Daily Archives: March 4, 2019

Riding off into the sunset

Welp, long-time GTP foil and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is hanging ’em up next year.

 

I’m just happy for Delany that he’s able to retire before being forced to take his conference Division III.

And how many Pac-12 presidents do you figure are on the phone to their Big Ten cohorts begging recommending they take Larry Scott off their hands to lead the Big Ten to even greater heights?

*************************************************************************

UPDATE:  For Dan Wetzel, playoff expansion hammer, Delany’s retirement is just another nail.

11 Comments

Filed under Big Ten Football

Everyone’s a winner.

Honestly, in reading this, I don’t know whether it says more about Willie Taggart or the NCAA.

Sheesh.

14 Comments

Filed under ACC Football, The NCAA

Still having trouble breaking through in Montana

Stewart Mandel, in today’s piece about ten spring football story lines he’s following ($$), doesn’t have a word to say about Georgia, but manages to bring up Justin Fields and Jacob Eason in the first two items on his list.

He’s not alone.  SI.com’s SEC spring preview is also silent about Georgia, other than listing the time of its spring game.

Hey, I’m not expecting wall-to-wall coverage of all things Dawgs, but it’s little weird to see the national media taking a top five preseason team expected to contend for an SEC title and a CFP semi-final slot almost for granted this early on.  Should I take that as a compliment?

20 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, Media Punditry/Foibles

When you can’t beat ‘Bama, it comes with the territory.

The ESPN spring football preview of Georgia is full of back-handed compliments, and this is easily my favorite:  “But on the whole, Georgia’s offensive line appears to be in pretty good shape.”  Nice of you to say so.

26 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, Media Punditry/Foibles

My advice is to start drinking heavily.

Believe it or not, proof exists that there are still some Georgia Tech fans who are normal human beings.

At least by the response to a highly unscientific survey, Georgia Tech fans are strongly in favor of the football team’s coming five-game series at Mercedes-Benz Stadium.

Fans were asked on Twitter and Facebook through AJC accounts to rate Tech’s agreement to play one game annually in the $1.6 billion stadium between 2020-24 – including Notre Dame in 2020 and 2024 and Clemson in 2022, with opponents to be determined in 2021 and 2023 – on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being most in favor.

Being able to purchase alcohol (only fans in premium seats can do that at Bobby Dodd Stadium) was another plus.  [Emphasis added.]

Good call.  If I were a rational person invited to watch Tech football over the next few seasons, a readily available supply of alcohol would be a must-have.  Whoever you lot are, you’ve earned yourselves an exemption from the Stingtalk-derived snark here at GTP.  Bottoms up!

14 Comments

Filed under Georgia Tech Football, I'll Drink To That

“Why would someone write that they’d prefer to stay on the plantation…?!?”

And here’s one last fisking of that poorly reasoned NYT op-ed about player compensation.  It’s a pretty brutal takedown.  An example:

The 30 largest universities in the country each routinely generate annual revenues exceeding $100 million from sports, but according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, most of those revenues are spent covering operating expenses for the school’s athletic programs and paying tuition for their student-athletes.  The majority of Division I colleges in the N.C.A.A. operate at a loss.  In fact, among the roughly 350 athletic departments in the N.C.A.A.’s Division I, only about 24 schools have generated more revenue than expenses in recent years.  The nation’s top five conferences made over $6 billion in 2015, billions more than all other schools combined, according to an ESPN analysis of N.C.A.A. data.

The NCAA always wants to look at athletic department budgets, instead of looking at the two revenue sports, football and men’s basketball, and it always wants to talk about Division I rather than the still largely segregated P5, which is where the real money is, and even then, only in these two sports, which are dominated by black players, who largely do not graduate according to publicly available information.

For instance, looking at the so-called national championship last month, here are the numbers for Clemson vs. Alabama:  Black male enrollment, 3.28% vs. 3.54%, black football grant-in-aid, 65.88% vs. 75.29%, adjusted revenue per FB GiA, $781,131.66 vs. $1,567,436.06, black FB federal graduation rate, 57% vs. 36%, white FB FGR, 83% vs. 100%.

Moreover, even if most D-I athletic departments operate in the red, why does that matter, when every undergraduate department other than athletics always runs in the red, since they don’t generate individual revenue?  [Emphasis added.]

The only reason it matters is because it’s a convenient way for schools to frame the debate.  The irony is that the schools present their athletic departments as non-profit in nature.

One other tell about the college market:

“Distort the economics of college sports?”  These economics are already distorted, where the zero labor rate allows the Power Five Conference football and men’s basketball coaches to be paid in excess of their “professional” counter-parts, because professional teams have to pay the labor.  [Emphasis added.]

That’s probably true of ADs versus pro GMs, as well, not to mention the facilities arms race.  Again, that’s not where the NCAA prefers to have the debate, because making it about student-athletes in non-revenue producing sports is a much more wholesome, “do it for the kids” discussion.

I keep saying it, but it comes off better to assert the position that one’s personal preference is not to pay student-athletes and stop talking, because there is no logical underpinning to the economics.

20 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness, The NCAA

Zion Williamson, and a post-“one-and-done” era

For those of you who question the validity of age-restricted draft rules by the NFL and NBA or why there aren’t more commercial opportunities for athletes coming out of high school, this article, looking at the NBA’s rule and how things might change if it’s lifted, is an excellent primer on both topics.  Definitely worth a few minutes of your time to read.

1 Comment

Filed under It's Just Bidness, The NCAA