Early takes on the portal / NIL?

[Peacone36]

Just using GT as an example, in the '17-18 academic year GT's athletic revenue was about $92M. In '22-23' it was about $134M.

The people constantly whining about lacking revenue have had tremendous revenue growth yet continue to spend/waste it. There is no accountability in college athletics.

Just an election away from being politicians.

 

[ESPNjacket]

This isn't limited to college athletics, it is everywhere! You are citing some of the founding sacraments of bureaucracy. Use revenues to establish departments who's sole purpose is to justify larger budgets. The diffusion of accountability is the Holy Grail of deeply bureaucratic organization.

Yes.

The real question is how does an incremental $10M (or whatever figure) help you actually perform better? I'd say the top 50 schools have passed the point where it makes any competitive difference. This brings us to the current realignment. What exactly are we trying to do here? How does this make anything better?

 

[57jacket]

This isn't limited to college athletics, it is everywhere! You are citing some of the founding sacraments of bureaucracy. Use revenues to establish departments who's sole purpose is to justify larger budgets. The diffusion of accountability is the Holy Grail of deeply bureaucratic organization.

Absolutely! establish a relevant function and request more $ each year, even if your mission is no longer needed.

 

[cpf2001]

It's a non-profit incentive problem more than a gov't one, though gov't is the largest nonprofit. Zero incentive to *reduce* revenue or costs unless something really goes wrong, since it doesn't turn into more profit for you or your stakeholders.

But lots of (ego, PR, etc) incentives to make the top-line revenue numbers bigger even if it's not moving the needle on your original goals.

Even in the for-profit world there's something very similar in competitive things (especially sports) where the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses becomes an end to itself. Spend $X to bring in $X more? No more profit, but good numbers to brag about, and if your competitor doesn't do it (like making fancier locker rooms) then they fall behind.

 

[stinger78]

Yes.

The real question is how does an incremental $10M (or whatever figure) help you actually perform better? I'd say the top 50 schools have passed the point where it makes any competitive difference. This brings us to the current realignment. What exactly are we trying to do here? How does this make anything better?

It doesn’t as far as the game itself is concerned. It only serves to line the pockets of the elite few programs, administrators, and media companies… and now the few elite athletes.

 

[Root4GT]

Directed at no-one post in particular:

In any team endeavor there is a balance between goals and ambitions of any individual in the group and the goals and success of the team. I think that the point here is that this balance has been lost.

I think the interest in team sport exists, whether that be on the participation side or the spectator's side, is based on the successes or failures of the team. Michael Jordan blurred the lines to some extent, and fans would actually attend just to go see the star. But overall, fans tend to be interested in following the exploits of their team regardless of who the team members are.

In book after book, article after article, interview after interview, coaches and athletes of successful teams always discuss how team members bought in to play for each other. That winning, the ultimate measure of success, the very origin of value of team sport entertainment, is the result of a measure of self-sacrifice by individuals to attain team goals (winning).

The current imbalance among some current athletes is that they fail to recognize the source of their value. They see an industry with a lot of revenues, and they assume that because they are participating in the industry that they deserve a cut. But that attitude is parasitic.. In fact, the origin of value is their production, the actual contribution to a winning team endeavor.

Trying to attain notoriety, to establish a brand and monetary value independent of team, and placing those individual ambitions above winning as a team undermines the value of the product. Their net value to the team and the industry is actually negative.

Lots of good points. The NBA has been about players over teams for a long time. I recall in Hewitt's first few years he made comments on that subject that people use to be Knicks and or Bulls fans but the game had changed to being Lebron or Jordan fans first.

I am curious as to who are the athletes you view individuals who fail to recognize the source of their value? I didn't see anyone with GTBB that that applied to. Abrams was clearly a fan disappointment and no doubt he was also very disappointed with how his season turned out.

Are you talking mostly HS athletes or college and Pro athletes?