How To Reform College Sports: Best-Selling Author John U. Bacon Makes His Case

[KevFu]

The whole point- 10 years ago- was that schools were having trouble selling basketball to students and fans outside the major programs.

That's not really different today.

NCAA D-I MBB attendance has risen by 7 million fans over the last 20 years, but the AVERAGE attendance has actually fallen. It's "only" 4900 per game.

Because there's FIFTY more schools than 20 years ago, and those new guys are small. More schools are "moving up" into that "big time status" (Gonzaga, VCU, Butler for example). But for every one of those, there's a half dozen new DI teams with low attendances building from scratch.

Conference realignment has had a massive effect as well. MBB attendance is a lot like NHL revenue. The "average" is misleading because 2/3 are actually "below average" because there's 6 "Toronto" conferences, 6 Boston "conferences" then 10 "Buffalo" conferences and 10 "Phoenix/Long Island" conferences.

I also recognize the key issue when it comes to college... that football coach IS going after the hockey money. And the gymnastics money. And so on. The AD usually finds a way, but outside those signature schools (a PERCENTAGE of the BCS, not their whole), it's not long-term sustainable. That's partly because the TV contracts aren't long-term sustainable.

I don't think that last part is true. The TV contracts are sustainable for two reasons:
#1 - Conferences are forming TV Networks, giving them subscriber fees, like the Big Ten.
#2 - The consolidation of power into few mega-conferences and tons of have-nots increases the demand for their TV rights.

You'd think that with four major companies: ABC/ESPN, CBS, Fox and NBC and five major conferences now (SEC, Big 10, Big XII, Pac-12 and ACC) that the demand would decrease, but the SEC and Big Ten are way ahead of the others. Limited TV sets in Big XII territory, lack of prowess for ACC football, time zone issues for Pac-12 and the perceived dominance of the SEC makes for TWO marquee properties, three secondary properties, and the other conferences are filler (with additional quality properties for basketball).

There's a reason ESPN was broadcasting Big West, then Mountain West, now WCC basketball games: It was cheaper than paying the Pac-12 that big BCS money when fewer people were still awake and watching on the East Coast. The reason the Pac-12 is back on ESPN is because ESPN had to protect themselves in case they lost the SEC in the last negotiations (remember the TV deals are ALL-SPORT contracts, it's football driving the bus.

Before the "Bowl Coalition" eventually led to the BCS, the talk was always of the "Superconference." That's the schools I'm talking about being the "percentage" of the BCS. The endgame of this greed is really that.

What's funny is that people think this conference realignment stuff is "new" and that the greed is new. This has been going on for DECADES. There's been a season without a conference membership change only EIGHT times since 1908!

There IS no "end game." It's just capitalism.


But the point with all this is: The talent has DEFINITELY gone down in college basketball, and the rich get richer and more "poor teams" move to Division I to chase the dream of exposure.

Someone brought up Florida Gulf Coast. They are a new Division I school (2007-08). They moved up because if they fund Division I basketball, win their conference tournament and millions of people see them on the bracket they gain exposure. If they pull an upset on CBS, their university gets a ridiculous amount of exposure which improves the University as a whole. It not only brings in the money for improvements to facilities, it raises admissions standards because as more kids apply, the University can be more selective.

Gonzaga's size, status and academic rating has dramatically risen as their MBB team had success. That's why they do it. And that's why the reform needed isn't paying the athletes what they are "worth." They're getting more than they are worth as professionals because people don't care about anything but MAJOR LEAGUE pro sports.

The reform that's needed is finding a way to shrink the gap between haves and have nots without pissing off the BCS so they bolt from the NCAA.

 

[PCSPounder]

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefo..._in_a_saturated_market_mayb.html#incart_river

PAC-12 Network... not making squat.

Meanwhile, Fox is using Fox Sports 1 for PAC-12 football games in an attempt to prop up the channel. Time will tell if that tactic even works with FS1.

 

[cutchemist42]

I think the P12 should have seen it coming, they are on the west coast at a time when no one wants to watch football unless your hardcore. The SEC Network will do well though.

 

[EvilCoop]

Well, P12 Network might be failing because Comcast doesn't have it in HD and DirecTV didn't have it for a whole season.

 

[PCSPounder]

Well, P12 Network might be failing because Comcast doesn't have it in HD and DirecTV didn't have it for a whole season.

Comcast has it in HD. I've got it in HD.

I don't think DirecTV is that big a problem.

If there's an "environmental issue" that's a larger problem, it's that the Western US doesn't have enough Tucsons. Eugene isn't the smallest college town but is not the largest, Corvallis is closer to that description, and if you ever try to get to Pullman, tell me about it for a laugh. Virtually all the schools share markets with pro sports (as opposed to Alabama and Nebraska, et al). The Lakers became bigger than UCLA, the Seahawks trumped UW football, and there's an argument in LA to be had about Chivas Guadalajara being bigger than USC football. Oregon has it relatively good in this regard.

Add one thing to that: the West does not have the 150-year histories of the Big 10 schools. The seismic shifts happen here as much figuratively as literally. Stanford was a national championship contender this year in football and haven't sold every seat in a downsized stadium. Not nearly everyone latches onto the college teams in the region the way it happens in the Midwest and South. Boise State doesn't sell all its tickets, for that matter (the Boise market has grown tenfold in 50 years; it's not exactly a native population).

Now keep this in mind: it took ESPN agreeing to the Longhorn Network for Texas to stay in the Big 12. They still stand jealous of the Pac-12 TV deal, but if they stray from the region, they'll scorn the SEC, but they will look eastward. The Southwest would be a larger college market by my estimation (though the region is a black hole of coverage because nobody escapes the media spotlight of the Dallas Cowboys) but it doesn't really get the numbers.

Does this look like the picture of long-term stability and sustainability? I really doubt it.

 

[KevFu]

I'm shocked there's no discussion about Grambling's football team...

... shocker, their conditions, travel and facilities are in shameful disarray, because they don't have big time football money. The TV money is how the PLAYERS HAVE NICE THINGS.

 

[Fugu]

I'm shocked there's no discussion about Grambling's football team...

... shocker, their conditions, travel and facilities are in shameful disarray, because they don't have big time football money. The TV money is how the PLAYERS HAVE NICE THINGS.

Who says they have to have a football team?

 

[KevFu]

And in other news, the Miami sanctions came down. Scholarship loss, no postseason ban.

I don't get it. It's stupid and counter productive. If someone cheats to win and doesn't focus on educating, the penalty is... take away a scholarship they are supposed to be using to educate with?

That's so ridiculous. They should dock them non-conference home games, TV appearances and money.

 

[Fugu]

And in other news, the Miami sanctions came down. Scholarship loss, no postseason ban.

I don't get it. It's stupid and counter productive. If someone cheats to win and doesn't focus on educating, the penalty is... take away a scholarship they are supposed to be using to educate with?

That's so ridiculous. They should dock them non-conference home games, TV appearances and money.

Exactly. Just shows how unsupportable the entire system is insofar as education and being nested in the academic setting.

 

[KevFu]

Exactly. Just shows how unsupportable the entire system is insofar as education and being nested in the academic setting.

I don't think your stance isn't "wrong," I just think it's totally implausible that colleges abandon their athletic departments, via court/congressional order (highly unlikely) or by choice (ha! fantasy!).

 

[Aceboogie]

I will speak to NCAA football

I think the biggest schools and bigger conferences should reform the way in which the compensate their athletes. These schools are put into a more intense spotlight, and as a result the athletes are put under more pressure to preform on the field.

The students of these bigger schools are provide insane revenue for their schools, while recieving minimal compensation in return. I do not have the numbers but I would bet my left leg the percentage of total revenues that their scholarships makes up is extremely low, probaly the lowest ratio for any sport (salaries instead of scholarships). To go along with that, players from big schools are put under exceedlingly more pressure than players from smaller schools (tv time, media, fan expectations etc) yet recieve the same compensation. The situation too, is that player from bigger school are expeceted to be in peak physical shape and do not have the necessary time to put into school work. So a player going to a smaller school can afford to take the time to get a better degree than the play at the large school taking sociology.

As for the theory that more popular sports are paying for less popular sports. Why should that be the case. The football players put up with significant physical and mental abuse. Why should they not be compensated accordingly. And why should they have to have the money they earned get put towards sports that are so unpopular they cant stay afloat financially. If people really enjoyed those sports they would pay to go watch them.

I would be infavour of the big football conferences breaking from tradition (NCAA) and compensate based on merit. So salaries. Pay the players what they are worth and what they bring to the table.

 

[Fugu]

^^ Nice post.

I don't think your stance isn't "wrong," I just think it's totally implausible that colleges abandon their athletic departments, via court/congressional order (highly unlikely) or by choice (ha! fantasy!).

Sure, if turn the discussion to plausibility, or the schools doing the right thing, then I agree. It won't happen. What if they lost their nonprofit status and players somehow received greater protective rights (along the line of what you'd see in a CBA type thing)? Would that make them rethink the entire system?

 

[mouser]

I love how so many of the "solutions" to address the issue of college athletics becoming overly business-driven are to make it even more business-like.

 

[Fugu]

I love how so many of the "solutions" to address the issue of college athletics becoming overly business-driven are to make it even more business-like.

Not mine. My solution is to get these businesses out of the academic environment. They actually ARE businesses. Some of us want the hypocrisy to end, to stop the schools from taking advantage of these kids.

 

[Fourier]

Not mine. My solution is to get these businesses out of the academic environment. They actually ARE businesses. Some of us want the hypocrisy to end, to stop the schools from taking advantage of these kids.

I am still not convinced that there are that many kids being taken advantage of at least to any great degree. The vast majority of theses kids, even in programs like football receive significant value for their efforts or at least have the opportunity to gain significantly from their efforts. The problem is that there are a few for whom the system fails miserably.

 

[Fugu]

I am still not convinced that there are that many kids being taken advantage of at least to any great degree. The vast majority of theses kids, even in programs like football receive significant value for their efforts or at least have the opportunity to gain significantly from their efforts. The problem is that there are a few for whom the system fails miserably.

The issue of injuries and longterm disability is not addressed.

Secondly, the kids who work in the big money areas are the ones who do not receive compensation close to the proportion of the benefit the schools gain. A coach alone makes as much money as the sum total of half or more of the scholarships!

Ultimately I think it's a matter of proportionality. If these kids were gainfully employed by these schools, they wouldn't need the scholarships. They also might receive longer term protection because the sport is violent and very damaging to many who play it.

 

[KevFu]

I love how so many of the "solutions" to address the issue of college athletics becoming overly business-driven are to make it even more business-like.

Some of us want the hypocrisy to end, to stop the schools from taking advantage of these kids.

topchowda's solution compensates BCS athletes for being at BCS schools that make BCS revenues.

Of course, all it does is eliminate the appearance of "hypocrisy" that Fugu & Co don't like. It actually does not solve anything, and probably let's schools and coaches take advantage of students EVEN MORE (cutting the number of scholarship opportunities IN HALF changes the supply/demand in favor of the school, allowing them to exploit kids more).

It's not "fair," it's even more hypocritical. It's built on a patently false concept (all revenue is a by-product of roster talent), one which can be proved false in a variety of ways (that none of you seem willing to listen too).

Not to mention the fact that it kicks well over half of D-I out of the top level of college sports.


The real hypocrisy is that everyone is concerned about the kids who get THE MOST PERKS ALREADY out of all the athletes GETTING EVEN MORE, and are willing to screw over 150,000 other kids to do it.

The issue of injuries and longterm disability is not addressed.

For crying out loud, you are now blaming the NCAA for sports injuries and for not being good parents?

 

[Fourier]

The issue of injuries and longterm disability is not addressed.

Secondly, the kids who work in the big money areas are the ones who do not receive compensation close to the proportion of the benefit the schools gain. A coach alone makes as much money as the sum total of half or more of the scholarships!

Ultimately I think it's a matter of proportionality. If these kids were gainfully employed by these schools, they wouldn't need the scholarships. They also might receive longer term protection because the sport is violent and very damaging to many who play it.

If the system was run as a business few kids would make more than the value of a full-ride scholarship. Moreover, if these teams were run as a typical business it would be almost impossible for any of these kids to get an education of any type at the same time.

 

[Fugu]

If the system was run as a business few kids would make more than the value of a full-ride scholarship. Moreover, if these teams were run as a typical business it would be almost impossible for any of these kids to get an education of any type at the same time.

Let me ask you a different question. If this is a good system, why don't other countries replicate it? I'm under the impression that only the US has something this complex and intertwined between academia and sports.

 

[KevFu]

Let me ask you a different question. If this is a good system, why don't other countries replicate it? I'm under the impression that only the US has something this complex and intertwined between academia and sports.

There's thousands of (if not infinite) reasons why ideas & concepts aren't adopted by other countries, whether it's better or not. (My country dominates in the "personal freedom, non-violent transition of power, and sports front; kind of sucks at providing health care to its citizens, stopping gun violence and not wasting tons of tax dollars!)


But let me ask you this: Which country has the most total Olympic medals, and is anyone else even remotely close? (Answers - #1 "USA" 2678. And second place 1204, so "no.")


If all the dollar amounts weren't so massive -- if there was TV contract revenue sharing for all of D-I; with no university subsidies, would anyone really have a problem with the NCAA's system? Probably not.

 

[Brodie]

well, to be fair, the concept of school sports at any age isn't really copied elsewhere in the world. Should we also end high school football and middle school basketball, etc?

 

[Fourier]

Let me ask you a different question. If this is a good system, why don't other countries replicate it? I'm under the impression that only the US has something this complex and intertwined between academia and sports.

I am not at all convinced it is a good system. I think I have been consistent on that. But I don't think I have any concrete ways to make it better that have a chance of being adopted. I also think that for all its flaws as it is it works for a significant percentage of the participants.

 

[Fugu]

But let me ask you this: Which country has the most total Olympic medals, and is anyone else even remotely close? (Answers - #1 "USA" 2678. And second place 1204, so "no.")

That's not an important metric to me. I don't like the commercialism surrounding the Olympics, but it's a bit more palatable once they dropped their "amateur" requirement.

You're also comparing the US, which for much of the duration of the modern Olympic Games, was the world's richest and most advanced country. We had the means and time to 'play games', money could be thrown into nonessential requirements. With that said, several European countries have done very well in the medal counts, especially if you adjust for population. Australia is probably the only country that I can think of which puts the sporting culture higher than we do. I'm not overly familiar with their system, but I believe it's usually private clubs that kids join at young ages, and there may be some public funding as well.

If all the dollar amounts weren't so massive -- if there was TV contract revenue sharing for all of D-I; with no university subsidies, would anyone really have a problem with the NCAA's system? Probably not.

My main problem is carving out university spots for people who aren't qualified for them simply on the basis that they help this business model. As I said earlier, kids with academic goals from lesser backgrounds have many more options these days as far as financial support. I'd rather have scholarship money going to kids whose primary motivation is academics.

 

[Fugu]

well, to be fair, the concept of school sports at any age isn't really copied elsewhere in the world. Should we also end high school football and middle school basketball, etc?

I think schools should invest in and promote physical fitness, build in activities during the day to make sure kids move around more than they do now. Whatever is adopted should be accessible and directed at the majority of students, not a system that selects outs kids who aren't as gifted athletically. Club systems not built into curricula would be a better to go.

I am not at all convinced it is a good system. I think I have been consistent on that. But I don't think I have any concrete ways to make it better that have a chance of being adopted. I also think that for all its flaws as it is it works for a significant percentage of the participants.

Fair enough.

 

[KevFu]

That's not an important metric to me. I don't like the commercialism surrounding the Olympics, but it's a bit more palatable once they dropped their "amateur" requirement.

I'm struck by the word "palatable."

The problem people had with the Olympics wasn't the amateurism itself, but that many countries were simply giving their athletes government jobs paying them high salary for little work hours, and ample time to train (as in, they didn't have to do anything but train." You had amateurs in name only. Now, there's basically the EXACT SAME THING: NHL/NBA professionals, and guys who take time off from their real jobs to go down to the curling club and practice for the Olympics, using tiny sponsorship dollars to help with some equipment costs. But it's more palatable since the "amateurism" rule is gone.

It seems like you find the phrase "non-profit" for athletics departments unpalatable when they bring in so much revenue; and the phrase "student-athlete" unpalatable when you look at the football/men's hoops players featured on ESPN.

As most people in this thread have tried to apply all kinds of pitfalls that exist campus & sports-wide just to college athletics departments (like: being broke, picking majors like Sports Management and Communications, injuries that occur in sports), it strikes me that the key phrase in all this, is that "palatable."

Not the "real world issue" of college athletics, but that hearing the media talk about the billions of dollars in revenue when the kids get very little in actual cash as compensation makes people uncomfortable.


If that wasn't the case, someone might actually have a solution that could actually conceivably work. But no one does. Because the solutions to solve the unpalatable situation is to make it like the Olympics, where you have rich basketball/football players, and broke kids with nothing in other sports, paying to play.

My main problem is carving out university spots for people who aren't qualified for them simply on the basis that they help this business model. As I said earlier, kids with academic goals from lesser backgrounds have many more options these days as far as financial support. I'd rather have scholarship money going to kids whose primary motivation is academics.

I hear that. The penalty for not doing enough for students academically is counter-productive. There's no incentive to have smart kids who graduate and no dis-incentive to NOT have them. I think they should raise their academic minimums for everyone if they're not educating enough.