*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
I read your post to mean that the government would start the proceedings. Perhaps that's not what you meant. My point was that it doesn't have to be a government entity that initiates a review of non-profit status (although many times it is).
The schools are getting money? More like the athletics departments are getting more money they can throw at each other in the form of equipment, facilities, etc.
I will agree with that so we can move on.
My biggest point is that I believe when everything is settled ISU will be in one of the super conferences. Regardless of our football record and small viewing area.
It can't be Houston, they do nothing for the conference. It has to be someone outside the conference who brings TVs, and some prestige. Otherwise it is worthless and the Big 12 might as well give up.
I think that is what he was saying, the conference will not survive if we add only Houston.
They aren't behaving like schools, they are behaving like for-profit businesses. In this country, for-profit businesses are taxed.
If conference realignment results in significantly larger travel distances for students, this is not in the best interest of the students that the AD's are supposed to be serving, which is contrary to the provisions under which non-profit status and been granted to the NCAA and the university AD's.
As I posted earlier, A&M is adding about 500 miles round trip by moving to the SEC, so it is no surprise that the coaches generally oppose the move. How is this good for the athletes?
never said it was good for the athletes. A&M's desire to go to the SEC has little to do with money, at least it appears that way.
Ironic, but usually people complain about non-profits not making good business decisions and relying too much on funders.
How is taking away non-profit status help the athletes?
The idea is the threat of losing their nonprofit status will scare them straight.
as long as they are in compliance with IRS regulations there is no threat. Now if the IRS changes regulations, that's one thing, and then they will simply comply with the new regulations.
The reality, its not the big boys that would be hurt by this, its the little boys.
16 and ISU would not make sense for the Big 10.
If there really are 4 leagues of 18-20 teams, any solution with ISU not grouped with the Big Ten teams really doesn't make sense.
Hypothetical (and it could go numerous ways):
ND - national add for B10
Missou, a VA team, an Eastern team or two, an NC team or two.
That still leaves them 2-4 teams. They've become gigantic geographically and TV market to the point where they'd prefer just taking another school with BCS facilities that is a quality school and a good geographic fit. Plus other leagues would be expanding and they'd just run out of good options.
4, 16 team leagues, and ISU is most likely one of the 5 current BCS/ND/BYU teams that gets purged (69 teams right now, 64 spots). If not purged, slight chance at being in some Big East/Big 12 coalition survival.
4 18-20 team leagues and ISU is most likely with the Big Ten schools.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Right. The athletics departments are essentially just like barnacles attached to the hull of the university. They use the school's name and campus, but function as independent businesses. But somehow, the barnacles have grown so powerful that they manage to drive the ship now.
I suppose that Texas gets money from the AD, but that doesn't happen at many places. I'd say offhand that the athletic departments do a lot more taking from the university than they're giving back.
Well, id say they probably give more back than is put in by the university themselves (the marketing value is huge for the university as a whole in new student recruitment, alumni retention and development), but not enough to the point where all that goes in to them should be tax-free.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I was trying to decide how much weight to put on the marketing and such. Obviously, that part is huge.
I don't see the tax-free status being very defensible anymore. They've shattered whatever doubt I could have about that.
Yeah. The big one money-wise is the donor development side. Alumni that are kept close to the university (and athletics is a great way to do that) are probably more likely to become larger donors down the road. The more alumni you retain, the more money you pull in. Hell, we kind of see the effects of not having that right now in the athletic department, with the 'lost generation' of fans from the 80s-mid 90s that could be some of our larger donors now, but arent, making it harder for us to get stuff off the ground.
Agreed.
- Status
