Now think about how many of those actually should have an FBS program...
Not the sport, but the wastes of money certainly wouldn't have. The idea that a sport can't survive with only 15 programs is kind of silly isn't it?
Think it through. The NFL and MLB had to adopt revenue sharing schemes to survive. College football survives because of all of its teams, not just the huge programs that make money. There would be no Alabamas without Vandys.
I did think it through, and the sport would survive with far less. How many less is debatable, but comparing them to professional sports with payrolls of 100 million or what ever isn't really valid. Those franchises could survive easily with only a meager tens of millions of annual payroll... Not only that, but we're talking about college football programs that pre-dated pro sports. Some of those pro teams that need a bit of a helping hand to keep up with huge expenditures have been around for a rather short time and have far less tradition and ingrained support.
Nah, Vandy and the like could go away and nothing would change - if the top 64 FBS programs decided to separate from the NCAA, they'd make even more money. The small programs like UAB, BSu, etc siphon off far more than they generate.
I personally know several ADs and head coaches in college football. We talk about this kind of thing all the time. I don't think that you understand just how much money these programs lose - millions of dollars/year at best, and tens of millions/year is not uncommon. A league of 32 teams might remain profitable, but not much more.
Did not say they did. It was stated that 6 years was a record, I showed proof it was not a record.
Considering the fact that there's another poster basically arguing that UAB isn't really losing money on football, perhaps you two should have a discussion and get this sorted out...
As I said earlier - don't know anything about UAB. My response here is simply about the economics of the sport as it exists today. Almost every college program loses money. They are willing to lose that money to attract the real $$$ - students.
LOL, yah, I know a thing or two about AD finances...
It's not. What loses money is Title IX compliance. But that's the case for nearly every athletic program. If you just remove football (basically what UAB did), you're not 'fixing' anything. Football and MBB typically have to cover the bills for everything else.
Professional sports leagues learned a long time ago that sports does not follow the same principles for profitability as other industries. It is an entertainment industry, but one that relies on its competition to increase revenue. The fewer the number of viable teams in the market, the less revenue there is to share among those remaining. It is not a zero sum game. Fans are not willing to automatically spend x number of dollars or hours of time watching a sport in which they are not invested personally. The only way to maintain or increase revenue streams is to increase the connection of the audience to the sport. The best way to do that (per others' research) is by maintaining a broader team base. The broader the team base, the greater the revenue.
Holy cow. By that account, you could shut down nearly every public institution of higher learning as they're not making money on the books themselves...you do realize why colleges have education, athletics, music, the arts, etc right? You should take a look at universities fiscal statements in our state and see how much money is being spent
Only when the product is remotely equal, which is why the pro-sports have tried to level the playing field across the board.
This is where you're incorrect - maybe you've not looked at the revenue streams of the small FBS (should be FCS) schools, but I have. One Alabama or OSU equals literally 5-10x the total revenue of the shouldn't-be-FBS schools.
LOL, yah. because suddenly the big moneymakers like the SEC, B1G, B12, PAC12, and ACC won't be worth anything? Viewership for those games would INCREASE - because people watch big games. Not one fan would care if Oklahoma wasn't playing Troy or similar, and the quality of the games would increase if every team played was a P5 member. Better teams playing better teams. In fact, that would be a lot closer to the pro sports model than what we currently see...
Maybe you are correct.A different poster said that we should eliminate every school that cannot at least break even. I suggested that this would leave us with only about 30 teams after the pie is re-established and re-sliced. You think that the number would be much higher - maybe as high as 64 teams. That is where our disagreement comes from because if there are 64 teams remaining there could still be 4 great conferences with separate contracts. That works if you are correct. But I just don't see 64 teams capable of turning a profit without some serious revenue sharing.
Yah, I've long said ~64 is the number (I believe I said so earlier in this thread, but it might have been another recent thread) - basically, the P5 teams, give or take a few. Would make more money for each school and we'd be done with the silly notion that UAB, FAU, BSu, etc. belong alongside OSU, OU, Alabama, etc.
Holy Cow. Where did you see I said shut them down? I did not say that. I just want some people to quit trying to skew the numbers showing UAB is making money.
If anything, public schools will try to show a loss on their books for obvious reasons There you go. Waving that magic wand I was talking about. LOL. Cook them books. I am sure some will buy it, but not me.
I've already posted how incorrect the Carr report was with inaccurate reporting of the income and expenses of scholarships. You can read it or not.
