Is College Football becoming a bubble?

[drt7891]

We all know about bubbles... the housing market, the stock market are all examples of them. Granted, this isn't either one of those markets, but is the concept still the same? In the fallout of Oregon's new multi-billion dollar (my guess) practice facility dedicated solely to an entity that only showcases itself a few days a year, let's discuss... How big will college football get before it either begins to decline or crashes and burns? OR... Will it continue to grow for the rest of our lives and in the next half century, totally eclipse professional football (it is currently poised to do that now), even eclipse most modern blue chip businesses (in terms of money and facilities) sporting the nicest the world has to offer? Will becoming a college football coach be as prestigious as being a CEO or President of one of those companies?

If it fails, will it be due to lack of public interest? Scandals? Facilities and donations demanding so much from schools that most cannot compete?

My thoughts are this... there are a handful of schools poised to take a step above most BCS schools... Oregon, USC, Florida, Bama, LSU are some examples. The factors obviously are money, talent, recruiting, and support. Could this separate those schools into a "league of their own?" In 20 years, we could see a new league formed of "super teams" that bring in money and talent never before seen by any athletic organization, professional or otherwise. The talent level is already beginning to separate itself into the "cream" and everyone else will be left behind. If a new "super league" is formed, that will probably leave most current BCS schools behind... leaving them to fight for themselves in a "lower tier" league. Could this be the end of college football as we know it? Could this cause the bubble to crush except for those schools that are "the cream?"

What are your thoughts?

 

[dawgstudent]

Sooner or later - the bubble will burst. It's amazing how much has changed in the game financially. And to keep up with the arms race that is building of facilities, stadium expanion, etc - money has to come from somewhere. right now - it's coming from TV. But at some point - it's going to be passed on to the fans. Everyone has their breaking point where they say - it's just become too expensive to go to a game. I would much rather watch it on TV at home with whatever beverage of your choosing and something better than a stadium hot dog.

Which is why this new tailgating policy is so baffling. It's giving someone who is from out of town less of a reason to come. Tailgating is part of gameday on campus. If you are going to be in a worse spot than you were before even when you pay someone - then those people might say forget it. I'd rather stay at home.

 

[patdog]

I think the attendance bubble is beginning to burst.

Link

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

Not by the accepted definition. It is not inflated to a point far beyond it's ability to maintain in the short term. More likely it will just level off or begin a slow decline, but neither of those situations constitutes a "bubble".

 

[SkullCandy.sixpack]

I think y'all are right-- the sport will implode if there isn't more parity. Even if the top20 Uber -Schools formed their own league, how long would that last? In a race between the fastest 10 men in the history of the world, 9 would lose. Half the Uber teams would be "losers."

It reminds me of MLB-- if 1 or 2 teams can in essence "buy" a championship (think the Yankees and Bama) how long before the average Joe gets tired of seeing his team get slaughtered every week, and tunes in to something else? When the "average fan can't afford a ticket to go to the game, and changes the channel to watch something more competitive on TV, the gig is up. Like NASCAR.

All this assumes the sport will survive that long if the "head injury" suits get traction and the lawyers don't flock to court to file suit because some kid can't read in college, so it must be from all the concussions he got playing football. I mean he went from a 12 to an 18 between his junior and senior years of high school, right?

 

[JungRebel]

2nd law of thermodynamics say there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

 

[dudehead]

It's Bread and Circus *

.

 

[Angelo Pappas]

Will college football continue to grow for the rest of our lives and in the next half century, totally eclipse professional football?

Doubtful. Possibly as a spectator sport or as a tv sport regionally in the southeast. Definitely not as a tv sport nationwide.

there are a handful of schools poised to take a step above most BCS schools... Oregon, USC, Florida, Bama, LSU are some examples.

I disagree with this. I know you're just using these five schools as examples, but who knows how OR will do without Chip Kelly. Other than the last 5 or 6 games of 2011, USC has been slighly above average under Kiffin..... I realize they've had to deal with NCAA sanctions.

A great head coach is more important than money, support, and facilities. TX probably has more advantages than any other school. They've had some strong years under Mack Brown and won a national championship, but they probably should've won more than they have. 15 years ago people would've said Nebraska was poised to take a step above most BCS schools, but since Osborne retired Nebraska has been solid but certainly not great. UGA is another school that has every advantage but has not consistently won at a high level like they should have over the last 30 years.

In my opinion, Saban could win a national championship at 20 to 30 different BCS schools within 5 years. My point is things are cyclical and programs that look great now may not look so great a few years down the road because having the right head coach is such an important part of the equation.

 

[Crazy Cotton]

A concussion lawsuit was granted class action status the other day that could be going places. That, plus an increased awareness of the incredible amount of money the NCAA is bringing in (1.6 billion for the NCAA Tourney alone) coupled with the much more serious push for compensating players that's happening now, makes me think college football as we now know it is on borrowed time.

As you note, the gap between the 10 or 15 "haves" vs the 100+ "rest of us" is growing - and given that they don't often play each other (with the SEC an exception, simply because of the preponderance of elite schools in the conference) good games are harder to find - who wants to spend a Saturday watching Alabama beat the **** out of directional Louisiana?

As a 40-something fan, I had a lot more fun following college football in the 80s than I do now - I find that (other than MSU) I am watching fewer games an giving less of a crap than I did in the past. Some of what I see frankly makes me despair for the direction of higher education. I'm a college professor and I've experienced first hand the sacrificing of academic program and the ascension of what were once peripheral distractions for institutions of higher learning - administration is focused on dorms that look like 3 star hotels, athletics, millionaire coaches, a proliferation of programs at best tangential to academics, etc. Sometimes I feel like I'm attending my own funeral when I go to game sometimes.

Welp, there's my rant. GET OFF MY LAWN

 

[Big Sheep81]

The Big Boys (AL, LSU, Georgia, etc) in the SEC will pretty much hold their attendance as will the Big Boys elsewhere. What I think will happen with be something similar to what happened to NASCAR. Rules changes to make all cars equal (more or less), hikes in ticket prices every race, homogenized racers, a 10 month race season, etc knocked the wind out of NASCAR's attendance. With every race on TV the less fanatical fans stayed home and it has still not recovered.

The NCAA and college football can be subbed in place of NASCAR and they are headed down the same road and either don't recognize it or don't care. NASCAR is still running on the last batch of TV contract money but the ratings are nowhere near where they were 10 yrs ago. The NCAA is going to continue to mess with the rules, players, and schools until the "Big One" wreck and then wonder what in the hell just happened.

My 4 tickets, parking, and Bulldog Club are costing well over $2500 a year just to buy football tickets not counting any baseball or basketball tickets. There is going to be an end point for the average fan who will decide to sit most games out and watch on the HD, 3D, cable, satellite, gameboy, 300 inch screen at home with super surround sonic sound and a Yeti full of PBR's within reach of the couch. We've already stopped tailgating ourselves and just throw in with some other folks. Live attendance won't go away, but sales of full season tickets are going to suffer at some point. This will hold true for a lot of schools. I agree with drt that things will soon change and not in a good way.

 

[121Josey]

Cotton hit the nail on the head. Some legal entrapment will have a deterring effect on the product. If it is compensating players or the physical nature of the game, I could see the bubble bursting. But it would take under a decade before a new administration made desperate changes to right the ship because there is still money to be made. Isn't that the raison d'être of €lite Dawg$ ?**

We'll see if the new playoff system helps or hurts the season. But I do wish that they would adjust the bowl system:
1) that it would be like days long ago when a team had to have a winning record. Half the teams go to a bowl game and it doesn't feel as prestigious.
2) The bowl games would play chronologically according to payout.
3) and of course, that bowls selected according to a team's finish in conference.

 

[drt7891]

I was using the term as an analogy and obviously this isn't a market bubble, but Oregon just dropped a couple of billion dollars on a practice facility. Like DS said, it's an arms race and there are probably less than 10 schools in the country that have the resources and willingness to drop a couple of billion on a practice facility for a sport that plays 12 games a year. Sooner or later, something will give somewhere. That's what I was going for.

Wasn't ours in the $300MM range?

 

[drt7891]

Excellent point on the money a family has to spend to get season tickets. I have a bare bones season ticket package of 2 and it costs me about $500 annually.

For some perspective, in 2008, the same seats I have would cost about $180.

It's easy to see here that it is becoming less and less affordable for families to attend. However, 2 things:

1. I don't think attendance will cause a decline in football. TV will take up that slack... To a point.

2. Schools don't make their money on average fans. However, they can't afford to push the price up so much that families leave en mass. That WILL catch up to a school financially.

 

[dawgstudent]

That is true. If I compare what I give to the university academically to what I spend on the athletic arm - it's embarrassing the difference.

 

[mstateglfr]

I hope there is a serious wall that the sport runs into soon. Its not that I think there will be one, but I HOPE there is one.
It is well past time for the sport to take a look at what has happened over the last 10 years and gain some perspective.

Coaching salaries are beyond out of control. Coaches are being paid 2.5x more than just 10 years ago, all in an attempt to not lose them to other schools.
Programs arent just renovating their stadium once every 15 or so years, they are now doing major reno every other season be it an expansion, new board, new locker room, etc etc etc.


Somehow, with all this money, D1 Athletic Departments all across America are STILL in the red. Its NUTS!


I love college sports more than pro sports, but even I can see why universities like Tulane and University of Chicago heavily deemphasized athletics and got out of major conferences decades ago.

 

[WayboDawg]

Excellent point on the money a family has to spend to get season tickets. I have a bare bones season ticket package of 2 and it costs me about $500 annually.

For some perspective, in 2008, the same seats I have would cost about $180.

It's easy to see here that it is becoming less and less affordable for families to attend. However, 2 things:

1. I don't think attendance will cause a decline in football. TV will take up that slack... To a point.

2. Schools don't make their money on average fans. However, they can't afford to push the price up so much that families leave en mass. That WILL catch up to a school financially.

I think some of the price increase has come from Dan Mullen signing on to the program, and getting the fan base fired up again. When I started MSU in 2007 (with Croom as coach, and about 6 consecutive losing seasons under our belts), the students could get up to 4 student guest tickets for like $9 a piece, and you might see a crowd of 45,000 for a really big game like the Egg Bowl. My last year in 2010 they don't even do student guest tickets, and the average crowd was 50,000 for any game. Plus, back in 2007 the SEC was just getting started with the National Championship streak. Before then, USC, Ohio State, Texas, and Miami ran the show. Now its all SEC, which helps even the little schools like MSU in the conference with ticket sales. IMO, these things are cyclical, and other schools like Ohio State and Notre Dame will eventually get back in the game, and win a National Championship before long.

 

[Shmuley]

^^^ [/nodding in agreement] ^^^

 

[Negative Waves]

I would not be surprised to see the schools in the near future cede most of

their control of the football team over to a private entity (such as the State's Bulldog Club). The private entity would then pay the school for scholarships, use of the stadium and facilities, and for the use of the logo. They would also pay the players their salaries, coaches salaries, and other expenses. Revenue from the games and tv deals would go to the new entity. Payment for the use of the facilities and brand could be adjusted at the end of the season based on profits so that the university would get its cut. The school would still have some nominal control by putting the AD as the chairman of the football board of the private group. I would think by doing this, it would free the football programs from the NCAA while allowing the other sports to participate in the NCAA. Additionally, it would also allow the schools to bypass Title IX. Since the school is no longer handing out 85 scholarships to football players or paying for their expenses(they're now being paid by the football corporation) it would prevent lawsuits based on Title IX.

If this ever happened though, it would cut all ties to the existing conferences for the football teams. Since it is no longer officially part of the university, teams could be denied access to the new league even if they are part of a BCS conference. The new league might be based more on TV market share, and that would not bode well for us.

 

[thekimmer]

I don't know if I would call it a 'bubble' but....

I can see the direction college football is headed eventually consuming much of its popularity.

I think it all comes down to parity. The NCAA instituted scholarship limitations some years ago to stop the Bear Bryants of the world from hoarding players and this created a lot more parity in CFB that I think fueled a much broader popularity. Now the ploy has turned to an arms races of pouring vast amounts of money into facilities and coaches in an attempt to price a lot of schools out of the market. This coupled with the NCAA's willingness to turn a blind eye to overt payoffs to players is going to result in maybe 25 or 30 schools becoming so much better than everyone else that while very popular with their fans, is going to kill the broader appeal as the 'left outs' eventually give up and lose interest. There is a very good reason that professional football has a draft and salary cap.

I think maintaining some level of parity is essential to maintaining the long-term vitality of the game and that is not in the cards right now.

 

[engie]

I was using the term as an analogy and obviously this isn't a market bubble, but Oregon just dropped a couple of billion dollars on a practice facility. Like DS said, it's an arms race and there are probably less than 10 schools in the country that have the resources and willingness to drop a couple of billion on a practice facility for a sport that plays 12 games a year. Sooner or later, something will give somewhere. That's what I was going for.

Wasn't ours in the $300MM range?

Your premise is mostly sound, but your numbers are WAYYYYY off on this which skews the heck out of the rest of the argument...

Oregon dropped $68 mil on that practice facility. Ours was $25 mil.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...ils-eyepopping-new-football-operations-center
http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=206326973

 

[Ishmael]

I think your premise is wrong. I don't think college football is close to poised to totally eclipse professional football. The NFL is huge, and in most of the country (population wise, if not geographically), is far bigger than college football.

In fact, I'd probably say that it's really only in areas without NFL teams that college football is biggest. There are exceptions, but usually in areas with NFL teams, college football is considered far less important.

 

[hatfieldms]

True

People in the northeast for the most part couldn't care less about college sports, except I guess some basketball

 

[WayboDawg]

I think your premise is wrong. I don't think college football is close to poised to totally eclipse professional football. The NFL is huge, and in most of the country (population wise, if not geographically), is far bigger than college football.

In fact, I'd probably say that it's really only in areas without NFL teams that college football is biggest. There are exceptions, but usually in areas with NFL teams, college football is considered far less important.

I agree. As the last 2 presidential elections have shown, most of the country lives on the coastal areas of the country. We here in the south see college football through rose colored glasses because everyone down here is fanatical about the sport, but in comparison to the big cities, we don't have as big of a population. If you go to New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles, no one really has a favorite college football team because they are MLB fans first, NFL second, and NBA third. The ones that do care about college football don't even root for a local team like Syracuse or Northwestern, but will cheer for someone like Notre Dame, Michigan, or Florida because they have a bigger national footprint. College football is a rural, grass roots, sport that will likely never have a world presence like the MLB or NFL. And having a world presence is where the real money is made through TV deals.

 

[engie]

I think your premise is wrong. I don't think college football is close to poised to totally eclipse professional football. The NFL is huge, and in most of the country (population wise, if not geographically), is far bigger than college football.

In fact, I'd probably say that it's really only in areas without NFL teams that college football is biggest. There are exceptions, but usually in areas with NFL teams, college football is considered far less important.

Agreed. We can use the NFL as a premise of "how big college football can be" to some extent though -- since it's already been to that level.

FYI in the new NFL television agreement, which runs from 2014-2022, networks will pay them $39.6 billion -- or about $137.5million/team/yr.

I'd say college football's(SEC) "current" $25mil hasn't even scratched the surface of what we're capable of financially. The current SEC tv rights deal is the cheapest thing in sports. Hell, CBS gets the SEC championship game for like $5 mil/yr -- that's highway robbery considering that the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl were just renegotiated to be worth $80 mil/yr each...

What happens when these sports get big(again looking at the NFL) is that the average fans get pushed out and the corporations take up the slack. Is it "fair"? Maybe not. But that's how it goes. And the blueprint is right in front of us.

College football is 10-20 years away from any threat to a loss in popularity. Although I'll admit that the SEC dominance is bad for that around the country...

 

[Heawww]

What about people like me, who are about to cut cable? I will just attend MSU home games and they rest of the time watch the free games on NBC, ABC and CBS.

That'll show 'em. Ha. Not gonna bust MY bubble.

 

[ckDOG]

I think the top turns into NFL minor leagues.

There will be 20 or so elite programs that make up a multi billion dollar industry that plays by their own rules. I'm sure some of the programs will resist out of consideration it has nothing to do with the institution's mission, but the money will be too good to pass up. The rest of the programs will slip back into what college football looked like up until the mid 90s. Smaller budgets, less TV coverage, etc.

The top league will be really good football in terms of talent and there will be high parity. It will be great on-field competition, but it won't be the "college football" that we've all come to know and love over the years though.

Sidebar: let's say what I've typed out above comes true. I think it's likely that neither us notr OM have the TV sets or the money to make it to the top league on our own. Would you A) want to drop down to the less covered and lower budget league that resembles the good ol' days or would you B) want OM and MSU to establish some sort of co-op team that combines both fan base's resources and hosts games on an an alternating basis in Oxford/Starkville or builds a large facility in a central/netural location like Jackson-metro.

 

[drt7891]

Should have done a little more research on the numbers, although i dont think that diminishes my point.

 

[thatsbaseball]

Major props.I don`t know who you are but I`ll read every one of your posts on this subject that you`ll take time to type. As I watch the absolutely absurd sums of money being spent by institutions of higher LEARNING to attract the least academically inclined and often most socially problematic students to come get a free education while the hardest working most diligent kids accumulate insurmountable debt to get the same diploma.... my interested has been steadily deteriorating. If you can`t see a problem you are blind. "Out of control" is no longer an adequate term for this debacle.

 

[engie]

Should have done a little more research on the numbers, although i dont think that diminishes my point.

Missing by a multiple greater than 10 on a "spending is out of control" topic definitely diminishes the point...

Fact is, Oregon paid cash for theirs(Phil Knight) and we paid cash for ours(Seals and everyone else). There is no "bubble" on cash transactions. So, the exquisite football facilities shouldn't have been included in this discussion at all...

Bonded football stadiums are another topic altogether, however, that is at least worth discussing...

I just don't see how a "bubble" ever bursts when we are operating in the black with practically no debt service? Even if the income levels decline(which basically can't happen in a notable fashion for another 15-25 years or so with the agreements in place), as long as we aren't operating at a huge debt, which WE aren't since we're paying BDC cash for basically everything we improve, I don't see how it's actually a "bubble" at all -- at least not for those of us who have used common sense in the business model...

The "bubble" bursting would probably actually help us become a "have" -- since we actually only owe pennies compared to many athletics departments around the country...and aren't nearly as bloated and don't require nearly the continual $$ to operate that they do...

 

[drt7891]

First off, my point was not to debate the cost of practice facilities. Regardless of what was paid, it's a ton of money for a building whose sole purpose is to support a group that's showcased a few times a year. Mentioning the facilities was an example of what college football has become. Not that I'm arguing for or against them...

My point WAS that the level of competition is demanding more and more resources by the school and it's fans (more than cash paid for the facility), what has seemed an exponential level the past 10 years. A decade ago, dedicated practice facilities were almost unheard of (a dedicated facility to that point was a field house and locker room). 15 years ago, luxury boxes were almost unheard of. The allure, popularity, and quite frankly, the demand of resources to compete has grown exponentially the past 10-15 years.. More than it has at any time to that point and those facts are undeniable. My ultimate question was... What is going to be the "wall" that college football hits that changes it forever?

Lastly, I made it clear I was not talking about just a money-centric bubble, although I believe the availability of money is ultimately what will separate the haves and the have nots.

 

[FirstPoetsThenSunDoggy]

A concussion lawsuit was granted class action status the other day that could be going places. That, plus an increased awareness of the incredible amount of money the NCAA is bringing in (1.6 billion for the NCAA Tourney alone) coupled with the much more serious push for compensating players that's happening now, makes me think college football as we now know it is on borrowed time.

As you note, the gap between the 10 or 15 "haves" vs the 100+ "rest of us" is growing - and given that they don't often play each other (with the SEC an exception, simply because of the preponderance of elite schools in the conference) good games are harder to find - who wants to spend a Saturday watching Alabama beat the **** out of directional Louisiana?

As a 40-something fan, I had a lot more fun following college football in the 80s than I do now - I find that (other than MSU) I am watching fewer games an giving less of a crap than I did in the past. Some of what I see frankly makes me despair for the direction of higher education. I'm a college professor and I've experienced first hand the sacrificing of academic program and the ascension of what were once peripheral distractions for institutions of higher learning - administration is focused on dorms that look like 3 star hotels, athletics, millionaire coaches, a proliferation of programs at best tangential to academics, etc. Sometimes I feel like I'm attending my own funeral when I go to game sometimes.

Welp, there's my rant. GET OFF MY LAWN

I totally agree. It's depressing for me to see these fancy dorms and 100 million dollar health clubs on college campuses. This is not what students need.

Also, turning our college sports teams into corporations is damaging the very heart of the appeal that they do have, our feeling that they are "ours". Quality of play in not even in the same zipcode as the pro game.

Our jumbotron, for example, should be enhancing our college sports experience with prompt replays, information, statistics, and entertainment, but instead it has been sold to corportations for money that is not that significant to our budget, at a cost to the comfort and experience of the 55 or 60 thousand fans who have gone to a lot of trouble to attend an MSU football game in person.

 

[engie]

My point WAS that the level of competition is demanding more and more resources by the school and it's fans (more than cash paid for the facility), what has seemed an exponential level the past 10 years.

This is where I think you are missing the boat completely on this. When did the school ever start paying extra $$ toward our football and athletics programs? It's the OTHER way around -- football is paying for ALL the other sports at MSU(still at a profit, I might ad) -- and giving some money back to the school... This is true ALL around the SEC.

Hell, much was made about Tennessee's "school loaning the athletics department money" -- but if you read the fine print, ALL that actually is happening is, for 3 years, the athletics department is withholding a $7mil annual donation it has long made to the academic side in order to combat their ridiculous debt service. And that's been the most fiscally irresponsible school in the SEC by far....

 

[kired]

You could substitute "Sports" for "college football". The money involved in sports today is ridiculous... just like other forms of popular entertainment.

I'll admit I don't pay much attention to NBA - I watch primarily the playoffs. But it still amazes me when I hear of a guy signing a $20+ million contract and I've never heard his name before. It's insane how much money people spend on sports. It's one thing for Peyton Manning or Lebron James to make unreal amounts of money. But for the 300th best basketball player in the world to make more money in one year than most of us will make in a lifetime... it just makes no sense.

 

[hatfieldms]

Who makes 20+million that you have never heard of

And is the 300th best player in the world?

 

[patdog]

IMO, these things are cyclical, and other schools like Ohio State and Notre Dame will eventually get back in the game, and win a National Championship before long.

I'm not so sure about that. It's starting to look like the SEC may have broken the cycle. No conference had ever won more than 3 national titles in a row (and that had only been done twice). The SEC has 7 straight and counting. You're seeing more and more players from other parts of the country wanting to play in the SEC, and it's becoming the one national conference for TV. Of course the SEC won't win the national title every year, but I think the days of the top teams/conferences going in cycles may be over.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

It reminds me of MLB-- if 1 or 2 teams can in essence "buy" a championship (think the Yankees and Bama) how long before the average Joe gets tired of seeing his team get slaughtered every week, and tunes in to something else? When the "average fan can't afford a ticket to go to the game, and changes the channel to watch something more competitive on TV, the gig is up. Like NASCAR.

thankfully the new rules of business in MLB has pretty much eliminated the ability to "buy" a championship. guys are under reasonable team control for their first 6-7 years and many teams lock up their young stars into their early 30s long before they ever sniff the free agent market (brewers and braun, rays and longoria and moore, pirates and mccutchen, etc. are just a few examples). in the post-steroid era, by the time a guy hits his young 30s and the free agent market, he's only expected to have a few years of high end performance, yet these deals (think the angels' pujols deal and yankees' aroid extension) are for 7, 8, 9, 10 years, taking these guys into their late 30s and even early 40s, so that's a LOT of dead $$ that hurts even the most profitable franchises. the yankees are going to get bad. soon. like real bad. because they are so financially committed to aroid, teixeira, sabathia, jeter, etc, and will probably throw a huge deal at cano too, that they won't be able to sign new free agents to replace these guys when they are 40 and still making $20M/year. not only would they have a even bigger payrool, but they'd also have to pay the luxury tax.

sorry to go off on a tangent, but i get tired of people referencing baseball like you can just "buy" a title these days, when the reality is that hasn't really been the case in 6 or 7 years. there's more ways to level the playing field than with a salary cap, and baseball has managed to do that. the rays and A's are 2 of the best franchises in baseball the last half decade and they are 2 of the lowest revenue and lowest payroll teams. the pirates have finally broken through after 3 eyars of teasing a breakthrough only to collapse down the stretch. the orioles are working on a 2nd straight playoff appearance in the AL east. the nats have struggled this year, but have a home grown, reasonably priced core of players that will bounce back next year. the cardinals won by letting pujols walk and making smaller and SHORTER investments into beltran and holliday. you don't win consistently anymore by signing the biggest free agent piece. you win by making smart draft and foreign signing decisions, locking up your guys early into their free agency years, then being disciplined enough to let someone else sign them to a mega deal when they are on the backside of their prime, and if you do go the free agency route, signing a guy to a shorter term deal.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

as for this bubble and the biggest of the big programs breaking away even further from the rest of the BCS level programs (the specific programs don't matter for the point of the conversation - i'm looking at the guy specifically pointing out oregon and usc when the original poster only used them as an example), it would be short sighted and completely missing what makes CFB so big to think 20-30 programs could ditch the other 50 or so BCS programs and continue to experience the growth. for instance, i'm a much bigger CFB fan than NFL. what? because i grew up near MSU and cheering for MSU and going to MSU games. i have a vested interest in a CFB program. it's "my" program. i didn't grow up near or cheering for or going to games of a NFL franchise, so while i'll watch NFL on sundays, if the GF wants to spend a fall afternoon doing something besides watching me watch football, i'll ALWAYS choose sunday afternoon to be away from the TV. now if the top 20-30 programs broke away, leaving the MSU's and OM's and what not behind, i'm suddenly not going to really care as much about staying in on a saturday night to watch bama-LSU. and my interest in MSU would probably drop off also because we'd now be relegated to a 2nd tier league. i know i'm not the only one with this mindset and i think you'd see a self-destruction of CFB if those top 20-30 programs tried to break away. they'd have their own fans that are still interested, but you'd lose the masses.

 

[hatfieldms]

I disagree about the Yankees bring bad soon

They have a ton of money coming off the books after this year(Rivera, Jeter, Pettitte, Youk, and arod will be off the books for at least next season). After that his contract starts clicking down some. And of all of those, the only one I expect back is Jeter, and it will be a smaller contract

 

[mstateglfr]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8306305/2012-nba-player-rankings-281-300

ESPN claimed Keyon Dooling was the 300th best player(in the NBA), at least before last season started.
Not close to the $20mil mark, but maybe he meant for the contract and not per year.

 

[Ishmael]

He clearly meant per year, not per contract. The quote was: "But for the 300th best basketball player in the world to make more money in one year than most of us will make in a lifetime..."

Dooling was signed by the Celtics for the league minimum prior to the 2012 season. That's roughly $1.3 million for the season. That is a lot of money, but it's more than most of us will make in a lifetime, unless I'm severely overestimating how much the average MSU message board poster makes.