|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 1, 2024 13:22:53 GMT -6
Is the right move to drop football and dump all the money into bball? The university could drop a lot of womens sports also. Would we be competitive on the national level in bball? What if we're not? What conference would we move to? What do we do with the stadium and indoor practice field? Almost certainly we'll keep FB at some level. A MAC conference decision to become FCS is not in the cards short term. Longer term maybe. We're stuck in the MAC most likelyçf Much of this depends on what the reorganization of P4 will be, and what payout Playoff and conference TV will produce. That's several years away. Dropping FB would eliminate scholarships for men, and for women unless we added other sports, it would likely free up money for BB. Somewhat more money that way than keeping FB at FCS or some new lower level reorganization. Fewer scholarships As it is we can probably be a top MAC BB program, and respectable nationally in BB. No real reason to think we could find so much money to vault into top tier. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 1, 2024 13:27:39 GMT -6
You do realize that players wanting to play FB on scholarship is not the relevant demand. Demand which produces revenue to provide the expenses of a Program is the relevant demand, which means consumers willing to pay for MAC level FB which revenue is not keeping up with expenses. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 1, 2024 13:42:09 GMT -6
You do realize that players wanting to play FB on scholarship is not the relevant demand. Demand which produces revenue to provide the expenses of a Program is the relevant demand, which means consumers willing to pay for MAC level FB which revenue is not keeping up with expenses. Maybe the MAC is doing it on a charity basis? To help the NFL owners who are struggling to feed themselves and their families? |
|
|
|
Post by grass on Oct 1, 2024 14:32:17 GMT -6
You do realize that players wanting to play FB on scholarship is not the relevant demand. Demand which produces revenue to provide the expenses of a Program is the relevant demand, which means consumers willing to pay for MAC level FB which revenue is not keeping up with expenses. Maybe the MAC is doing it on a charity basis? To help the NFL owners who are struggling to feed themselves and their families? Yikes The vitriol …. Supply - athletes with desire + ability to make it to the next level. Demand - NFL’s demand to fill limited rosters with high quality athletes who have the desire + ability. As history has proven, over and over again, the MAC, and other G5’s, are in demand. The portal will, in time, improve Gs, as many of the Ps who need development or playing time, fill the Gs. To achieve the ability, kids at P&G’s must have the developmental level of play to make it to/in the NFL. Kids learn and develop at different speeds. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 1, 2024 14:39:41 GMT -6
Did you drop out of Econ 101 before the first class ended?
Demand is an economic concept that relates to a consumer's desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a specific price for them.
Get the picture?
|
|
|
|
Post by grass on Oct 1, 2024 14:53:17 GMT -6
Did you drop out of Econ 101 before the first class ended? Demand is an economic concept that relates to a consumer's desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a specific price for them.Get the picture? Yeah. I get it - ya hate football. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 1, 2024 16:24:29 GMT -6
Did you drop out of Econ 101 before the first class ended? Demand is an economic concept that relates to a consumer's desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a specific price for them.Get the picture? Yeah. I get it - ya hate football. Sherm is not a BSU FB fan. True. He has a good question though. The fact FB players want BSU to have FB is also probably true, although you may over estimating the number who come here to have a chance for NFL careers. His question is why does BSU want MAC FBS status? Is there consumer demand for it? When those who have to pay for it are unwilling or unable to pay for esca to ating expense? How much subsidy is warranted? |
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Oct 1, 2024 16:31:58 GMT -6
I'll say it again. It's much better to be proactive than reactive.
BSU and other MAC schools could've dumped football and its annual spend of $15 million (plus constant facilities upgrades) many years ago when the writing was on the wall. Instead, BSU and its peer schools chose to to dig in their heels and chase a pipe dream.
The reality is that someday soon BSU and its peers will likely have no choice to either completely cut football or else reduce it to a fraction of its former self.
Reactive business decisions almost always mean you've wasted a ton of money and you're in financial trouble. This is not heading anywhere good, folks. Football has much too far reaching effect on athletic departments with Title IX matching requirements. It is not sustainable at our level.
|
|
|
|
Post by coastalcard on Oct 1, 2024 16:44:12 GMT -6
When all is said and done, we will replace a crappy coach with another crappy coach and go through two years of euphoric expectations as we blame the crappy record on the previous crappy coach until we finally come to the realization that our crappy team is because the new coach is also a crappy coach and will never reach the zenith of Clicking on all Fires
🔥Ball State Football🔥
|
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Oct 1, 2024 18:53:52 GMT -6
The demand for BSU football is so high that virtually none of the people who are forced to pay for it (students) show up to watch the games, even though it is otherwise free for them to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 1, 2024 19:14:32 GMT -6
Did you drop out of Econ 101 before the first class ended? Demand is an economic concept that relates to a consumer's desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a specific price for them.Get the picture? Yeah. I get it - ya hate football. Good choice to bail on the supply/demand argument. It was only going to get worse for you. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 1, 2024 19:20:02 GMT -6
The reality is that someday soon BSU and its peers will likely have no choice to either completely cut football or else reduce it to a fraction of its former self. WRONG. Ball State Athletics has the ability to dig into the pockets of 22,000 students to pay for football. Ball State does NOT have to cut or reduce football. There is a total refusal on this board to accept this. I'm not really sure why. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 1, 2024 19:43:50 GMT -6
The reality is that someday soon BSU and its peers will likely have no choice to either completely cut football or else reduce it to a fraction of its former self. WRONG. Ball State Athletics has the ability to dig into the pockets of 22,000 students to pay for football. There is a limit on student fees. Apart from student budget constraints, the state budget committee and ICHE do review decision by the BOT as they allocate our state funding, and already not all 22,000 pay fees. We're looking at escalating costs we won't be able to cover that way. |
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Oct 1, 2024 20:45:17 GMT -6
WRONG. Ball State Athletics has the ability to dig into the pockets of 22,000 students to pay for football. There is a limit on student fees. Apart from student budget constraints, the state budget committee and ICHE do review decision by the BOT as they allocate our state funding, and already not all 22,000 pay fees. We're looking at escalating costs we won't be able to cover that way. And yet those groups are government appointed/related, and many times people in those positions find ways to accommodate the wishes of those who have an excess of money (donors) at the expense of those who don't have a lot of money (students). So if there is a current limit on how many students are asked to pay and how much, I'm sure that can be adjusted in future decision-making. |
|
|
|
Post by grass on Oct 1, 2024 20:47:53 GMT -6
Yeah. I get it - ya hate football. Good choice to bail on the supply/demand argument. It was only going to get worse for you. Our supply/demand argument are on separate planes. Honestly, I totally get your argument. Many, many college students/parents/loans subsidize costs of athletics, academic programs, salaries, facilities, etc. Part of the ever-cost inflating collegiate experience. Colleges, like the government, are “non-for-profit”. I have child in an out of state, highly regarded private school - I am appalled at the cost of education. And, I have an MBA so, although I am not an expert at economics, I understand it. Removing the pricing variable, relationships between how much of a product or service is available (supply - kids) and how much people want or need that product or service (demand - NFL), is the plane I am focused on. I think it’s very advantageous for BSU to continue subsidizing athletics - and other important endeavors (although increasing inflated costs in any area drives me nuts). Football helps BSU’s brand, especially when we’re a successful football team. And yes, I am absolutely certain that the NFL needs G5 to help supply them with high quality talent (desire+ability) to meet their customer’s increasing demand. Good night, friend. |
|
