I think a herd of goats could dine very well on the large strawman you just erected (i.e., please note where anyone criticizing the implementation and enforcement of the APR suggested anything remotely close to what you’re postulating here…)
did you read the original post?
However, the reason the APR chafes me is its inexactitude and susceptibility to manipulation by larger schools who may tip the scales with boundless tutoring and academic support programs to support comparable marginal academic cases who fail out at what we suppose we can call the Florida International Select Level of college football.
to me, this reads as an indictment of spending levels and suggests that the NCAA should disallow this big-school pocketbook bullying or something…

if you read my previous post, you are aware that i was not only suggesting the retreat of poor unfortunate pitiful D1 have-nots to D2, but actually to club-level. why is this suggestion discarded and the argument furthered? if D1 is unprofitable, standards are stacked against smaller schools, big schools compensate their coaches too much, and BCS facilities are too nice, why compete? if the rules are unfair, don’t subject yourselves to them. i wouldn’t move to Saudi Arabia as a Christian, why do so many schools make the jump to D1?

PS- i can’t wait to see the Chippewas prove the mettle of the MAC conference this season in Athens. perhaps they will further underscore the necessity of a playoff in CFB in spite of their impressive APR….which most of the MAC cannot brag about.
(UGA 965, eat it Ball State!)

I think a herd of goats could dine very well on the large strawman you just erected (i.e., please note where anyone criticizing the implementation and enforcement of the APR suggested anything remotely close to what you’re postulating here…)

Then again, your grasp of college football history seems similarly shaky, so I’m not surprised.

Speaking as a fan of a MAC school, my beef with the APR is not so much the standards (although it’s pretty clear that the ability to throw money at academic support helps your score here), it’s with the uneven enforcement of those standards, the vague, mysterious “waivers” granted almost exclusively to BCS programs who fall below the cut-off line for punishment but are somehow spared while a non-BCS program doing the same is docked scholarships.

We’ve learned to live with the deck being stacked against us in so many other ways as the price of admission in 1-A, but getting punished for the same low scores that BCS programs are allowed to skate on is too much to take. How “business” concerns are allowed to come into play here is beyond me.

(And when I say “we” I mean other non-BCS programs, not my own. My alma mater came in at 941 this year, safely above the cut-off and ahead of approximately one-third of all BCS programs in the classroom…)

Oh, and FWIW, the APR rules apply to I-AA programs, too, so to make the silly “I-A is an exclusive club” argument really isn’t germane to this particular issue.

His reply….”Last time I checked, my car didnt run on poor people….next question….”

or: i would argue that the overall contribution to campus life of attractive females would make them a worthwhile investment, but apparently the state of Pennsylvania disagrees.

Heretic!

BTW- thanks, guys, for the riveting and hilarious lecture series. I’m sure I’ll mentally refer to it as Dr. Rennie Curran performs his first radical cleatectomy this fall.

Penn State Endowment: $1.4 Billion
Georgia Endowment: $572 Million

Penn State is bettah.

It was a joke. Get over yourself.

Despite Miami of Ohio being older… which I knew it was…. It’s still “Miami… of Ohio” in conversation. If somebody says “Miami” 9 out of 10 times they’re talking about Da U.

“That’s because Miami of Ohio sucks. It’s not the real Miami and it’s in Ohio.”

I beg to differ. Hate Ohio if you like, but Miami of Ohio was a university when Florida still belonged to Spain, so it IS the real Miami.

No joke there, sorry…as Casey Stengel once said: “You could look it up.”

Page 2.. I wish my return on investments was as good as Yale.

It’s no reason why their endowment manager is the highest paid person there.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3486833
(for normal folk)

By the 1980s, televised college football was a significant source of income for the NCAA. Had the television contracts the NCAA had with ABC, CBS, and ESPN remained in effect for the 1984 season, they would have generated US$73.6 million for the Association and its members. In September 1981, the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia Athletic Association filed suit against the NCAA in district court in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs stated that the NCAA’s football television plan constituted price fixing, output restraints, boycott, and monopolizing, all of which were illegal under the Sherman Act. The NCAA argued that its pro-competitive and non-commercial justifications for the plan—-protection of live gate, maintenance of competitive balance among NCAA member institutions and creation of a more attractive “product” to compete with other forms of entertainment—-combined to make the plan reasonable. In September 1982, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the plan violated antitrust laws. It enjoined the Association from enforcing the contract.
(for those wishing to use Wikipedia as a credible source)

here’s an interesting article about football revenue: http://blog.al.com/bn/2008/02/how_the_sec_got_rich.html

and

and you might come around to my cynical view that most BCS athletic directors would feel perfectly at home in your typical East African finance ministry.

Yes, and yes. Find me a perfect market, and I will show you an economics text book. In the meantime, you could argue that the NCAA and BCS are complementary monopsony boards: the NCAA regulates the supply and pricing of D1-A college football, and the BCS regulates the supply and pricing of “championship” college football. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think it’s more accurate than “centrally planned.” It accounts for the variations in return on investment for different universities, especially since the monopsony boards aren’t paying suppliers at equivalent rates.

As for the Ivies, you could argue that their dominance of college football was done in by the GI Bill massively expanding the ranks of non-Ivy football teams, and that they were able to overcome being left behind in the realm of sheer numbers because of their capacity to raise money from a wealthier slice of the population, and then manage those investments.

By way of selective example:

USC – 33,000 students, 200,000 alumni, endowment of $3.7 billion.

Dartmouth College – 6,000 students, 60,000 alumni, endowment of $3.76 billion.

Harvard University – 19,000 students, (can’t find alumni estimate), endowment of $34.9 billion.

Put it another way, there’s a reason that the Ivies can back way from revenue sports and clean up in things like crew and lacrosse.

None of which is to say that college football programs are an economically rational expenditure of university funds, just that they are one of many ways to do it.

????

While both were important… there were quite a few more important teams.

Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Alabama… just to name a few (all which I hate).

The NFL has a ready-made system (College football) that serves the same purpose but, costs them nothing. Sweet deal.

If the NFL would provide funds to be used for academic tutaledge (tax deduction!) to the NCAA to be distributed to the schools with a failing APR, I see a possible remedy.

Orson, don’t you play golf with Goodell? Bring it up.

DICK JOKE:

Q: How did Dick Cheney break his leg?
A: Kicking a homeless woman.