The FBS and the big problem in the future

[takethepoints]

We've had a lot of discussion here recently about the lack of commitment of needed resources by Tech to the football program. I think a lot of that discussion is right on track, but there is this problem. See:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...197609261&mc_cid=42d6226770&mc_eid=3efd616175

Yep. What is happening is that sooner or later the competition among the Power5 conference will begin to drive many programs right out of the FBS. If enough leave - and I think this is a real possibility - then the basis of the present division structure will be so undermined that it will collapse of its own weight.

In many ways, I think that would be a good thing; there's no reason for colleges to act as farm teams for pro football and the amount of money being siphoned into collegiate sports is detrimental to the educational function of the institutions themselves. However, if ever there was an intractable collective action problem, this is it. I doubt the FBS schools or the NCAA will take the needed action (controlling athletic spending) until it is too late, even if it were legal (big question, imho) for them to try.

And, of course, in the mean time it would be a good idea to dedicate more resources to the Tech football program. Said the guy asking for the crew to row harder while the boat sinks because of a giant hole in its bottom.

 

[Vespidae]

One theory is that the P5 will leave the NCAA and form their own association.

It is a huge problem.

Tech needs sustained fundraising. Period.

 

[JDjacket]

Not to mention the ESPN cable bubble that will eventually burst leaving them with not enough money to pay out these massive TV contracts

 

[ilovetheoption]

I mean, it's all valid.

Combine this with the fact that football is demonstrably bad for you, and less kids playing, and I wonder what the future of the game is.

Like, I love football. I played it for 12 years. My brothers played in college. I watch college football for hours every single week in the fall.

I won't let my kids play. If football is losing parents like ME, it's sure as heckfire losing random moms who don't have any particular love for the game. I wonder what 20 years from now what the game will look like.

 

[YlJacket]

I think the first article pertains more to Sun Belt teams than teams like GT. We will be able to maintain spending at a level to field a team in the ACC without the stresses at UAB or Idaho. The item that does hold out real downside risk for GT Football is if or for some when live sports no longer props up the current TV models for ESPN, cable and the like. As that model changes and the contracts that prop up the P5 conferences expire then the risk of revenue reductions is real - not certain it will happen but a real risk.

For a school like GT which is heavy on low interest debt, it is a rational to clean up that debt while the current ACC contract is in place

 

[BuzzStone]

I mean, it's all valid.

Combine this with the fact that football is demonstrably bad for you, and less kids playing, and I wonder what the future of the game is.

Like, I love football. I played it for 12 years. My brothers played in college. I watch college football for hours every single week in the fall.

I won't let my kids play. If football is losing parents like ME, it's sure as heckfire losing random moms who don't have any particular love for the game. I wonder what 20 years from now what the game will look like.

The future of football is pretty clear in my mind. We replace people with robots and turn the game into something really fun to watch.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

GT is one of the last holdout D1 schools that actually try to field a competitive team while maintaining academic integrity. I'd love to see a longitudinal study of former football players and how they end up in life after college. My guess is our guys fair way better than the norm.

The real question is does that even matter to most of the best prospects coming out of high school?

 

[Techster]

The real question is does that even matter to most of the best prospects coming out of high school?

I think the problem with most top football prospects is perspective. Not to be politically incorrect, and statistics will bear this out, but most football players come from the lower income homes and a good percentage from households whose parents did not have a college education. Simply put, they just do not understand the options put in front of them. They don't realize that if GT/Stanford/Duke/Northwestern/Michigan/etc. are recruiting you, that's potentially a winning lottery ticket for your career post football. It doesn't mean they can't get a good education anywhere else, but some schools are just more respected than others.

Look at the offspring of players who played in the NFL. Ed McCaffry's sons will have or are going to academically elite schools: Max went to Duke, Christian is at Stanford, and Dylan is committed to Michigan. Barry Sanders son BS Jr. busted his hump to go to Stanford even though he could have coasted and gone pretty much anywhere. Bo Jackson is on record saying he'd rather his sons go to Ivy League schools than make it in the NFL.

Just this past weekend, Jameis Winston said if he understood the significance of Stanford when he was being recruited, he would have went there instead of FSU. http://www.ninersnation.com/2016/10/20/13343478/jameis-winston-stanford-florida-state-choice

Most elite recruits have people in their ears about playing for these factory schools that education is lower on the totem pole of priorities. That's a shame because these kids get only one shot at these kind of schools that their parents could only dream of, and the people influencing them don't have the kid's best interest at heart.

 

[danny daniel]

IMO there are five major issues affecting the future of college football:
Big money leading to bigger gaps between the have and have nots
Long TV commercials affecting the flow of the game and adding so much non football so called entertainment to the experience, not to mention the longer games and resulting boredom
Individual player antics (actions and words) with the "look at me" culture rather than the disciplined team culture
Rule changes propping up the O pass game leading to a very boring cookie cutter game of short throw and catch
NCAA has lost its way on many issues

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think the problem with most top football prospects is perspective. Not to be politically incorrect, and statistics will bear this out, but most football players come from the lower income homes and a good percentage from households whose parents did not have a college education. Simply put, they just do not understand the options put in front of them. They don't realize that if GT/Stanford/Duke/Northwestern/Michigan/etc. are recruiting you, that's potentially a winning lottery ticket for your career post football. It doesn't mean they can't get a good education anywhere else, but some schools are just more respected than others.

Look at the offspring of players who played in the NFL. Ed McCaffry's sons will have or are going to academically elite schools: Max went to Duke, Christian is at Stanford, and Dylan is committed to Michigan. Barry Sanders son BS Jr. busted his hump to go to Stanford even though he could have coasted and gone pretty much anywhere. Bo Jackson is on record saying he'd rather his sons go to Ivy League schools than make it in the NFL.

Just this past weekend, Jameis Winston said if he understood the significance of Stanford when he was being recruited, he would have went there instead of FSU. http://www.ninersnation.com/2016/10/20/13343478/jameis-winston-stanford-florida-state-choice

Most elite recruits have people in their ears about playing for these factory schools that education is lower on the totem pole of priorities. That's a shame because these kids get only one shot at these kind of schools that their parents could only dream of, and the people influencing them don't have the kid's best interest at heart.

Can't agree more. You last paragraph needs to add that the handlers (parents, uncles, cousins, coaches, friends) advising these kids are most likely being paid off in one way or another by the unscrupulous factory schools recruiting these kids.

 

[Vespidae]

Best thing to do is uniformly improve academic standards and encourage the NFL to create a semi pro league as in baseball. That makes the kids' decision clear cut.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

IMO there are five major issues affecting the future of college football:
Big money leading to bigger gaps between the have and have nots
Long TV commercials affecting the flow of the game and adding so much non football so called entertainment to the experience, not to mention the longer games and resulting boredom
Individual player antics (actions and words) with the "look at me" culture rather than the disciplined team culture
Rule changes propping up the O pass game leading to a very boring cookie cutter game of short throw and catch
NCAA has lost its way on many issues

Agree especially with the TV ads. I DVR TV games and skip commercials or pause it for an hour. If they ever pay per view it, I'm out.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Tale wags the dog at many schools. But, I will say this, a winning program brings in boat loads of cash to the school in many varied ways. I live near Georgia Southern, and when they began FB, I rolled my eyes. Their student population tripled in a couple of years.

 

[CTJacket]

I don't know if any of you saw this article last year or not, but look at the spending, etc: http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...-football-playoff-teams-make-and-spend-money/

Be sure and scroll down to look at the numbers on athletic aid/scholarship. Oklahoma: 85, Mich St: 90, Clemson: 94, and Alabama: 121. Anything look amiss there?

 

[Andrew]

I think it hits it right on the head- I live in Tallahassee and ran into Gene Deckerhoff today and he was telling me that Jimbo Fisher was talking to him about how frustrating it was for him looking at a school like Alabama because they have such a larger staff than EVERYONE else in college football. Sure, they have the same amount of "coaching staff" as everyone else...but if you look at the bama athletics staff page, they have 9 people listed as "Football Analysts." These 9 guys are not counted toward the football coaching staff numbers. Basically Jimbo was saying that Bama is 2 days ahead of all the other teams in terms of having game film broken down and developing a game plan. While the "Coaching Staff" is working with the players on Texas A&M these Football Analysts are already breaking down game film on LSU and developing a game plan. One of these Analysts makes over $300k, which is more than we pay most of our assistants. Here we are with our student athletes and then Bama has an NFL farm team....

 

[4shotB]

I think it hits it right on the head- I live in Tallahassee and ran into Gene Deckerhoff today and he was telling me that Jimbo Fisher was talking to him about how frustrating it was for him looking at a school like Alabama because they have such a larger staff than EVERYONE else in college football. Sure, they have the same amount of "coaching staff" as everyone else...but if you look at the bama athletics staff page, they have 9 people listed as "Football Analysts." These 9 guys are not counted toward the football coaching staff numbers. Basically Jimbo was saying that Bama is 2 days ahead of all the other teams in terms of having game film broken down and developing a game plan. While the "Coaching Staff" is working with the players on Texas A&M these Football Analysts are already breaking down game film on LSU and developing a game plan. One of these Analysts makes over $300k, which is more than we pay most of our assistants. Here we are with our student athletes and then Bama has an NFL farm team....

this is a very interesting hypothesis....what is the return of investing "X" dollars in the program. If Bama spends an additional 20% (hypothetical) more than school A, what is their ROI? Does that 20% net an additional 10% in profit? Is it breakeven? or does the extra spend generate enough to justify the risk and reward...i.e. does it more than pay for itself? Is Bama (over the long haul) smarter and more business savvy than the folks running FSU's athletic department (and everyone else)? Or dumber?

 

[AE 87]

I think we should just invite Bill Curry, George O'Leary, and Friedgen to break down film for us a weak in advance. Let them Adobe Connect or skype with each other and put together a video briefing our coaches can watch on Sundays. Fun for them Good for us.

 

[YlJacket]

this is a very interesting hypothesis....what is the return of investing "X" dollars in the program. If Bama spends an additional 20% (hypothetical) more than school A, what is their ROI? Does that 20% net an additional 10% in profit? Is it breakeven? or does the extra spend generate enough to justify the risk and reward...i.e. does it more than pay for itself? Is Bama (over the long haul) smarter and more business savvy than the folks running FSU's athletic department (and everyone else)? Or dumber?

The answer to that is a long discussion with lots of assumptions and recognition that FB is the front porch for Alabama and recognition of how that pumps money into the University as a whole. But the short answer goes to student recruitment into Alabama and especially out of state students who generate more than enough revenue to justify the money spent on FB. Especially when the locals are paying more than enough into the AA to cover the $300K for the film analyst. On its own Alabama is a sleepy second rate southern university. The football team gets out of state students to apply who would never have heard of them otherwise. And gets other activity around the university that it has no chance of generating on its own.

 

[4shotB]

The answer to that is a long discussion with lots of assumptions and recognition that FB is the front porch for Alabama and recognition of how that pumps money into the University as a whole. But the short answer goes to student recruitment into Alabama and especially out of state students who generate more than enough revenue to justify the money spent on FB.

so, if the money is justifiable, why doesn't everybody do what Bama does? I understand there may be a point of diminishing returns but it sounds like a simple business case analysis to me. If I invest X $ then I can generate "X+" $. Requires some raising of capital but it seems rather elementary. Obviously I am overlooking something.

 

[MWBATL]

The real question in my mind is whether this is becoming a zero sum game now. In other words, is there a limited amount of revenue available out there and the various schools are competing for the same pie? Up until now, I think many thought the revenue could go up and up and up as more content was made available to TV networks.

If we have reached the limit, the competition might become even more intense for the limited pie. I shudder to think what that environment might look like...