Since when is women's lacrosse part of any mission?
Colleges ARE and have for years been eliminating the humanities et al.
Profit became a university mission decades ago, as government funding declined.
Last edited:
BREAKING: NCAA prez Charlie Baker to propose new FBS subdivision for direct compensation of players
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
Colleges ARE and have for years been eliminating the humanities et al.
Profit became a university mission decades ago, as government funding declined.
A professional league for the top 24, 48, or 64 college programs that can and want to commit the financial resources to a football-only league (leave remaining sports in conferences that make geographical and historical sense.
Major college football is less pure and more vulnerable to corruption than the NFL. It would require contracts, oversight, and penalties to keep a professional, college league honest.
So the only college sports that should exist are Power Five football (and Notre Dame) and a few dozen men's basketball teams. No baseball, softball, soccer, WBB, or lacrosse.
Southern Conference sports would cease to exist.
ESPN, FOX Sports, CBS Sports network, would all be reduced to showing pickleball and poker all winter and spring.
Great idea!
Yes, those ratings juggernauts...lacrosse and Southern Conference athletics!!! lol
I don't see any way around it. This proposed division is obviously a complete realignment of college football. Existing conferences would be eliminated.
Being in the SEC is our lone lifeline for college football. Take that away, and what are we?
As you stated, existing conferences would be eliminated. This plan is merely a proposal, but if a Tier 1 was comprised of 30 schools (bigger brands, NCAA wording not mine) then I don't believe we have those credentials.
That's heartbreaking.
If that came to pass, that would have to be considered an existential crises for USC athletics. And we probably could not have a more unqualified and worse AD to navigate USC through these treacherous waters. And I would also add that if we had a more respected and accomplished Head Football coach, we would not be in this position. But then, look at athletic revenue (And Tanner is supposed to be some kind of great fund-raiser...smh.) We lag Clemson and Florida State, 2 ACC schools in athletic revenue.. Maybe sports is just not that important to South Carolina.
That's heartbreaking.
If that came to pass, that would have to be considered an existential crises for USC athletics. And we probably could not have a more unqualified and worse AD to navigate USC through these treacherous waters. And I would also add that if we had a more respected and accomplished Head Football coach, we would not be in this position. But then, look at athletic revenue (And Tanner is supposed to be some kind of great fund-raiser...smh.) We lag Clemson and Florida State, 2 ACC schools in athletic revenue.. Maybe sports is just not that important to South Carolina.
Here's the thing. Take away our revenue that comes from SEC revenue distribution and what merits us being in the new FBS division?
I don't fault Tanner too much for our revenue. We simply don't have many deep-pocketed donors. You can nickel and dime the working Joe fan, but that's only get you so much.
I'm to conclude from that then Clemson has many more deep-pocked donors even though they have a smaller alumni base.
I don’t know if that’s the case. Typically more people are inclined to give more when you’re competing for NCs. Not the case when you’re scrapping to get to a bowl. Their contributions skyrocketed after the 2015 season.
Good point. It then becomes imperative that Beamer turn around the football fortunes NEXT season, tough schedule or not. It's his 4th season. Most of the players here will be HIS recruits. No excuses.
I'm on record as saying that Beamer overachieved here in his first 2 seasons. This season was a disappointment. I am not a constant negative poster. I just call them as I see them. It's the same way in mens basketball, as you know. I have constantly praised Paris, even though he was nowhere near my first choice. As I stated earlier today, I'm even more sure, today, that the mens bb program is in good hands than at any time since Lamont was hired. I hope to say the same thing soon about the football program. But, Shane needs to get rid of some weak links on the staff and replace them with quality hires. I hope he does.
Wait I thought Ray Tanner's thing was that he could bring in the big dollars. You mean to tell me we aren't even average at doing so? What the...!It's other places as well
Which are the richest and poorest SEC football programs? (And where do Texas and Oklahoma fit in?) | Jones
On Thursday, we showed you Big Ten football revenue figures from the U.S. Department of Education's annual Equity in Athletics data dump. Now it's time for the Southeastern Conference. And you will see how much more fiscally impressive the SEC's new additions are than USC and UCLA.www.pennlive.com
Georgia and Texas generate almost 100 mil more than Carolina.A little surprised Ole Miss outgained Carolina.
USA Today puts out a comprehensive ranking each year. I put more stock into this than some Penn St publication. But it has Ole Miss behind us.
NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY
Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.
sports.usatoday.com
We can put our heads in the sand and make excuses, but it's hard to deny that Ray Tanner, as AD, has been an epoch disappointment. And yet the dishonorables on our BOT extended his contract. smh And I noted that comment about the expenditures in our women's basketball program. Evidently wbb is a big priority at our beloved university. You get what you pay for, I suppose. If it was up to me, I'd spend less on women's basketball to shift that money to football. But, that's me.
Why would any fanbase would want to get in a bidding war with other fanbases to pay for a team? Until they find a way to level the playing field financially (or at least create the illusion thereof), college football is now a completely rigged "competition."
I mean you take the TV money from conferences from all teams. Where would most of them be? We're not alone in this. Most revenue comes from the conference that the school is in...