|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 24, 2018 8:20:00 GMT -6
Yes, that is the question Sherman. If the schools can't draw fans and sell games, the rational response is that they have to show the "good will" produced is worth it.
When you can't be sure about it, the easy course for a University President is to just let it ride until the pain is just too great. They don't want to be the one who ends it, because that same uncertainty all means you can't show it is without value, and means what is certain is that those who love football will react and there will be uproar.
We need much more talk about that. Even though I love MAC football, I have to ask that question.
Another question nobody talks about is if the current structure has other value and adds value to the world of college football, nonetheless there clearly is trouble. Why won't someone subsidize the effort to keep the marginal schools in the game so to speak? Up to down the big FBS schools are doing some of that, but the NFL is AWOL although arguably they have the resources and the league now gets subsidized player development not to mention generation of fan interest for their enterprise.
A third question is whether there is a low cost option, say reorganizing college football (absent those who can afford the current version) by size of institution and everybody play a great game at something more like the affordable D2 or D3 level of the game. I don't see much gain moving down one notch in the current structure, although that seems to be what will ultimately happen.
Yes, I know any downsize means we would no longer play the occasional game against ND or Mich.
But we would have MAC football. As it is now the only test of that low cost route is the small school D3 game. All of college football was once like that game, the conference games are good and their tournament does get some TV and national attention. All that is fun for fans, players love it. Quality? Hey, the Wabash Depauw game is worth going to, surely I'd miss a typical MAC game to see it, especially on the MAC on Thursday night.
|
|
|
Post by grass on Oct 24, 2018 8:55:54 GMT -6
Agree ... subsidizing is bad. How much are public colleges in Indiana subsidized? I’m asking because I don’t know (and I do not live in IN).
There is indirect revenue / marketing for BSU when our FBS football program is on TV (outside of the ESPN contract).
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 24, 2018 9:09:17 GMT -6
Agree ... subsidizing is bad. How much are public colleges in Indiana subsidized? I’m asking because I don’t know (and I do not live in IN). There is indirect revenue / marketing for BSU when our FBS football program is on TV (outside of the ESPN contract). Direct state funding does not go to athletics. However many facilities including Worthen are funded by the state indirectly by giving bonding authority for construction and in maintenance of those facilities, for example recreational use of grounds and buildings.
BUT. Probably the 10 million figure Sherman mentions refers to student fees which do make up a very large part of the athletic budget. That does allow the free tickets for students.
BUT. Given how relatively few students go to the games, and how the benefits to the current students from future donations from alumni and publicity for programs is hard to calculate there is a mismatch there. It is present expenditure by students for future benefit which arguably they do not enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 24, 2018 9:35:53 GMT -6
It's certainly true that pro sports teams are subsidized by the govt. Often if city A refuses a certain level of subsidy, a pro team will threaten to move to city B that will meet that level. And sometimes they actually carry out that threat. Is this all working to the public good in either city? You could certainly make a case that it doesn't.
Subsidizing the education of young people is something that is quite a bit easier to defend as being in the public interest. But how much money and how to spend it? A great deal of debate can (and does) occur around that.
How does any of this bear on the student/taxpayer subsidy keeping MAC football afloat? It doesn't, of course. It's just a common change-the-subject tactic whenever MAC football supporters are called out on the subsidy that keeps their favored pastime going. The benefit is ridiculously small compared to the cost from any rational angle you look at it. For example, students and taxpayers have to cover a loss that calculates out to approximately $135 per person that actually shows up for a BSU home game. Or what could a competent marketing group do with $5-10 million a year to target prospective students student employers or donors? For comparison the whole "We Fly" marketing campaign cost $900K (not saying I like it).
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 24, 2018 9:46:28 GMT -6
I vote for shutting down the teachers college and dumping all that money into football... Home schooling for the win
|
|
|
Post by grass on Oct 24, 2018 10:39:17 GMT -6
“It's just a common change-the-subject tactic whenever MAC football supporters are called out on the subsidy that keeps their favored pastime going.”
I disagree with how many subsidies are handled (local, state, and federal). However, I believe any subsidies required for MAC football are worth it. And I would argue that the millions of viewers in November that catch the mid-week games, believe it’s worth it as well. On a side, I miss Saturday football games in November.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Oct 24, 2018 10:55:19 GMT -6
How does any of this bear on the student/taxpayer subsidy keeping MAC football afloat?
It's a different ox of the same herd. Taxpayer money funds both, money that could possibly be better spent elsewhere. Which is worse, spending a few million for college football, or tens of millions to billionaire owners for pro football/basketball? Depends on whose ox is getting gored. Neither can be logically or economically defended, yet it still happens, because we all have our ego trips. Whether it's a Ball State fan that takes pride in having a FBS team, or a Colts/Pacers fan that takes pride in having a regional professional team to root for, it's all fluff, and emotion-based. So bash away as much as you like. Just remember that your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 24, 2018 10:55:50 GMT -6
“It's just a common change-the-subject tactic whenever MAC football supporters are called out on the subsidy that keeps their favored pastime going.” I disagree with how many subsidies are handled (local, state, and federal). However, I believe any subsidies required for MAC football are worth it. And I would argue that the millions of viewers in November that catch the mid-week games, believe it’s worth it as well. On a side, I miss Saturday football games in November. The freeloading viewers who get mid week football don't pay the subsidy though. If they did, and that TV contract paid the bills, we wouldn't have so much discussion. Although we'd still have the alumni and fans who love Saturday games who might still have a gripe. Not that they buy enough tickets to support the program.
I know you think it is worth it but it is very hard to quantify and identify where the gain comes on that large subsidy.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Oct 24, 2018 11:43:27 GMT -6
I disagree with how many subsidies are handled (local, state, and federal). However, I believe any subsidies required for MAC football are worth it.
Everybody thinks their own subsidies are worth it. The problem is the government has to steal that money from someone. And stealing is wrong.
What you (and anyone else supporting government subsidies) is saying is "I think that these individuals (the taxpayers) should be coerced and locked in a small cage if they don't pay for what I want."
I don't think that kind of behavior has any place in a free society. If people actually wanted whatever the item is they would pay for it willingly. You're putting your personal opinion that it's "worth it" over the millions of people who say it's not worth it by not spending any money to get it.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 24, 2018 12:04:57 GMT -6
I disagree with how many subsidies are handled (local, state, and federal). However, I believe any subsidies required for MAC football are worth it. If people actually wanted whatever the item is they would pay for it willingly. You're putting your personal opinion that it's "worth it" over the millions of people who say it's not worth it by not spending any money to get it.
The second sentence is true enough. But you are not quite out of the woods based on that.
The first part plainly is not true. Scarcity is reality.
In the case of expensive health care generally or in other more limited cases even something like potable water in Puerto Rico after the storms, there are many relatively expensive items someone may not only want, but also NEED. Yet be unable to pay for it.
The hell of it is that it may even be better for a large number of other people that they have it. Those others might well voluntarily subsidize the item it is true, but in a world where information is expensive they don't have a way to do that.
We don't have market mechanisms for that genuine need on the part of the individual or the rest of the people who might voluntarily subsidize it.
What human beings have developed is a fallible mechanism of law and government that does and can try (fallibly) to offset some market inefficiencies but also recognize we are social beings who as a society care about others. It is who we are. True it means we are NOT completely free as a result. Free of these inborn and natural virtues of caring about the welfare of others. I am comfortable with that, as long as we try to make government work and balance the virtues that come from self reliance and individual freedom. It's hard, I agree. But impossible to dismantle the society we live in which has worked this out. Well impossible to do without great cost.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 24, 2018 12:13:54 GMT -6
One thing that never is mentioned in all of this is a typical weekend crowd for a football game at Ball State has been around 12-15000.. Now we know thats not all payed so lets assume the number is more like 10,000...When was the last time basketball did this?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 24, 2018 12:23:51 GMT -6
One thing that never is mentioned in all of this is a typical weekend crowd for a football game at Ball State has been around 12-15000.. Now we know thats not all payed so lets assume the number is more like 10,000...When was the last time basketball did this? Hold on now. Typical? What about total. How MANY games? In basketball we have more dates. And, WHAT PRICE is actually paid per ticket? What is the value of TV revenue generated by the Program? That is total revenue.
But more important. What is the COST of the show?
And the bottom line deficit resulting is devastating.
And longer term what is possible with the two programs on these counts?
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 24, 2018 12:32:00 GMT -6
Ball State basketball used to be a defensible expenditure based on its potential to provide various benefits and an income that justified its cost. However, this was always based the assumption that decision makers at BSU could effectively manage the program....the key being to put the right coach(es) in charge. This assumption seemed to me to be plausible, since we were able to find three coaches of the necessary caliber in a row back in the 80's/90's. As the years have passed, I've changed my mind based on the accumulating evidence. I was wrong. The BSU decision makers are NOT able to effectively manage the basketball program and therefore it is also a waste of money. Just a fraction of what football is, but still a waste. I've posted on this a few times, but people here seem to think I still support the expenditure on basketball.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Oct 24, 2018 12:46:50 GMT -6
I greatly enjoy Cardinal football. I really enjoy the big games. And have attended many. But, I greatly enjoyed Ball State football when we traveled to the Butler Bowl to play the Bulldogs, or Indiana State, etc. Talk about playing Power Five schools, Power Five schools are playing FCS teams like Indiana State and others. If the MAC and other Group of Five dropped into a new division, the Power Five would have to play us to complete their schedules. Also, as a 40+ year season ticket holder, I am tired of weekday games. Better now that I finally retired. I would attend Ball State football regardless of what level they played.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Oct 24, 2018 12:50:19 GMT -6
Ball State basketball used to be a defensible expenditure based on its potential to provide various benefits and an income that justified its cost. However, this was always based the assumption that decision makers at BSU could effectively manage the program....the key being to put the right coach(es) in charge. This assumption seemed to me to be plausible, since we were able to find three coaches of the necessary caliber in a row back in the 80's/90's. As the years have passed, I've changed my mind based on the accumulating evidence. I was wrong. The BSU decision makers are NOT able to effectively manage the basketball program and therefore it is also a waste of money. Just a fraction of what football is, but still a waste. I've posted on this a few times, but people here seem to think I still support the expenditure on basketball. I have to agree on this point. Win games, get decent attendance of 6,500 - 8,500 and that helps pay for a coach and program. However, someone has to be willing to take that first leap.
|
|