Odds on who joins the Big 10 and SEC

FlaPack said:
You think the Presidents and chancellors care about recruiting?
Click to expand...
Yes. I do believe they think it's important. Despite the purists believing that everything is education, we know darned well that the prowess of the athletic programs creates a draw for enrollment, both for athletics, and beyond. Looking down one's nose at the athletic programs would end up being a costly mistake, because even a large number of the scholastic contributors believe that the athletics are a key element of the school.

So, recruiting, on it's own, may not take up a moment of time in their discussions, but the fact that a program that doesn't, or can't recruit well because of restrictions, or hindrances due to exposure do play a part in their decision making. Teams that are doormats because of recruiting do not draw donors to the table, like it or not.

Looking back at Wisconsin, the turning point in athletics was Shalala. She gave it a level of importance, but kept it honest, and above board. She may have made some mistakes from her position, but by and large, she helped create the atmosphere that gave the Badgers more stability and potential in athletics.

So, yes. I do believe Presidents and Chancellors care. Their jobs depend on it, because it's part of the fabric of all major universities. If it wasn't, coaches wouldn't be paid millions of dollars a year to put winning teams out there.
 
FlaPack said:
Schools don’t pay out NIL money
Click to expand...
They may not pay out NIL money, but they are sure using their connections to help kids hook up with guys who will pay it, if they attend their school. It's obvious if you read comments made by a lot of kids being recruited that it's part of the mating dance to get them to sign the letter of intent.
 
TW said:
They may not pay out NIL money, but they are sure using their connections to help kids hook up with guys who will pay it, if they attend their school. It's obvious if you read comments made by a lot of kids being recruited that it's part of the mating dance to get them to sign the letter of intent.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, the point is that it’s not money paid out by the institutions.
 
TW said:
Yes. I do believe they think it's important. Despite the purists believing that everything is education, we know darned well that the prowess of the athletic programs creates a draw for enrollment, both for athletics, and beyond. Looking down one's nose at the athletic programs would end up being a costly mistake, because even a large number of the scholastic contributors believe that the athletics are a key element of the school.

So, recruiting, on it's own, may not take up a moment of time in their discussions, but the fact that a program that doesn't, or can't recruit well because of restrictions, or hindrances due to exposure do play a part in their decision making. Teams that are doormats because of recruiting do not draw donors to the table, like it or not.

Looking back at Wisconsin, the turning point in athletics was Shalala. She gave it a level of importance, but kept it honest, and above board. She may have made some mistakes from her position, but by and large, she helped create the atmosphere that gave the Badgers more stability and potential in athletics.

So, yes. I do believe Presidents and Chancellors care. Their jobs depend on it, because it's part of the fabric of all major universities. If it wasn't, coaches wouldn't be paid millions of dollars a year to put winning teams out there.
Click to expand...
Their jobs don’t depend on wins and losses on the field or in the court. Sure athletics is important, so is research grants, academic donations. Sure Shalala was a driving force behind the resurgence at UW but unfortunately that changed under Blank. For whatever reason UW does not have the same emphasis on athletics. Win or lose Wisconsin and Rutgers pocket a check for $100m+ once this new TV deals gets done.

If recruiting was such a priority, schools would increase the budgets, expand the resources you name it. See the chart below. I get it’s 3 years old but not much has charged

Look at the B1G. They have a love affair with AAU institutions and they are not shy about it. One school does not have accreditation, Nebraska, but it did when they entered the conference.

EE1145A1-8097-4E38-B81F-DC225E1C5ED2.jpeg
 
FlaPack said:
Their jobs don’t depend on wins and losses on the field or in the court. Sure athletics is important, so is research grants, academic donations. Sure Shalala was a driving force behind the resurgence at UW but unfortunately that changed under Blank. For whatever reason UW does not have the same emphasis on athletics. Win or lose Wisconsin and Rutgers pocket a check for $100m+ once this new TV deals gets done.

If recruiting was such a priority, schools would increase the budgets, expand the resources you name it. See the chart below. I get it’s 3 years old but not much has charged

Look at the B1G. They have a love affair with AAU institutions and they are not shy about it. One school does not have accreditation, Nebraska, but it did when they entered the conference.

View attachment 549
Click to expand...
Your assumption will be proven wrong over the next decade. The money generated by the athletic programs is huge. The AAU is going to end up being a dinosaur, just like the NCAA has become.
 
TW said:
Your assumption will be proven wrong over the next decade. The money generated by the athletic programs is huge. The AAU is going to end up being a dinosaur, just like the NCAA has become.
Click to expand...
Unlike the NCAA it’s not a rules organization. It’s basically a academic “club”. As long as the TV money will be there it’s all that matters and right now it’s the Big 2 conferences that dominate.

The only institution that is a target now is ND. Past that nobody brings “value”
 
I'd have thought you'd think about the old adage that; "He who controls the market will also control the price."

If that means temporarily giving up a few million dollars to increase the control you have over the market, it's a step back that in the end is two steps forward. That's the reason you'd take on additional schools, regardless of AAU affiliation or not.

As an example, assume you have 16 schools that total an average of 10 million people in their alumni/support/fan base. Each school would share in the profitability based on those 16 schools. If you add 4 more, and each one only has a base of 8 million, you're going to give away a part of what was your share of the pie based on sheer numbers.

But, you have done two things. You've increased the size of your control over territories where your brand becomes part of the equation when it comes to notoriety, and growth. Your total base went from 160 mill up to 192 mill, and the growth from that 192 is significantly higher than that from the 160. Plus, you've marked your territory.

If this wasn't fact, you need look no further than the SEC, where recruiting for non-SEC teams is difficult at best. Why? The schools have marked their territory, and they get the cream of the crop from within it, when it comes to signing of athletes. It's part of the culture.

Sometimes people need to take a step back and look at things through a different light. It's not always about how much money you have on the table today, but the potential growth in your revenue down the road, when your investment in the future starts to pay dividends.
 
TW said:
I'd have thought you'd think about the old adage that; "He who controls the market will also control the price."

If that means temporarily giving up a few million dollars to increase the control you have over the market, it's a step back that in the end is two steps forward. That's the reason you'd take on additional schools, regardless of AAU affiliation or not.

As an example, assume you have 16 schools that total an average of 10 million people in their alumni/support/fan base. Each school would share in the profitability based on those 16 schools. If you add 4 more, and each one only has a base of 8 million, you're going to give away a part of what was your share of the pie based on sheer numbers.

But, you have done two things. You've increased the size of your control over territories where your brand becomes part of the equation when it comes to notoriety, and growth. Your total base went from 160 mill up to 192 mill, and the growth from that 192 is significantly higher than that from the 160. Plus, you've marked your territory.

If this wasn't fact, you need look no further than the SEC, where recruiting for non-SEC teams is difficult at best. Why? The schools have marked their territory, and they get the cream of the crop from within it, when it comes to signing of athletes. It's part of the culture.

Sometimes people need to take a step back and look at things through a different light. It's not always about how much money you have on the table today, but the potential growth in your revenue down the road, when your investment in the future starts to pay dividends.
Click to expand...
You add institutions that add value precisely the reason why USC and UCLA will be in the conference. And probably why the B1G will not add any additional schools unless ND decides it’s ready to play in a conference.

Alumni and fan base are irrelevant in todays environment. What’s important is how do I get my payout from $80m to potentially $100m per schools. And that’s by TV market size, which directly equals $$ because of 3 things. #1 Carriage and retransmission fees, #2 Media rights fees and # ad revenue. I put those in specific order because that’s what ESPN and Fox look at for revenue.

Ahhh ESPN & Fox…..remember that those 2, who basically control college football TV screens on Saturdays were the driving force behind the last 2 expansions.

ESPN, who owns the Longhorn Network and the Oklahoma streaming platform pushed both to the SEC. No coincidence that the new SEC Saturday package is moving from CBS to ESPN

Fox, which has a significant stake in the BTN needed to protect its valuable 3:30 late slot and knew based on the current environment a pure Pac 12 schedule was not going to cut it. Now add USC / UCLA….Bam, you add the B1G and allows you to #1 more retrans fees and get a bigger piece of the pie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top