|
Post by tomclen on Oct 21, 2014 18:08:24 GMT -5
"Non-revenue generating" is a somewhat common deliberately misused term that is designed to mislead. As in, "Oh, thanks to that nasty Title 9 stuff we have to rely on the football revenue to support the volleyball team."
Are colleges and universities supposed to be making a profit with sports? Is that what higher education is all about.
Some AD's and college presidents who have allowed their football coaches to wag the dog come up with creative language to protect their greed and power.
Calling a sport that generates thousands of dollars in revenue a non-revenue sport is, indeed, butchering the language.
Take one middle-of-the road match at UW. $9 tickets x 2,000 fans is $18,000 in revenue. That doesn't count parking ($9) and overpriced popcorn and hotdogs. And then there are the advertisements they sell on the big screen and on the reader boards. The team store is always open, selling $25 t-shirts; $50 volleyballs with logos and $185 coats. What cut of the Pac-12 Network $228,000,000 distributed to 12 schools would you assign to volleyball? That's $19,000,000 per school. If volleyball gets only 1-million or $500,000 of that do you call that 'non-revenue."
If universities are spending so much money on coaches salaries and staffs and equipment and facilities that they are losing money, that's a management problem. Or a greed problem. Or both.
What it's not, however, is 'non-revenue.'
|
|
|
Post by tempesthorn on Oct 21, 2014 18:14:31 GMT -5
In answer to your question they have not really ever stacked a regional with a bunch of nearby schools. So your USC and UCLA point is ridiculous. Believe my examples are bad if you want, I could care less. But in a non-revenue producing sport, to believe that adjustments won't be made to try to get some sort of draw into three arenas is naive. Whether or not they've never stacked a regional with a bunch of nearby schools doesn't change the fact that in 2003 either USC or Pepperdine HAD to be in LBSU regional because the other 2 top seeds were hosting their own regional, so using Pepperdine going to LBSU to bolster the claim that the committee put them there because LBSU wasn't seeded is just wrong. It's not a question of whether I "believe" that some of your examples are bad. So either USC or Pepperdine had to stay in LA. Wouldn't it seem more fair that an overall #1 seed would get to stay closer to home?. Instead they got sent to Nebraska. You were the one preaching about fairness. That's not wrong on your part it's just incredibly stupid. There won't be fairness is my point and given they are in uncharted terriitory with the 3 unseeded regional hosts, I expect seeding adjustments that will try to draw ticket sales and lower travel costs. I could be wrong but your expectation of fairness is crazy talk.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 21, 2014 18:24:40 GMT -5
This sport is only seeded 1-16. That is the only attempt at "fairness" that the NCAA promises. That leaves some mightily unfair subregional brackets. And of course even the regional brackets aren't perfectly fair, but at least they seem to try.
|
|
|
Post by tempesthorn on Oct 21, 2014 18:29:06 GMT -5
"Non-revenue generating" is a somewhat common deliberately misused term that is designed to mislead. As in, "Oh, thanks to that nasty Title 9 stuff we have to rely on the football revenue to support the volleyball team." Are colleges and universities supposed to be making a profit with sports? Is that what higher education is all about. Some AD's and college presidents who have allowed their football coaches to wag the dog come up with creative language to protect their greed and power. Calling a sport that generates thousands of dollars in revenue a non-revenue sport is, indeed, butchering the language. Take one middle-of-the road match at UW. $9 tickets x 2,000 fans is $18,000 in revenue. That doesn't count parking ($9) and overpriced popcorn and hotdogs. And then there are the advertisements they sell on the big screen and on the reader boards. The team store is always open, selling $25 t-shirts; $50 volleyballs with logos and $185 coats. What cut of the Pac-12 Network $228,000,000 distributed to 12 schools would you assign to volleyball? That's $19,000,000 per school. If volleyball gets only 1-million or $500,000 of that do you call that 'non-revenue." If universities are spending so much money on coaches salaries and staffs and equipment and facilities that they are losing money, that's a management problem. Or a greed problem. Or both. What it's not, however, is 'non-revenue.' I'm sorry you had to do all that math. I would have totally acknowledged there's plenty of revenue at schools like UW, Nebraska, Hawaii, Texas and others. I think Nebraska and Hawaii actually are in the black. But those programs are the exception not the rule. You do realize the majority are generating next to nothing? It's cute how you think volleyball is owed those network monies in the power conferences. If football went away tomorrow those networks would fold right afterwards. Thanks for a good laugh.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 21, 2014 18:29:22 GMT -5
It would even be a significant increase in "fairness" if the took the step of making a pool of the next 16. Even if they didn't rank them, they should at least make sure that each subregional gets one and only one of the #17-32 teams. How hard would that be? Mostly they would still be able to assign them geographically anyway.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Oct 21, 2014 18:37:52 GMT -5
"Non-revenue generating" is a somewhat common deliberately misused term that is designed to mislead. As in, "Oh, thanks to that nasty Title 9 stuff we have to rely on the football revenue to support the volleyball team." Are colleges and universities supposed to be making a profit with sports? Is that what higher education is all about. Some AD's and college presidents who have allowed their football coaches to wag the dog come up with creative language to protect their greed and power. Calling a sport that generates thousands of dollars in revenue a non-revenue sport is, indeed, butchering the language. Take one middle-of-the road match at UW. $9 tickets x 2,000 fans is $18,000 in revenue. That doesn't count parking ($9) and overpriced popcorn and hotdogs. And then there are the advertisements they sell on the big screen and on the reader boards. The team store is always open, selling $25 t-shirts; $50 volleyballs with logos and $185 coats. What cut of the Pac-12 Network $228,000,000 distributed to 12 schools would you assign to volleyball? That's $19,000,000 per school. If volleyball gets only 1-million or $500,000 of that do you call that 'non-revenue." If universities are spending so much money on coaches salaries and staffs and equipment and facilities that they are losing money, that's a management problem. Or a greed problem. Or both. What it's not, however, is 'non-revenue.' I'm sorry you had to do all that math. I would have totally acknowledged there's plenty of revenue at schools like UW, Nebraska, Hawaii, Texas and others. I think Nebraska and Hawaii actually are in the black. But those programs are the exception not the rule. You do realize the majority are generating next to nothing? It's cute how you think volleyball is owed those network monies in the power conferences. If football went away tomorrow those networks would fold right afterwards. Thanks for a good laugh. Thanks. Always like making people laugh. The math is not too hard. $228,000,000 split among 12 schools..that, I can do without a calculator. If you want to assign it all to football, go for it. I would agree that the great bulk of it goes to football and basketball. But even 2% of $19,000,000 is what I like to call 'revenue.' And you refer to four schools with a lot of revenue. But they draw big crowds at Penn State. At Minnesota. Arizona just had over 4,000 for a Friday night match. Oregon had about 2,000 for a SUNDAY MORNING match. Colorado State seems to sell out. There are plenty more, all generating a lot of so-called 'non-revenue.'
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 21, 2014 18:51:48 GMT -5
Whether or not they've never stacked a regional with a bunch of nearby schools doesn't change the fact that in 2003 either USC or Pepperdine HAD to be in LBSU regional because the other 2 top seeds were hosting their own regional, so using Pepperdine going to LBSU to bolster the claim that the committee put them there because LBSU wasn't seeded is just wrong. It's not a question of whether I "believe" that some of your examples are bad. So either USC or Pepperdine had to stay in LA. Wouldn't it seem more fair that an overall #1 seed would get to stay closer to home?. Instead they got sent to Nebraska. You were the one preaching about fairness. That's not wrong on your part it's just incredibly stupid. There won't be fairness is my point and given they are in uncharted terriitory with the 3 unseeded regional hosts, I expect seeding adjustments that will try to draw ticket sales and lower travel costs. I could be wrong but your expectation of fairness is crazy talk. fair enough. I will agree that we are in some rare circumstances with 3 host sites that will probably be unseeded. One might not even make the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 21, 2014 18:55:29 GMT -5
It would even be a significant increase in "fairness" if the took the step of making a pool of the next 16. Even if they didn't rank them, they should at least make sure that each subregional gets one and only one of the #17-32 teams. How hard would that be? Mostly they would still be able to assign them geographically anyway. Completely agree. I don't think it's unreasonable to have at least 2 top 32 IN SOME RANKING/RATING team in every subregional *cough Penn State*. In response to the comments that will surely follow: *I know it's not PSU's fault at what bracket they are getting *If they would beat all those teams anyway why are you complaining that people want a more fair bracket?...one word, Temple.
|
|
|
Post by lionsfan on Oct 21, 2014 19:18:57 GMT -5
I have another word for you: Utah.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 21, 2014 19:24:53 GMT -5
I have another word for you: Utah. Which is the rare exception not the standard and you know this.
|
|
|
Post by lionsfan on Oct 21, 2014 19:34:32 GMT -5
I have another word for you: Utah. Which is the rare exception not the standard and you know this. And you know that was in 2013; yet you're complaining again about it. Was Colorado State in the Top 32 in 2005?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 21, 2014 20:13:38 GMT -5
Which is the rare exception not the standard and you know this. And you know that was in 2013; yet you're complaining again about it. Was Colorado State in the Top 32 in 2005? What Mike and I are suggesting is that all seeds have at least one opponent who is also in the top 32 in their subregional every year....we shouldn't have to point to a couple years out of many that PSU has had this, it should just be a given. You can still have regionalization by and large, just move a few teams around, that's all we are suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 21, 2014 21:19:52 GMT -5
It would even be a significant increase in "fairness" if the took the step of making a pool of the next 16. Even if they didn't rank them, they should at least make sure that each subregional gets one and only one of the #17-32 teams. How hard would that be? Mostly they would still be able to assign them geographically anyway. Another approach would be to identify the bottom 16 teams in the field and make sure that one and only one of them is placed in each subregional. This could be done geographically to the greatest extent possible. Then the teams in the middle of the field (#'s 17-48) could also be assigned geographically. This would also produce a significant increase in "fairness".
|
|
|
Post by tempesthorn on Oct 21, 2014 21:37:35 GMT -5
It would even be a significant increase in "fairness" if the took the step of making a pool of the next 16. Even if they didn't rank them, they should at least make sure that each subregional gets one and only one of the #17-32 teams. How hard would that be? Mostly they would still be able to assign them geographically anyway. 100% agree with this suggestion. It would improve the perceived fairness of the draw exponentially if they sent the closest 17-32 seed to a top 16 host site. I think the attendance for the second rounds would defray some travel.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 21, 2014 22:56:41 GMT -5
And you refer to four schools with a lot of revenue. But they draw big crowds at Penn State. At Minnesota. Arizona just had over 4,000 for a Friday night match. Oregon had about 2,000 for a SUNDAY MORNING match. Colorado State seems to sell out. There are plenty more, all generating a lot of so-called 'non-revenue.' Many of those 4,000 fans in Tucson were football fans they let in for free. I personally hope the sport doesn't grow in popularity too fast - it'll be harder to get good seats and those seats will cost more. Right now the GA ticket prices at UW are $7 for adults and $5 for seniors/youths (up from $6 and $4 last year), or $50 and $40 for a Husky Gold Card, that gets you a GA seat at any Husky sports event, except football and men's basketball (8 events and I break even). And those are great seats in Hec Ed (the softball stadium GA seats aren't so hot, however). Because the Pac-12 networks are composed of a national channel and six regional channels, there is a big need for live events. Note that many of the top conference football and men's basketball match-ups are on other networks (ESPN/2/U, ABC, etc.). In other words, when you're paying for the Pac-12 Networks, you're paying for the whole bundle - you can't just buy football and men's basketball.
|
|