OT; our endowmwent

[Pittbaseball11]

You think schools, who are bringing in tens of millions of dollars, are going to see money dry up so much that they cut football. I don't need to be profound. Your argument is ludicrous.

They're bringing in tens of millions because of TV contracts and donations.

As I said, if the TV money were to disappear, the only schools that would continue on are those that bring in a ton of donations. So, like, 20 schools. Maybe.

I never refuted that they bring money in due to the TV deals. However, they most certainly would not continue footing the bill with University funds should that TV money go away. Because, again, sports aren't actually that important to a University.

This is how college football currently works: The TV networks pay you to put a team of 85 scholarship players on the field 12-13 times a year, the fans can then dictate how good that team is.

 

[ddc17]

They're bringing in tens of millions because of TV contracts and donations.

As I said, if the TV money were to disappear, the only schools that would continue on are those that bring in a ton of donations. So, like, 20 schools. Maybe.

I never refuted that they bring money in due to the TV deals. However, they most certainly would not continue footing the bill with University funds should that TV money go away. Because, again, sports aren't actually that important to a University.

This is how college football currently works: The TV networks pay you to put a team of 85 scholarship players on the field 12-13 times a year, the fans can then dictate how good that team is.

How did the schools manage to have football programs for over 80 years before "TV money" was even a part of the equation? Did Pitt have superior fan support in the way of donations and that has since dried up? You can't have it both ways

 

[Pittbaseball11]

How did the schools manage to have football programs for over 80 years before "TV money" was even a part of the equation? Did Pitt have superior fan support in the way of donations and that has since dried up? You can't have it both ways

Simple. College sports weren't an arms race where exorbitant amounts of money were needed just to fund day-to-day operations -- and that's without taking into account the skyrocketing college tuition costs that are driving up the costs related to scholarships.

Pitt spent approximately $20MM on their football program in 2013-2014, and it's debatable whether or not they were even able to tread water relative to their competition.

Pitt's never had superior fan support. It's why all of their success can be chalked up to pre-WWI watered down competition and the random unsustainable flash-in-the-pan period in the late 70's that pretty much every program lucks into at one time or another. Pitt's inability to sustain anything is a glaring indictment on fan support. All they are able to do is just pray they catch lightning in a bottle.

If TV money dries up, would schools go back to the days of spending next to nothing on football? Maybe. But I doubt it. Not when Texas and Alabama and Notre Dame have the resources to keep spending like crazy. Pitt runs at about a $7-10MM deficit on an annual basis. If they lose ACC money that deficit would get down to about $25MM -- you think the University is going to give the athletic department $25MM a year to cover costs? Hell no. They're cutting sports and football is likely first on the list.

 

[OriginalEther]

I think the non revenue sports would be targeted first, as football is still supposed to be funding the rest of the athletic department, but I otherwise agree with your point.

Simple. College sports weren't an arms race where exorbitant amounts of money were needed just to fund day-to-day operations -- and that's without taking into account the skyrocketing college tuition costs that are driving up the costs related to scholarships.

Pitt spent approximately $20MM on their football program in 2013-2014, and it's debatable whether or not they were even able to tread water relative to their competition.

Pitt's never had superior fan support. It's why all of their success can be chalked up to pre-WWI watered down competition and the random unsustainable flash-in-the-pan period in the late 70's that pretty much every program lucks into at one time or another. Pitt's inability to sustain anything is a glaring indictment on fan support. All they are able to do is just pray they catch lightning in a bottle.

If TV money dries up, would schools go back to the days of spending next to nothing on football? Maybe. But I doubt it. Not when Texas and Alabama and Notre Dame have the resources to keep spending like crazy. Pitt runs at about a $7-10MM deficit on an annual basis. If they lose ACC money that deficit would get down to about $25MM -- you think the University is going to give the athletic department $25MM a year to cover costs? Hell no. They're cutting sports and football is likely first on the list.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

I think the non revenue sports would be targeted first, as football is still supposed to be funding the rest of the athletic department, but I otherwise agree with your point.

But if you cut those other sports then you're probably going to have to drop down below the FBS level.

I think the preference isn't to cut football for any of these schools, but it's more just a necessary evil.

I think Pitt likely would drop football, because football isn't really funding the rest of the athletic department in their situation. Basketball has been the sport that has turned a profit for them, so they'd likely just pull a Marquette. Football pretty much just breaks even and pays for itself.

 

[Jpripper88]

They're bringing in tens of millions because of TV contracts and donations.

As I said, if the TV money were to disappear, the only schools that would continue on are those that bring in a ton of donations. So, like, 20 schools. Maybe.

I never refuted that they bring money in due to the TV deals. However, they most certainly would not continue footing the bill with University funds should that TV money go away. Because, again, sports aren't actually that important to a University.

This is how college football currently works: The TV networks pay you to put a team of 85 scholarship players on the field 12-13 times a year, the fans can then dictate how good that team is.

Ummm...duh. That money isn't going to reduce to the point of deficit as you are suggesting. The schools you are trying to compare them to have no TV money (as in $0), no fan/alumni support, and almost no marketing advantage from having a team. There is no realistic comparison of the situations.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Ummm...duh. That money isn't going to reduce to the point of deficit as you are suggesting. The schools you are trying to compare them to have no TV money (as in $0), no fan/alumni support, and almost no marketing advantage from having a team. There is no realistic comparison of the situations.

K.

I'm out. The broader point is going over your head.

 

[OriginalEther]

But if you cut those other sports then you're probably going to have to drop down below the FBS level.

I think the preference isn't to cut football for any of these schools, but it's more just a necessary evil.

I think Pitt likely would drop football, because football isn't really funding the rest of the athletic department in their situation. Basketball has been the sport that has turned a profit for them, so they'd likely just pull a Marquette. Football pretty much just breaks even and pays for itself.

I dunno. If it wasn't dropped during the nineties, it hard for me to imagine it being dropped any time soon, even if the tv money shrinks.

Even with Pitts finances and often lukewarm fan support, I can't imagine that they view themselves along the lines of a Marquette more so than a school like Cincy.
I also think the days of the hoops program supporting the rest of the AD are numbered.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

I dunno. If it wasn't dropped during the nineties, it hard for me to imagine it being dropped any time soon, even if the tv money shrinks.

Even with Pitts finances and often lukewarm fan support, I can't imagine that they view themselves along the lines of a Marquette more so than a school like Cincy.
I also think the days of the hoops program supporting the rest of the AD are numbered.

I definitely don't think the TV money will shrink at all -- and definitely not ever to the point that we are at a C-USA/MAC/Sun Belt level -- it's only a hypothetical situation to illustrate that the P5 schools are only paying for football because the networks are giving them the money to pay for football. For the fortunate dozen or so schools that receive tremendous fan support on top of the TV money, they also go and get private jets and state of the art facilities and all of the bells and whistles and they dominate just about every year.

My only point is that TV money and donations are what is keeping these schools going with their sports. It isn't the University itself keeping them going because they're just that vital to the school's existence.

People talk about how important they are to Universities, but all relevant evidence shows that they really aren't. Schools will cut their sports if they don't get the TV money to cover them, rather than paying for them out of pocket from the school's operational fund. There's this belief that P5 schools are different from these other schools, but at their core they aren't. They just get a crap ton of TV money. If that TV money left, they'd act just like these small schools except for the ones who reap in massive donations.

 

[Jpripper88]

K.

I'm out. The broader point is going over your head.

I understand what you are trying to make the broader point, but it isn't going to shrivel up and die and leave only the Alabama and Texas and Ohio State echelon programs standing alone in a completely direct consumption environment and everyone else bankrupt. Is it a theory? Sure. It just isn't a very good one and you even admit it yourself, in the below message, so it makes even less sense you are fighting for the outrageous hypothesis.

I definitely don't think the TV money will shrink at all -- and definitely not ever to the point that we are at a C-USA/MAC/Sun Belt level -- it's only a hypothetical situation to illustrate that the P5 schools are only paying for football because the networks are giving them the money to pay for football. For the fortunate dozen or so schools that receive tremendous fan support on top of the TV money, they also go and get private jets and state of the art facilities and all of the bells and whistles and they dominate just about every year.

My only point is that TV money and donations are what is keeping these schools going with their sports. It isn't the University itself keeping them going because they're just that vital to the school's existence.

People talk about how important they are to Universities, but all relevant evidence shows that they really aren't. Schools will cut their sports if they don't get the TV money to cover them, rather than paying for them out of pocket from the school's operational fund. There's this belief that P5 schools are different from these other schools, but at their core they aren't. They just get a crap ton of TV money. If that TV money left, they'd act just like these small schools except for the ones who reap in massive donations.

There will always be collegiate athletics and the money generated will absolutely define the level to which the schools are committed and always has. That level is never (next 100 years at least) dropping to the point that Pitt cuts football or basketball before many, many other sports, including baseball. Some schools will always prioritize certain sports or entire athletic departments more than others and generally those will be schools who can generate far more money.

 

[CrazyPaco]

It's why all of their success can be chalked up to pre-WWI watered down competition and the random unsustainable flash-in-the-pan period in the late 70's that pretty much every program lucks into at one time or another.

WWI ran from July 1914 to November 1918.

Pitt's undefeated, one-loss, and national championship seasons occurred in 1894, 1899, 1904, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937.

While pre-WWII, most of the success in the first half of the 20th Century was post-WWI. And it was not watered down competition once you got into the 20s. You have to look at the opponents from a contemporaneous perspective to understand that the Carnegie Techs, Dukes, and Fordhams on those schedules were not cupcakes. There is a reason multiple college football historical organizations retroactively named Pitt national champions in 14 different seasons between 1910 and 1938 (of which Pitt claims 8).

For perspective, Babe Ruth played from 1914 to 1935; Lou Gehrig from 1923-1939.

 

[QuitCallingMeWanny]

You're the guy who started the name calling - that's an incontrovertible fact. You are representative of the folks on this board who assail people personally when you disagree with them. And I knew you'd change the subject because you'd be embarrassed. I tried to warn you, Clarence.

trust me I would be far from embarrassed comparing myself to you, I didn't change any subject, Maurice

 

[Delpanther]

trust me I would be far from embarrassed comparing myself to you, I didn't change any subject, Maurice

You tucked tail and ran because you're a piker, Clarence- you're a joke intellectually.