’s football & basketball programs stop propping them up. It’ll be about finding the right donor.
I'm sorry, but you are not seeing the complete picture. As someone else noted, Michigan received 50 mill in 2018 and is expected to double with the next contract. I could see FOX getting involved with the Big 10 / PAC 10 merger to make this happen. ESPN played their hand to form the next level of a mega football conference with the SEC deal. Thus they have a lucrative TV deal for their business. For FOX to maintain a stake in the CFB world, they need the BIG 10 and PAC 10 to merge as some level.
What this means for secondary sports (say the other 14-18 sports) is there will be a larger AD budget to afford the extra travel. Lets say for argument sake, the BIG 10 and PAC 12 merge (particularly USC, CU, Oregon, and Washington). This would lead to a significant increase in the TV contact which leads to a significant payout for each athletic department. Do you believe that travel costs would be greater than the bump in additional revenue? That would not be the case and it would not even be close. This would certainly be covered during the negotiations. Travel costs will be only a small piece of the significant increase the overall AD budget. It would all come down to which AD are better at managing the extra cash.
Do you think the upgrades for Michigan's baseball and softball stadiums came from there gate receipts? Or even the upgrade to Michigan's basketball stadium. All those upgrades came from the annual windfall of cash from BTN (and now FOX). This would only increase significantly with a merger (and huge increase in TV revenue) and would benefit all sports (assuming that each AD would allocate monies to these sports. Some will, some wont, but that is a choice each AD can make.)