Congress to vote on BCS

[RShack]

The House is scheduled to vote on the issue of Div-1 Football National Championship.

House lawmakers are gearing up for a vote as soon as next week on a bill aimed at forcing a national college-football playoff.

Approval of the legislation by an Energy and Commerce subcommittee would represent the most significant action yet by Congress in its oversight of college football. Plans for a markup next week, still tentative as of late Friday, appeared to signal growing congressional support for the idea, which President Barack Obama also backed during the 2008 campaign.

...

The House legislation ... wouldn't specifically bar the title game, but would bar marketing of the BCS game as a national championship match.

Match? This isn't soccer...

[Sports Guy]

There is so much wrong with this country and congress is worried about the BCS?

Tells you all you need to know right there.

[BaltimoreTerp]

It's very easy to say that the BCS is somehow below Congress.

However, 86% of Division I-A schools are public. How much money do those schools receive in federal funds?

In the wake of Northeastern and Hofstra dropping their football programs, I saw a stat that said only something like 25% of BCS (or Division I) football programs make a profit. That means additional money has to come from somewhere else in the university. A BCS payday is a gigantic windfall for a school, and the fact that this money is effectively limited to only 54% of an entire division that is supposed to play under the same rules is absolutely something that falls under congressional jurisdiction.

Considering that so much of what Congress ends up doing involves partisan bickering, stuffing pork into bills and trying to get re-elected, I think that trying to fix a major issue within the American higher-education system is a far more worthwhile pursuit.

[Sports Guy]

It's very easy to say that the BCS is somehow below Congress.

However, 86% of Division I-A schools are public. How much money do those schools receive in federal funds?

In the wake of Northeastern and Hofstra dropping their football programs, I saw a stat that said only something like 25% of BCS (or Division I) football programs make a profit. That means additional money has to come from somewhere else in the university. A BCS payday is a gigantic windfall for a school, and the fact that this money is effectively limited to only 54% of an entire division that is supposed to play under the same rules is absolutely something that falls under congressional jurisdiction.

Considering that so much of what Congress ends up doing involves partisan bickering, stuffing pork into bills and trying to get re-elected, I think that trying to fix a major issue within the American higher-education system is a far more worthwhile pursuit.

But the BCS and college football in general only effects so many schools...So, this isn't really a good argument at all.

[BaltimoreTerp]

But the BCS and college football in general only effects so many schools...So, this isn't really a good argument at all.

Yeah, but those schools include most of the giant state universities, as well as major research centers, etc. So that's quite a chunk of both student population and educational funding.

And like I said, most of what they end up doing is far worse. At least this is positive for someone.

[Sports Guy]

Yeah, but those schools include most of the giant state universities, as well as major research centers, etc. So that's quite a chunk of both student population and educational funding.

And like I said, most of what they end up doing is far worse. At least this is positive for someone.

Just because they are a group of pathetic human beings with no purpose other than helping themselves doesn't mean they should be worrying about sports in college.

[Birds of B'more]

It's very easy to say that the BCS is somehow below Congress.

However, 86% of Division I-A schools are public. How much money do those schools receive in federal funds?

In the wake of Northeastern and Hofstra dropping their football programs, I saw a stat that said only something like 25% of BCS (or Division I) football programs make a profit. That means additional money has to come from somewhere else in the university. A BCS payday is a gigantic windfall for a school, and the fact that this money is effectively limited to only 54% of an entire division that is supposed to play under the same rules is absolutely something that falls under congressional jurisdiction.

Considering that so much of what Congress ends up doing involves partisan bickering, stuffing pork into bills and trying to get re-elected, I think that trying to fix a major issue within the American higher-education system is a far more worthwhile pursuit.

I would be interested in knowing what the person(s) who came up with that statistic consider a "profit." Because I'd bet significant revenues generated via football from every BCS school go towards funding non-revenue sports. So are they saying that the football revenues (and that includes TV money, Bowl payouts, ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.) aren't enough to fund the operations of JUST the football program itself for 75% of BCS schools? I'm calling BS if that's the case. Now if they are saying that only 25% of schools have money leftover AFTER they siphon football revenues to fund non-revenue sports, then that I can believe.

[Dr. FLK]

Just because they are a group of pathetic human beings with no purpose other than helping themselves doesn't mean they should be worrying about sports in college.

But if they get involved with sports, it helps their "image" with some voters...and that's all they really care about.

[geschinger]

But the BCS and college football in general only effects so many schools...So, this isn't really a good argument at all.

There are 120 or so FBS football schools and only about half or slightly more are in BCS conferences. Conferences that are guaranteed huge BCS payouts regardless of whether or not they have teams worthy of playing in a BCS game. BCS monies are split among conference members so we're talking about 50-60 schools screwed by a stupid system. As BT points out many of these are public institutions and if not Congress, who else / what other body is there to address the issue?

[geschinger]

I would be interested in knowing what the person(s) who came up with that statistic consider a "profit." Because I'd bet significant revenues generated via football from every BCS school go towards funding non-revenue sports. So are they saying that the football revenues (and that includes TV money' date=' Bowl payouts, ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.) aren't enough to fund the operations of JUST the football program itself for 75% of BCS schools? I'm calling BS if that's the case. Now if they are saying that only 25% of schools have money leftover AFTER they siphon football revenues to fund non-revenue sports, then that I can believe.[/quote']

I don't know how things have changed (certainly there is a lot more revenue in the system now) since I've been in school. But when I was we looked at athletic programs budgets (I was majoring in Sports Management) and only a small percentage of programs were in the black. I think it's easy to underestimate how expensive it is to field a team of 120 or so players (85 or so with scholarships).

[Birds of B'more]

I don't know how things have changed (certainly there is a lot more revenue in the system now) since I've been in school. But when I was we looked at athletic programs budgets (I was majoring in Sports Management) and only a small percentage of programs were in the black. I think it's easy to underestimate how expensive it is to field a team of 120 or so players (85 or so with scholarships).

Oh I know it's expensive. I don't know when you were in school, but I can see a big difference in the money between my college days 20-some years ago and today. So I guess the question is, for schools with football programs that operate in the red, where do they get the revenues to fund other programs?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Oh I know it's expensive. I don't know when you were in school' date=' but I can see a big difference in the money between my college days 20-some years ago and today. So I guess the question is, for schools with football programs that operate in the red, where do they get the revenues to fund other programs?[/quote']

A school with an athletic department receives their money through the school, either directly through the budget or separately through additional fees as part of the tuition. Plus most schools have some form of booster club that can bring in additional money.

The expense of a football program can take quite a bit of that money that won't be brought back in as revenue from ticket sales or post-season appearances. If a university offers a scholarship worth $25,000 a year (which in almost all cases is too low), than that is $2.1 million a year just on covering the players. Add in travel costs and equipment, it all adds up to a LOT of money.

But even so, there is still the other issue: because so many of these schools are public universities, and even the private ones probably receive some form of federal funding, shouldn't they all get the same opportunity at the windfall that comes from a national championship run?

[geschinger]

Oh I know it's expensive. I don't know when you were in school' date=' but I can see a big difference in the money between my college days 20-some years ago and today. So I guess the question is, for schools with football programs that operate in the red, where do they get the revenues to fund other programs?[/quote']

I found a pretty good source that I would assume is relatively accurate (US Dept of Education) called The Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool.

Some schools like UF, UT, etc... rake in huge profits but most do not. Looking at Maryland a relatively ordinary program in a BCS conference and for 2007 they had:

Revenues:

13,980,823

Football Operating Expenses:

2,125,642

Football Expenses:

11,729,095

When you consider that expenses like recruiting and student aid are not included it seems likely that football lost money.

[RShack]

It's all about whether the 6 big conferences get to own the so-called National Championship and control the big money, while giving a token non-championship BCS bowl slot to one or two teams from among all the other conferences combined.

[Birds of B'more]

I found a pretty good source that I would assume is relatively accurate (US Dept of Education) called The Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool.

Some schools like UF, UT, etc... rake in huge profits but most do not. Looking at Maryland a relatively ordinary program in a BCS conference and for 2007 they had:

Revenues:

13,980,823

Football Operating Expenses:

2,125,642

Football Expenses:

11,729,095

When you consider that expenses like recruiting and student aid are not included it seems likely that football lost money.

I'd be interested in seeing those "Football Expenses" itemized before I concede my point. I wonder if any of that $11,729,095 found its way into something like the wrestling or field hockey programs?