RIP College Football

#51
#51
Forget it. You're now just simply asserting that the "top is getting smaller" and not really providing any backup. There have always been a handful of dominant programs than run the sport, and I've tried to show that via some statistics, but you just will never buy it. At the moment, we are seeing programs like Alabama, Ohio St, and Oklahoma, who have had periods of extreme dominance in the past, have yet another period of extreme dominance. It isn't unprecedented.

There have been big differences between the haves and have nots that have always existed. Back in the day those differences were caused more by things like stadium size (huge stadium = more money) or the size of the university (large university = bigger alumni base of support). Differences in TV revenue have always existed as long as the games have been broadcast on TV; again, not a recent phenomenon. Some schools would have TV revenue of zero, because none of the games were on TV, and some schools like Michigan would have multiple nationally televised games per year. It was a big differentiator then, it is a big differentiator today. You're looking at the recent proliferation of the conference TV networks and thinking it's something totally different. It isn't. Used to be that there were some schools that had zero TV revenue and some schools that had some...today some schools have some and some schools have a lot.

In the really early days of the sport, when independence was the norm and the conferences were this newfangled idea, if you got left out of a conference you got left in the dust. Except Notre Dame. I mean think about it...all of the big programs in a particular geographic area organized themselves into a club and kept all the money for themselves. This was occurring as early as the 1910s. A bunch of those schools who were left out of the initial founding of the conferences ended up de-emphasizing varsity sports and eventually became DII and DIII schools (even some small schools that got in the conferences eventually left them). Today's superconferences are just a continuation of that.

This is all short-sighted. The sport is changing in dramatic and significant ways. Hell - the QB for Alabama is making a Million $ and Saban is openly recruiting on that.

Not providing backup its getting smaller? Are you serious? Forget the conference...TCU and Texas Tech may not be in the same league at OK in the near future.

Let me say it really clear: Dominance by the top teams is not new. The level at which they are currently consolidating that dominance is. I will happily eat crow if it happens, but I don't see FSU or Miami or Michigan ever attaining the level that Bama, OSU and OK have right now. That would have been unheard of even 20 years ago.
 
#52
#52
This is all short-sighted. The sport is changing in dramatic and significant ways. Hell - the QB for Alabama is making a Million $ and Saban is openly recruiting on that.

Not providing backup its getting smaller? Are you serious? Forget the conference...TCU and Texas Tech may not be in the same league at OK in the near future.

Let me say it really clear: Dominance by the top teams is not new. The level at which they are currently consolidating that dominance is. I will happily eat crow if it happens, but I don't see FSU or Miami or Michigan ever attaining the level that Bama, OSU and OK have right now. That would have been unheard of even 20 years ago.
FSU, Miami, and Michigan have never had the level that Alabama, Ohio St, and Oklahoma have had...ever. They've never had it throughout history, so if they never got it in the future it would not be the most surprising thing.

Alabama's QB making $1m in deals is a new way they have an advantage. But they've always had an advantage of some sort. This is just the latest manifestation of it.
 
#53
#53
FSU, Miami, and Michigan have never had the level that Alabama, Ohio St, and Oklahoma have had...ever. They've never had it throughout history, so if they never got it in the future it would not be the most surprising thing.

Alabama's QB making $1m in deals is a new way they have an advantage. But they've always had an advantage of some sort. This is just the latest manifestation of it.

What are you talking about? You went on and on about FSU winning their conference more than Alabama and what not? These are teams that had national championship, conference dominating runs.

Let me ask you this, what teams other than Alabama, OK, and OSU have ever had this current level of domination in both wins and sustained years that currently aren’t?

USC? Nebraska? ND?

They aren’t winning any championships either unless ND lucks into one because they can actually get into the playoffs.
 
#54
#54
What is your problem, friend? Does it make you feel good to literally insult some random poster on a message board over a minor quibble of details? I didn’t know that I needed to qualify my statements so precisely to fit what you feel I should have said. Get over yourself.

The clueless one is the fool who attacks someone for no reason.

You can keep your low view of UT football. I, however, shall keep the view that UT football is still a historical power in a down slump.

Don't say dumb things and then you won't get called out for it.
 
#55
#55
Don't say dumb things and then you won't get called out for it.

Didn’t say anything dumb. What I said was 100% true. You are the one who quibbled about profit-margin. Again, I simply made a quick comment about the nature of our program and was not giving some expert financial analysis.

If someone simply says something like “I make 100k a year,” it’s clear they are talking about the amount they bring in and not their net amount left after bills & debts.

Now, what you said IS true in that, even though we do indeed make $100+ million a year, we presently have so many debts and operating costs that we are not seeing much profit from it, at current.

However, this low profit is due to all of our coaching severance packages. With the addition of Texas & OU and the additional revenue generated by the new TV deal that will follow, we should climb out of that relatively quickly, especially if we can see some better success on the field the next few years.

We are paying for our recent bad hires, but the athletic program was doing moderately well in years not susceptible to contract buy-outs. Just a few years ago, we were operating at a decent profit margin. Heck, in 2015, we were the 3rd-most profitable program in the nation.

“Tennessee’s surplus pales in comparison recent years. Tennessee operated at a $10.8 million surplus in the 2017 fiscal year after a $12.4 million surplus in 2016 and $13.2 million surplus in 2015.”

“Tennessee football is the department’s cash cow, generating $96.1 million in revenue compared to $52.7 million in expenses.”

Source:Tennessee athletics: UT Vols operate at $790K surplus

Source:Texas, Notre Dame, Tennessee Top Forbes' Most Valuable College Football Teams

Source: College Football's Most Valuable Teams 2015

However, the point still remains that we are a historical power with millions of fans, we fill a 100,000-seat stadium, and we generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.
 
#56
#56
What are you talking about? You went on and on about FSU winning their conference more than Alabama and what not? These are teams that had national championship, conference dominating runs.

Let me ask you this, what teams other than Alabama, OK, and OSU have ever had this current level of domination in both wins and sustained years that currently aren’t?

USC? Nebraska? ND?

They aren’t winning any championships either unless ND lucks into one because they can actually get into the playoffs.
Fair point, FSU was that dominant. But Miami and Michigan never have been. I wouldn’t expect Miami and Michigan (esp Miami) to ever be at the level Alabama/Ohio St/Oklahoma are at currently.

Schools that have been there before, like FSU and USC, could return to it. Of course FSU has Clemson to contend with now so it’ll be harder for them. It’s actually wide open for USC now, but they can’t get out of their own way.
 
#57
#57
Fair point, FSU was that dominant. But Miami and Michigan never have been. I wouldn’t expect Miami and Michigan (esp Miami) to ever be at the level Alabama/Ohio St/Oklahoma are at currently.

Schools that have been there before, like FSU and USC, could return to it. Of course FSU has Clemson to contend with now so it’ll be harder for them. It’s actually wide open for USC now, but they can’t get out of their own way.
Actually, I would say Miami was that dominant for around a 20 year period. They had 5 natl titles with 4 different coaches, and I don’t know how many conference titles, and several years they played for a title if they had won the bowl. I would say from early 80s till 2002-4 was about as dominant a run as ever in college football, at least until Bamas current run. Might be more so since it was so many coaches. But I doubt they’ll ever get that level of dominance again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoVols15
#58
#58
Actually, I would say Miami was that dominant for around a 20 year period. They had 5 natl titles with 4 different coaches, and I don’t know how many conference titles, and several years they played for a title if they had won the bowl. I would say from early 80s till 2002-4 was about as dominant a run as ever in college football, at least until Bamas current run. Might be more so since it was so many coaches. But I doubt they’ll ever get that level of dominance again.
I didn't include Miami in the same category as those others because they are a small private school where the academic side of the house does not think much or care much about athletics. Their success in the 80s and early 2000s, as impressive as it was, was almost like an aberration. As an institution, they weren't even necessarily trying to have it. It will be very hard for them to run with the big dogs if, as an institution, they aren't really committed to.
 

VN Store



Back
Top