If, if, if, give me a break!!!Quit whining about something that isnt going to happen…How about that??? The P4 is set and all the power conferences got what they want. That isnt going to change. WHY should it? There IS no P2…Who cares if SEC and BIG make more money? Big 12 and ACC do perfectly fine and are part of the football championship playoff. They have their chances, we have ours…
3 Likes
To me this is the route to take.
What people need to realize is, the rest of us are subsidizing this scam through our tax dollars.
I will repeat what I have said here for over two years: Congress must get involved or else there will not be any college sports. The P2 will eventually die off to because of this.
The worst part is that media dollars eventually make their way to improving academic facilities. If we allow like 36 schools to make all of the athletics media money, then you’re also taking away that route for the other schools to improve their academics. I know it’s not a big piece of the pie, but it is gate keeping.
2 Likes
Yep. This is part of the subsidy.
Don’t forget that all of this income is tax exempt. It’s a joke.
Do they? Most schools don’t turn a profit on sports–unless things have changed quite a bit. The ones that do are the ones most of us would have guessed.
I’ve found a couple of things:
This guy says he found 18 of 229 Div. I schools make a profit.
This data from ESPN looks like it could be helpful, and it’s more recent, but I’m not entirely sure how to read it–anybody know what this “Total Allocated” column means?
Thanks for providing that. I didn’t think it was a ton, but didn’t realize it was barely any making a profit. I will say that successful athletics increases alum involvement and donations. Not just one way to make money from athletics.
I know of anti-trust actions in response to mergers. I’m asking if you know of any anti-trust cases related to a spin-out. A common anti-trust measure is to break up uncompetitive enterprises. In the situation discussed here, an enterprise would voluntarily break up into smaller pieces. I just find it difficult to believe that this could be anticompetitive behavior and that the remedy is to force the two entities to combine back into one. How can a single enterprise be more competitive than two competing enterprises?
I think the profitability aspect is less important than the marketing aspect of a successful athletics program.
Let’s be blunt, outside of a few top private colleges and Public Ivy schools (most of which are either in the BIG or ACC) most people only know what they know about a college based on that schools athletic program. It has been shown repeatedly that a successful athletics program is worth $M’s to a college; it increases applications, quality of students, alumni donations and eventually it will find its way to the classroom.
So losing access to that money would be a big hit for a lot of schools.
1 Like
The Clayton Act deals primarily with mergers and acquisitions.
The Sherman Act deals primarily with anti-competitive contracts, price fixing agreements, exclusive dealing, etc.
Suppose one large firm uses its leverage to tie up all the suppliers in the marketplace with exclusive contracts so that its competitors in the marketplace can’t get supplies, and can’t compete.
Arguably, a P2 breakaway that creates an exclusive TV contract that prevents any other schools or conferences from getting prime TV slots, making a competitive marketplace impossible, might be similar.
Or at least, that’s the case that I would try to make!
1 Like
What EastCoast said…
It is not money from athletics going directly into academics. Athletics is a marketing tool for a school in many cases. If used appropriately, it helps with national recognition for schools that play on the top stage.
How many high school students in Texas can name most colleges in Ohio or the schools in the University of California system outside of UCLA/Cal or Ohio State.
When my daughter was a senior, I encouraged her to apply to Indiana U, a solidly ranked Big 10 school. She said, “Dad, I’ve never even heard of Indiana.”
Is there any relevance in the $2.8bn college player settlement to UH? I really don’t know much on this subject.
Does UH have to pay some of those damages?
I don’t see how UH portion would be even close to the shares of the old P5 schools. It seems like the $2.8bn should be divided according to tv, merchandise, and attendance related revenues.
UT would pay 5 times as much as UH. There’s no way UH could have paid player salaries / NIL at the same level as UT.
Este.
97,
I think you nailed it.
Go Coogs beat Kansas and Toto !
Honestly. I am a glass half full person. I’ve been called a sunshine pumper many times on CoogFan. I’ve always described myself as half dreamer, half realist, and an energized introvert.
With all the turmoil in these times with politics, wars with powerful people throwing out the possible use of nuclear weapons, and the monetary craziness infecting the game of college football that I love, I still love and enjoy UH game days without wearing blinders.
My thought with this thread was to find what UH football could be with a separate P2. I’m kinda tired of waiting to get blind-sided yet again.
First I’m not certain that a separate P2 scenario is even possible.
Too many good non-associated P2 fans and good college football teams left behind in the country that aren’t going to accept that and just go away (even less likely to start watching college teams that dumped on them).
1 Like
I’m beginning to think we need a thread dedicated to the complete obsession with the goings on in the B1G and Sec, so as to clean up the board for B12 conference talk.
2 Likes
I think the billion dollar settlement is for 10 yrs then over. Confusing thing is I thought I read that colleges can pay up to 20mil a yr voluntarily so if anyone knows more chime in on what you think it really forces teams to do but I do know it ends in 10 yrs vs going on forever. The forever part might be some deal where they let schools pay what they want voluntarily up to a certain amount later on. Nil, transfers , pay of play and the 2 bil settlement are all confusing. Our new AD is supposed to do private fundraising to double the budget and pay for the settlement p4 teams owe.
Not confusing.
-
Settlement to past players for something like $2.8 billion is one event. (for past players)
-
Then starting next year, schools can pay up to $20 million or so (final numbers have not been revealed) per school to their athletes as school payments for play. (for current players)
-
NIL will continue as student athletes have a right to earn money from outside sources for appearances, autographs, etc… just like any other student could. NIL will continue in addition to the $20 million in salaries. (It is just currently being used as pay for play and not its intended purpose, don’t expect that to change) (for current players)
Relegation is the perfect model
1 Like
Isn’t that how things are even now? When OUT we’re in the Big 12, didn’t they get the best slots? We’re the networks being anti-competetive by giving the best Big 12 slots to OUT?
Also aren’t there a lot more networks now? If B1G/SEC were to go an exclusive sign a deal with every media company that would be an issue, but say they sign a deal with ESPN+Fox+CBS, how can the Big 12 and ACC claim they are being illegally left out when there are several other networks that don’t have exclusive deals with SEC/B1G?
I’m not sure how B1G/SEC signing media deals work 2-3 networks would be an anti-trust issue, when the media market is so much bigger? The SEC/B1G aren’t stopping the Big 12 and ACC from bringing their media rights to the market for bidding by other networks.
The whole anti-trust argument seems to assume that whatever networks bid for SEC/B1G media rights would have bid for Big 12/ACC media rights if only the SEC/B1G hadn’t formed their own league/division.
I am not a lawyer, but have worked on many deals where anti-trust issues had to be resolved, so have some knowledge of anti-trust, I think the anti-trust case isn’t as strong as some might think.
However, I should say we always had anti-trust expert lawyers advising us. We were told that any conversation regarding anti-trust should be held only via the lawyers!