Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Interesting piece in the Athletic this week
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Limey Frog" data-source="post: 3094039" data-attributes="member: 16969"><p>Interesting piece on the future of college football. It's only one AD's quotes, and the source is anonymous. But anyone who is paying attention must see that some version of this is where it's all heading.</p><p></p><p>Posted for your consideration and discussion, in case y'all want to talk about anything other than our next coach: <a href="https://theathletic.com/2952855/2021/11/16/moving-the-goal-posts-ad-predicts-a-pay-to-play-future-for-big-time-college-football-with-classes-optional/?article_source=search&search_query=anonymous%20p5" target="_blank">link</a></p><p></p><p>Here's the most interesting excerpt:</p><p></p><p><em><strong>“In 10 years, I think football programs will be buying the brands from our universities and renting the facilities.”</strong></em></p><p></p><p>An interesting take, because it would signal a contractual divorce between the football programs and their schools.</p><p></p><p>The team I spend most of my time covering, Florida, makes for a solid case study. It has an 88,548-seat on-campus stadium and an $85 million training facility scheduled to open next summer. According to the anonymous AD’s forecast, the football Gators would split off into a new corporation that leases Ben Hill Griffin Stadium for home games, scrimmages and walk-throughs, and the training facility presumably year-round.</p><p></p><p>The football program would purchase licensing rights for logos and trademarks (non-revenue sports would remain under the current athletics department). What might seem like merely a paper transaction could bring real-world repercussions: By becoming its own entity, football would have no compulsion to fund other sports. The university — presuming it wants to continue fielding teams in baseball, soccer, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, etc. — would have to recoup tens of millions through negotiating license and lease fees to do so. Otherwise, the university would need to dip into its own coffers or mandate student-activity fees.</p><p></p><p>The male-female balance of scholarships required under Title IX also would be impacted if 85 football scholarships were deducted from the equation.</p><p></p><p>----</p><p></p><p>FWIW, this general idea is what I was driving at in my not-very-well-received (and, I admit, poorly/provocatively constructed) comment about non-revenue [women's] sports last week. Most football revenue is going to move out of the legal space in which it can be subject to the regulatory authority of federal education law. Other than whatever slice of it football programs pay back to the universities as royalties (plus indirect income from gameday spending on campus), the cash streams that have funded every program other than football and men's basketball are going to dry up for those programs. Will fans/alumni/TV viewers pay and/or donate to sustain those programs? Will they do so below their current budget level? Will they do so at all? Will students pay extra tuition if a chunk of it is going to support men's track or women's equestrian? Maybe so. I don't care if they do; that would be fine. I like soccer and I'd be happy to see people support it at the collegiate level if that's what people want. If I had to place a bet on what will happen, I'd push all of my chips out on "they sure won't".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Limey Frog, post: 3094039, member: 16969"] Interesting piece on the future of college football. It's only one AD's quotes, and the source is anonymous. But anyone who is paying attention must see that some version of this is where it's all heading. Posted for your consideration and discussion, in case y'all want to talk about anything other than our next coach: [URL='https://theathletic.com/2952855/2021/11/16/moving-the-goal-posts-ad-predicts-a-pay-to-play-future-for-big-time-college-football-with-classes-optional/?article_source=search&search_query=anonymous%20p5']link[/URL] Here's the most interesting excerpt: [I][B]“In 10 years, I think football programs will be buying the brands from our universities and renting the facilities.”[/B][/I] An interesting take, because it would signal a contractual divorce between the football programs and their schools. The team I spend most of my time covering, Florida, makes for a solid case study. It has an 88,548-seat on-campus stadium and an $85 million training facility scheduled to open next summer. According to the anonymous AD’s forecast, the football Gators would split off into a new corporation that leases Ben Hill Griffin Stadium for home games, scrimmages and walk-throughs, and the training facility presumably year-round. The football program would purchase licensing rights for logos and trademarks (non-revenue sports would remain under the current athletics department). What might seem like merely a paper transaction could bring real-world repercussions: By becoming its own entity, football would have no compulsion to fund other sports. The university — presuming it wants to continue fielding teams in baseball, soccer, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, etc. — would have to recoup tens of millions through negotiating license and lease fees to do so. Otherwise, the university would need to dip into its own coffers or mandate student-activity fees. The male-female balance of scholarships required under Title IX also would be impacted if 85 football scholarships were deducted from the equation. ---- FWIW, this general idea is what I was driving at in my not-very-well-received (and, I admit, poorly/provocatively constructed) comment about non-revenue [women's] sports last week. Most football revenue is going to move out of the legal space in which it can be subject to the regulatory authority of federal education law. Other than whatever slice of it football programs pay back to the universities as royalties (plus indirect income from gameday spending on campus), the cash streams that have funded every program other than football and men's basketball are going to dry up for those programs. Will fans/alumni/TV viewers pay and/or donate to sustain those programs? Will they do so below their current budget level? Will they do so at all? Will students pay extra tuition if a chunk of it is going to support men's track or women's equestrian? Maybe so. I don't care if they do; that would be fine. I like soccer and I'd be happy to see people support it at the collegiate level if that's what people want. If I had to place a bet on what will happen, I'd push all of my chips out on "they sure won't". [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Interesting piece in the Athletic this week
Top