Conference Realignment
- Thread starter DavidBenAkiva
- Start date
SkyBrickey
Member
Ok. Hopefully that's not what we're hearing from the B10 in 5 years.
SkyBrickey
Member
Exactly. To me it just feels like a ploy to get more money. And I know a lot of non-rev sport alums who give directly to their sports at Duke just for this reason - makes me wonder how big the annual shortfall really is in some of these sports.
FosterCoachK82
Member
Yeah I don’t get the concern about non-revenue sports. It’s the revenue sports that are under pressure to bring in money to compete in an increasingly more expensive environment. Duke football seems to be in a worse position than women’s swimming.
Last edited:
House P
Member
The A10, America East, Atlantic Sun, Big East, Big West, Colonial, Horizon, Ivy, MAAC, MAC, Mountain Pacific, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, Northeast, Patriot, Summit, Sun Belt, and Mountain West all have women’s swim teams. More than 350 D2 or D3 schools have swim teams.
Large subsidies from big time football doesn’t seem to be a prerequisite for having a women’s swim team.
It is possible (likely?) that a race to pay football players top dollar will reduce expenditures for (some?, many?, most?) non-revenue sports. As a result, non-revenue teams at schools which cut their budgets might become less competitive, but I don’t see why we are on a path for these sports to go away completely.
Certainly not to the point that “no one will (have a women’s swim team) in 5 years”.
SkyBrickey
Member
We might even still have 350 women's swim teams in 5 years.
Look, a big part of these AD's jobs is to pull money out of donors. How do you do that? Either tell them the football team will be terrible or tell them non-rev sports may have to go away. Whatever you do, don't tell them that the AD or a coach might have to take a pay cut!
RoseBowl1942
Member
It’s because all of these ADs are in the red and subsidized by the university / donors
One way to insure the viability of non-revenue sports might be compete in a conference that is contained in 4 or 5 contiguous states.
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
Member
That's just lunacy.
camion
Member
Wait, the idea has potential. Can we cogitate on it a bit?
What if they set up the several conferences prioritizing geography? Let's see, a conference in the midwest, one in the deep south, another along the Atlantic Coast. Hmm.
Oh well, never mind. It's just a pipe dream I suppose.
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
Member
I mean to make that work you would have conferences of maybe 8 teams? Is that sustainable?Wait, the idea has potential. Can we cogitate on it a bit?
What if they set up the several conferences prioritizing geography? Let's see, a conference in the midwest, one in the deep south, another along the Atlantic Coast. Hmm.
Oh well, never mind. It's just a pipe dream I suppose.
sagegrouse
Member
Donor gifts are part of revenue. It is questionnable to describe athletic programs that are spending what they receive as, "in the red." All schools receive and spend donor gifts.
On another point made above, Duke Pres. Price has stated that endorsing scholarships is a primary aim of development. Duke athletics has many times stated this is a priority as well.
Duke is behind Stanford because, basically, of Silicon Valley.
CameronBornAndBred
Well-known member
I know the above "8 team conference" is steeped in history with a healthy dose of sarcastic wish casting, but a conference of only Alabama, LSU, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee, and Texas A&M would still be making more than the ACC is now. (At least in football, but football is where it sadly counts.)
HereBeforeCoachK
On Holiday
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm connecting dots about what is happening, and you are asking me to defend it. That's not my job, especially since I didn't want this to happen --- and also. --- predicted this would be the result. So is it better to have winning football and less or no non revenue sports? YES, in this new universe. That is the new priority. Live it, learn it, love it. Welcome to NIL / portal / conference realignment USA land.
Reaping and sewing. All I'm doing is connecting the dots. You don't like how they connect. I don't blame you, but please don't accuse me of making these decisions and do not blame the messenger.
...but what if your school is perpetually finishing in 7th or 8th (last) place in that 'smaller' SEC?? No patsies there, so SOMEBODY'S got to be at the bottom. I can just see their fans loving that. For how long are the fatcats gonna be ponying up the $$$ for NILs then? (Of course that would seem to be true with these 30-something team conferences now... I just don't see how this can last...)
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
Member
Hrm. Let's play this out. If we have a 8 team conference, your bottom team could still be at say 2-5. That leaves you with another five games (maybe six if you don't need a championship game for a small conference where everyone plays everyone). You could potentially be 8-5 as the last place team in an 8 team conference.
LeadingEdge
Member
I've been lurking in the thread for a while. A few high-level thoughts.
1. As college basketball and football evolve to the pro model, logically, all the money those sports produce will be funneled back into winning in those sports. Why divert money to a little-watched non-rev when those extra dollars can win another football game, bringing more media exposure and money? Pro teams don't siphon off a share of revenue to run a side field hockey team.
2. Wealthy schools such as Duke (or U.Va.; I'm a Hoo) can find a way to pay for elite non-revs without using football or basketball proceeds. The money will be found if elite non-revs are an institutional priority. There are all sorts of administrative fat that can be cut at schools. You can always further tax the students with higher fees, and (sadly) many highly selective schools could jack up tuition further and still easily fill their classes with amazing students.
3. I question whether having elite non-revs should be an institutional priority at any highly selective school. The vast majority of non-revs athletes would not have been admitted if it was not for sports. You can say they "enrich" the school with their presence, but that comes at a cost—denying that slot to students who are amazing in other dimensions and who have far better academics. Being pushed down the selectivity ladder due to "enriching" non-revs hurts the denied students. I think the real reason why many college sports fans support funding elite non-rev success is just the thrill of seeing your team win.
4. One of the biggest shames in college sports is schools don't have good sports offerings for real college students - ones admitted on academic merit. The NCAA talks about the positive aspects of being an athlete (perseverance, health, time management, teamwork), but we don't provide that benefit to regular college students. They're called on to be just stage props for when the ringer athletes play. Regular college students deserve the chance to be team athletes in college so they, too, can harvest the benefits. Colleges should invest heavily in making club sports available for all interested students - in the name of student health, welfare, and development.
1. As college basketball and football evolve to the pro model, logically, all the money those sports produce will be funneled back into winning in those sports. Why divert money to a little-watched non-rev when those extra dollars can win another football game, bringing more media exposure and money? Pro teams don't siphon off a share of revenue to run a side field hockey team.
2. Wealthy schools such as Duke (or U.Va.; I'm a Hoo) can find a way to pay for elite non-revs without using football or basketball proceeds. The money will be found if elite non-revs are an institutional priority. There are all sorts of administrative fat that can be cut at schools. You can always further tax the students with higher fees, and (sadly) many highly selective schools could jack up tuition further and still easily fill their classes with amazing students.
3. I question whether having elite non-revs should be an institutional priority at any highly selective school. The vast majority of non-revs athletes would not have been admitted if it was not for sports. You can say they "enrich" the school with their presence, but that comes at a cost—denying that slot to students who are amazing in other dimensions and who have far better academics. Being pushed down the selectivity ladder due to "enriching" non-revs hurts the denied students. I think the real reason why many college sports fans support funding elite non-rev success is just the thrill of seeing your team win.
4. One of the biggest shames in college sports is schools don't have good sports offerings for real college students - ones admitted on academic merit. The NCAA talks about the positive aspects of being an athlete (perseverance, health, time management, teamwork), but we don't provide that benefit to regular college students. They're called on to be just stage props for when the ringer athletes play. Regular college students deserve the chance to be team athletes in college so they, too, can harvest the benefits. Colleges should invest heavily in making club sports available for all interested students - in the name of student health, welfare, and development.
True indeed, and Miss State fans seem still to send in their $$$, and S. Carolina fans for decades believed they were deserving of national prominence even though...they never were. But would UT or Texas A&M fans settle for being in 8th place in an 8 school conference year after year ... which means no part of the national play offs, while dumping significant chunks of their daddy's oil money into an 8 and 5 season with 6 wins over the Tulanes and Tulsas of the world?
Maybe still. I don't think I would, though. But then I'm not sitting on daddy's oil money, either, and I actually have interests in things other than college football. But point taken, as nothing has curbed this madness yet.
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
Member
I didn't mean to suggest that this would be an acceptable or unacceptable situation. Just noting that you could argue that a last place team in this scenario could still have a decent record and win several games.