forums

REALIGNMENT MEGGGGAAAA THREAAAD

Advertisement
Is there any chance that expanded playoffs gets postponed? Will the other conferences sign off on a 12 team playoff that now appears to be a huge windfall for the SEC as they added 2 more blue chips to their coffers? It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
 
Empirical Cane said:
Despite the word salad and your performative attempt of the economics lesson, and AGAIN you forgot to add intersectional and patriarchial, you still don't address any of the original points you made and what I discussed in response. Your observations are just not of this Earth and counter to any naturally regulating system in the Universe. Don't get all fired up at me, it's just math.

With that said, let's try this (and I'm glad you mentioned J Jones): Why don't the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL have 50-100-200 teams in each league? Why, even at their organizational sizes now and program "controls" you advocate for, do the WNBA and NWSL struggle for solvency year after year? If not mistaken, the WNBA in particular has never ever posted a single "profitable" or "breakeven" year (that means sustainable) since first tip-off in what, early 90s (late 90s??) and has required constant additional support from ownership and NBA for going on 25-ish years?

Either there are far to many WNBA teams or even a resonable market doesn't exist for the product they are selling. Kinda a binary solution set here.

It will be the same for what D1P5 is evolving towards. DII/DIII programs already have the "controls" (and others) you advocate for and they are a subsidized mess.

Again, the math, one way another, at some point, always finds a way to get back to balance.
Click to expand...

You continue to make the incorrect assumption that college athletics is an efficient market. It is not. It is rife with market failures that can only be addressed through intervention. Nowhere is this more clear than in salaries, which are inflated beyond what would reasonably constitute market value in a for-profit environment. Again, inflation is being driven by the incentives within the unique non-profit economic system of college athletics. Another market inefficiency occurs when renegotiating salaries for successful coaches, creating a principal-agent problem. In sum, the salary market in college athletics operates less efficiently than in professional sports, other non-profit sectors, and for-profit business. Regulations & controls are necessary to compensate for these inefficiencies.

I'm aware of the difference in economics between professional sports & college athletics. I outlined those in my last 3 posts. Regardless, the amount of teams in a league or conference doesn't determine it's level of parity & competitive balance. Even a staunch capitalist like Jerry Jones understands the importance of balance-seeking policies like reverse-finish draft ordering and player salary caps designed to help sustain value for the league and its teams. Instituting spending limits in major college sports would have a similarly positive effect. The argument has never been whether spending controls, guarantees profitability. Clearly that's not the case. The argument is whether they facilitate efficiency in order to improve sustainability. The explosion in revenue that has occurred within Division I sports is a recent phenomenon, occurring only within the last 15+ yrs or so. Prior to this resource allocation within major college sports was much more even across the board. How else do you think CFB managed to survive 130+ yrs in existence? Furthermore do you think your alma mater could've managed to win even a single championship let alone compete on the highest level, if the gap in resource allocation was as pronounced as it is today?

DII/DIII are not a subsidized mess. Though a larger portion of their revenue is comprised of subsidies, compared to D1 their business model is more sustainable because they are doing a much better job of controlling runaway inflation.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/about/d2/tools/DIIAbt_DollarsAndSense-Reclassification.pdf

But I find it strange, that you're focusing on DII/DIII program subsidies, without understanding that D1 programs get subsidized the most. Federal government loans and grants are given to non-athlete students each yr, who leave school with an avg loan debt of $30,000. Only 25 out of 65 P5 programs earn more than they spend on an operating basis (fewer when all capital construction debt and indirect expenses are factored). The whole financial construct of this system depends on non-athlete students contributing higher tuition and fee charges which are converted into institutional general fund subsidies for athletics. Tell me how do you expect the math to work itself out here. Ask yourself if this was truly a self-regulating system, how is it that this many programs operate in the red yr after yr?

I'm sorry that you perceived what I wrote as a word salad, and my understanding of economics as performative. Maybe if the message is disseminated to you from respected pro-business publications, and written by a phd economist, it will resonate better, and carry more weight. Have you heard of Forbes & Bloomberg?

1.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...time-for-congress-to-step-in/?sh=35d91fe23d09

2.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...its-economic-and-moral-abyss/?sh=561953987c62

3.) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...tball-s-top-teams-are-built-on-crippling-debt

To recap, the economic system of major college sports is unique, in that it combines a non-profit structure, zero-sum competition, and revenue acceleration. Within the American economic landscape, it is a structural outlier, and should be managed as such from a legal and antitrust perspective. The unique nature of the economic system calls for outside the box thinking and innovative solutions, if the end goal is sustainability of college sports in America.

Also, someone can be 100% against feminism, and simultaneously also be for parity and competitive balance in college athletics. They're not both mutually inclusive. I've also read about inter-gender dynamics and the book Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi
 
Last edited:
CaneinBroward said:
Is there any chance that expanded playoffs gets postponed? Will the other conferences sign off on a 12 team playoff that now appears to be a huge windfall for the SEC as they added 2 more blue chips to their coffers? It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Click to expand...
There is almost certainty expanded playoffs gets accelerated.
 
Advertisement
Apex Predator said:
You continue to make the incorrect assumption that college athletics is an efficient market. It is not. It is rife with market failures that can only be addressed through intervention. Nowhere is this more clear than in salaries, which are inflated beyond what would reasonably constitute market value in a for-profit environment. Again, inflation is being driven by the incentives within the unique non-profit economic system of college athletics. Another market inefficiency occurs when renegotiating salaries for successful coaches, creating a principal-agent problem. In sum, the salary market in college athletics operates less efficiently than in professional sports, other non-profit sectors, and for-profit business. Regulations & controls are necessary to compensate for these inefficiencies.

I'm aware of the difference in economics between professional sports & college athletics. I outlined those in my last 3 posts. Regardless, the amount of teams in a league or conference doesn't determine it's level of parity & competitive balance. Even a staunch capitalist like Jerry Jones understands the importance of balance-seeking policies like reverse-finish draft ordering and player salary caps designed to help sustain value for the league and its teams. Instituting spending limits in major college sports would have a similarly positive effect. The argument has never been whether spending controls, guarantees profitability. Clearly that's not the case. The argument is whether they facilitate efficiency in order to improve sustainability. The explosion in revenue that has occurred within Division I sports is a recent phenomenon, occurring only within the last 15+ yrs or so. Prior to this resource allocation within major college sports was much more even across the board. How else do you think CFB managed to survive 130+ yrs in existence? Furthermore do you think your alma mater could've managed to win even a single championship let alone compete on the highest level, if the gap in resource allocation was as pronounced as it is today?

DII/DIII are not a subsidized mess. Though a larger portion of their revenue is comprised of subsidies, compared to D1 their business model is more sustainable because they are doing a much better job of controlling runaway inflation.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/about/d2/tools/DIIAbt_DollarsAndSense-Reclassification.pdf

But I find it strange, that you're focusing on DII/DIII program subsidies, without understanding that D1 programs get subsidized the most. Federal government loans and grants are given to non-athlete students each yr, who leave school with an avg loan debt of $30,000. Only 25 out of 65 P5 programs earn more than they spend on an operating basis (fewer when all capital construction debt and indirect expenses are factored). The whole financial construct of this system depends on non-athlete students contributing higher tuition and fee charges which are converted into institutional general fund subsidies for athletics. Tell me how do you expect the math to work itself out here. Ask yourself if this was truly a self-regulating system, how is it that this many programs operate in the red yr after yr?

I'm sorry that you perceived what I wrote as a word salad, and my understanding of economics as performative. Maybe if the message is disseminated to you from respected pro-business publications, and written by a phd economist, it will resonate better, and carry more weight. Have you heard of Forbes & Bloomberg?

1.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...time-for-congress-to-step-in/?sh=35d91fe23d09

2.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...its-economic-and-moral-abyss/?sh=561953987c62

3.) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...tball-s-top-teams-are-built-on-crippling-debt

To recap, the economic system of major college sports is unique, in that it combines a non-profit structure, zero-sum competition, and revenue acceleration. Within the American economic landscape, it is a structural outlier, and should be managed as such from a legal and antitrust perspective. The unique nature of the economic system calls for outside the box thinking and innovative solutions, if the end goal is sustainability of college sports in America.

Also, someone can be 100% against feminism, and simultaneously also be for parity and competitive balance in college athletics. They're not mutually exclusive. I've also read about inter-gender dynamics and the book Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi
Click to expand...
One of my main points is SEC is trying (ham handedly and imperfect) to make it more efficient. You are arguing to make it even more inefficient and unsustainable through artificial supports. I could go on, but why...

Again, lets talk through any system--natural, organizational, production, sports, etc. that functions as you would like. I'm guessing there isn't a single successful example, only failed (failing) outcomes.

CIS, I rest my case. There is no helping, only watching.


Here is the brutal truth: there is a very finite amount of resources to provide infrastructure, leadership, and talent for programs who can compete at the Miami (heyday years), Bama, UF, UGA, Clemson, FSU, et al levels. D1P5 as we know it, probably needs to shrink to D1P2, perhaps even D1P1. This is for a larger discussion... one could argue SEC/ACC need to jettison Vandy, Wake, Duke, UVA and any other schools that very likely from a "this is who we are perspective" are not going to realistically compete in the super league(s).


Its happening, so is Miami on that train or not?
 
Last edited:
Apex Predator said:
You continue to make the incorrect assumption that college athletics is an efficient market. It is not. It is rife with market failures that can only be addressed through intervention. Nowhere is this more clear than in salaries, which are inflated beyond what would reasonably constitute market value in a for-profit environment. Again, inflation is being driven by the incentives within the unique non-profit economic system of college athletics. Another market inefficiency occurs when renegotiating salaries for successful coaches, creating a principal-agent problem. In sum, the salary market in college athletics operates less efficiently than in professional sports, other non-profit sectors, and for-profit business. Regulations & controls are necessary to compensate for these inefficiencies.

I'm aware of the difference in economics between professional sports & college athletics. I outlined those in my last 3 posts. Regardless, the amount of teams in a league or conference doesn't determine it's level of parity & competitive balance. Even a staunch capitalist like Jerry Jones understands the importance of balance-seeking policies like reverse-finish draft ordering and player salary caps designed to help sustain value for the league and its teams. Instituting spending limits in major college sports would have a similarly positive effect. The argument has never been whether spending controls, guarantees profitability. Clearly that's not the case. The argument is whether they facilitate efficiency in order to improve sustainability. The explosion in revenue that has occurred within Division I sports is a recent phenomenon, occurring only within the last 15+ yrs or so. Prior to this resource allocation within major college sports was much more even across the board. How else do you think CFB managed to survive 130+ yrs in existence? Furthermore do you think your alma mater could've managed to win even a single championship let alone compete on the highest level, if the gap in resource allocation was as pronounced as it is today?

DII/DIII are not a subsidized mess. Though a larger portion of their revenue is comprised of subsidies, compared to D1 their business model is more sustainable because they are doing a much better job of controlling runaway inflation.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/about/d2/tools/DIIAbt_DollarsAndSense-Reclassification.pdf

But I find it strange, that you're focusing on DII/DIII program subsidies, without understanding that D1 programs get subsidized the most. Federal government loans and grants are given to non-athlete students each yr, who leave school with an avg loan debt of $30,000. Only 25 out of 65 P5 programs earn more than they spend on an operating basis (fewer when all capital construction debt and indirect expenses are factored). The whole financial construct of this system depends on non-athlete students contributing higher tuition and fee charges which are converted into institutional general fund subsidies for athletics. Tell me how do you expect the math to work itself out here. Ask yourself if this was truly a self-regulating system, how is it that this many programs operate in the red yr after yr?

I'm sorry that you perceived what I wrote as a word salad, and my understanding of economics as performative. Maybe if the message is disseminated to you from respected pro-business publications, and written by a phd economist, it will resonate better, and carry more weight. Have you heard of Forbes & Bloomberg?

1.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...time-for-congress-to-step-in/?sh=35d91fe23d09

2.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...its-economic-and-moral-abyss/?sh=561953987c62

3.) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...tball-s-top-teams-are-built-on-crippling-debt

To recap, the economic system of major college sports is unique, in that it combines a non-profit structure, zero-sum competition, and revenue acceleration. Within the American economic landscape, it is a structural outlier, and should be managed as such from a legal and antitrust perspective. The unique nature of the economic system calls for outside the box thinking and innovative solutions, if the end goal is sustainability of college sports in America.

Also, someone can be 100% against feminism, and simultaneously also be for parity and competitive balance in college athletics. They're not mutually exclusive. I've also read about inter-gender dynamics and the book Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi
Click to expand...
The detail in your posts…. Noteworthy.

Rollo Tomassi is a shadowy writer by the way.
 
Advertisement
CaneinBroward said:
Is there any chance that expanded playoffs gets postponed? Will the other conferences sign off on a 12 team playoff that now appears to be a huge windfall for the SEC as they added 2 more blue chips to their coffers? It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Click to expand...
It will get postponed if the other conferences are butt hurt at the SEC for doing their job. But postponing doesn't benefit the other conferences. They would be hurting themselves even more.
 
D RevLee said:
It will get postponed if the other conferences are butt hurt at the SEC for doing their job. But postponing doesn't benefit the other conferences. They would be hurting themselves even more.
Click to expand...
I would offer this: the other conferences have no choice but to accelerate CFBPO expansion.

Twll me the committee won't dare vote in 3 SEC teams into top 4 slots once UT and OU are assimilated.They might even go all four... Sankey going portobello mushroom stamp now...

With that said, history is full of examples of "unstoppable forces" being very much stopped.

ACC and PAC12 better get on it.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Seems our rival Florida State has found itself a new partner ...

"I just want us to be prepared. My point to (FSU athletic director) David Coburn and to (new ACC commissioner) Jim Phillips is I don’t want Florida State to be left behind. I consider us part of the ACC, but I also know that we have a marquee name, Clemson has a marquee name. I think there might be people coming after us, I don’t know, but we’ve got to be prepared no matter what the options are ... The Oklahoma, Texas thing, in my opinion, is the tip of the iceberg. It's there, but it's certainly going to be much broader than that when it's said and done."

-- FSU president John Thrasher, Tallahassee Democrat, 7/29/21

Just like Oklahoma and Texas, it's become mutually beneficial for Clemson and FSU to be joined at the hip — and that's the messaging already being fed to the media

Think once they do get their SEC invite, the Noles will do anything other than conspire with the Gators so the Canes don't get in the SEC, too??

"The SEC doesn't need THREE schools from Florida"

"Miami is a small private institution that plays in an NFL stadium it rarely fills"

"The culture in South Florida is nothing at all like Gainesville, Tallahassee, Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Athens ... "

Hope to God people with a lot more brains and passion than Blake James are working day and night to make sure we're not left dazed and confused in a pile of rubble when the ACC inevitably crumbles.
 
Last edited:
Hold My Beer said:
Seems our rival Florida State has found a new partner ...

"I just want us to be prepared. My point to (FSU athletic director) David Coburn and to (new ACC commissioner) Jim Phillips is I don’t want Florida State to be left behind. I consider us part of the ACC, but I also know that we have a marquee name, Clemson has a marquee name. I think there might be people coming after us, I don’t know, but we’ve got to be prepared no matter what the options are ... The Oklahoma, Texas thing, in my opinion, is the tip of the iceberg. It's there, but it's certainly going to be much broader than that when it's said and done."

-- FSU president John Thrasher, Tallahassee Democrat, 7/29/21

Just like Oklahoma and Texas, it's become mutually beneficial for Clemson and FSU to be joined at the hip — and that's the messaging already being fed to the media

Think once they do get their SEC invite, the Noles will do anything other than conspire with the Gators to make sure the Canes don't get in the SEC, too??

"The SEC doesn't need THREE schools from Florida"

"Miami is a small private institution that plays in an NFL stadium it rarely fills"

"The culture in South Florida is nothing at all like Gainesville, Tallahassee, Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Athens ... "

Hope to God people with a lot more brains and passion than Blake James are working day and night to make we're not left dazed and confused in a pile of rubble when the ACC inevitably crumbles.
Click to expand...
tenor (2).gif
 
Hold My Beer said:
Seems our rival Florida State has found a new partner ...

"I just want us to be prepared. My point to (FSU athletic director) David Coburn and to (new ACC commissioner) Jim Phillips is I don’t want Florida State to be left behind. I consider us part of the ACC, but I also know that we have a marquee name, Clemson has a marquee name. I think there might be people coming after us, I don’t know, but we’ve got to be prepared no matter what the options are ... The Oklahoma, Texas thing, in my opinion, is the tip of the iceberg. It's there, but it's certainly going to be much broader than that when it's said and done."

-- FSU president John Thrasher, Tallahassee Democrat, 7/29/21

Just like Oklahoma and Texas, it's become mutually beneficial for Clemson and FSU to be joined at the hip — and that's the messaging already being fed to the media

Think once they do get their SEC invite, the Noles will do anything other than conspire with the Gators to make sure the Canes don't get in the SEC, too??

"The SEC doesn't need THREE schools from Florida"

"Miami is a small private institution that plays in an NFL stadium it rarely fills"

"The culture in South Florida is nothing at all like Gainesville, Tallahassee, Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Athens ... "

Hope to God people with a lot more brains and passion than Blake James are working day and night to make we're not left dazed and confused in a pile of rubble when the ACC inevitably crumbles.
Click to expand...

I am wondering if the SEC may not be that enamored with Miami because if we did join it seems our top local recruits who they raid periodically who want to play against the best (arguably the SEC) could stay home instead of going to Georgia, Bama, etc. The conference revenue would also help bolster our finances to upgrade coaching and facilities, etc. They really want to awaken and feed the giant?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top