Football REPORT: Oregon, Washington to Join the Big Ten
- Thread starter Dylan Callaghan-Croley
- Start date
Ice Hockey, Volleyball and LAX are the only 3 I'd like to see stay. Hockey definitely would. But yeah the rest can be club sports. No scholarships needed.
PSU might not cut sports (though we need to - mens golf, tennis, probably swimming - we aren’t nationally relevant in any of them, and never will be; wouldn’t mind getting rid of fencing, either - it’s an anachronism, we don’t have a falconry or jousting team, do we?). Anyway, right now, Stanford and Oregon State’s wrestling teams are in big kimshee - we should offer provisional conference membership to them for wrestling, much like the conference has for ND in ice hockey, and John’s Hopkins for lacrosse.
The BiG doesn't compete in several of PSU's varsity sports. Fencing and Men's Volleyball come to mind. I think PSU can unilaterally decide what to do with those but breaking away from sports with conference ties might be more difficult.
At some point maybe schools decide to have separate conferences for footbaal/basketball and everything else. Maybe even just football.
1. Most “non revenue” athletes pay at least some portion of tuition. Full athletic scholarships are much less common outside of football and basketball.
2. Yes, music majors can get scholarships to be in the music program.
It’s hard to really break down individual units of a school to make them “self supported” Largely there’s a central pot of money and the university funds what they feel is appropriate as part of the university experience.
Right but they aren't going to school to "study golf" as opposed to those majoring in music. If you get a scholarship based on musical talent to study music I support that. If you get a partial scholarship to golf to study business I don't support that because the University is losing money on it.
No...they're majoring in theater. It's like being opposed to an academic scholarship to study biology. Golf and other sports aren't their major.
Individual schools can sponsor whatever sports they want and are not obligated to sponsor something just because the conference does (though if a school cut football or basketball, the conference would probably kick them out).
Personally though I see no reason to cut sports. I love seeing PSU have a large diverse athletic department and having opportunities for those student athletes to compete at that level.
I mean, title IX and financial concerns are the reasons. A large diverse athletic program is great but not exactly a good business decision.
I love volleyball but I understand why men's volleyball is dying.
The reason is money. Major college sports are out of control. Every team needs new training centers and $billion stadiums/arenas in order to compete. Most large schools have relied on profits from football and basketball to subsidize other sports but the more pressure schools face to upgrade facilities the less they have available to subsidize other sports.
Do you want to attract the best players to your program by having the best facilities? If so, where does the money come from? Or do you say the other sports are equally important so you'll compromise on football and basketball?
Lots of people get scholarships for things not necessarily related to their majors though.
Oh, I don’t think there needs to be millions of dollars spent on crazy facilities for men’s gymnastics or any other sport - or even a lot of the bogus crap for the general student population. I’m fine with the big bucks only going to football and hoops (and maybe ice hockey) that generate money. But I have no problem with sponsoring a sport and having modest facilities appropriate for them to function; yes, a different tier than revenue sports.
Lots of things at Universities aren’t “good business decisions” but exist and are paid for just for the sake of a well rounded institution and student body. I have no problem with that principle and I think minor sports fit just like having a band and a music theater program do.
Now, I don’t advocate schools being financially irresponsible and they should rein in costs. I don’t think minor sports would be anywhere near the priority to look at though as there’s a crapload of truly worthless fat that goes on at colleges.
Last edited:
There needs to be a limiting principle, however. Why is PSU funding sports that no one, except the athletes, coaches, and parents of same care about? Especially when we aren’t competitive in them, and never will be? College golf and tennis? Really? For a state university? Let the Ivy’s waste money on those country club set sports. Fencing? Seriously? When do we start a pistol dueling team? Total waste of limited resources on an anachronistic niche activity. Swimming and diving? For a cold weather State with no chance of being nationally relevant? Gone. Get rid of the above, re-direct funding to sports that matter.
priorities, people. Do you want a real chance at seriously contending for titles in important sports? Then either find an angel capitalist willing to flush their money down the drain supporting the tennis team, or implement the above.
What's an example that isn't theater or music because your argument was those things cost us money but those are educational. Golf costs us money and isn't educational.
True - but the litmus test should be: if PSU is funding it, are we nationally relevant in it? So, men’s volleyball, gymnastics, wrestling, and lacrosse remain. Mens golf, tennis, fencing, and swimming are discontinued as scholarship/Athletic Department sports, as they are money pits, and aside from fencing (which is just ridiculous in this day and age), we are not competitive nationally, or even in-conference and will be less so with USC and UCLA joining.
This is reality - PSU cannot be all things in sports and also competitive for titles in all sports. The dollars and support just aren’t there for both.
Schools give out scholarships for things like ethnic or racial backgrounds. The Nittany Lion and Drum Major get scholarships. RAs get get partially paid discounts.
I have no problems with the school sponsoring non revenue sports as part of the gestalt of having a well rounded diverse university. Just like I’m fine at high schools having a variety of sports even though many no one pays attention to (and am sad when high schools cut sports).
Just to follow up on my own point though: on the flip side, I find it utterly ridiculous that some people argue that NIL money should be given to all athletes at the school. If a swimmer has no name/likeness/image market, there is no reason for them to get any NIL money. If we are going to have a “collective”, that money should go exclusively to athletes with actual market value for their likeness.
Other than the race/ethnicity that you list, the others are performing services for the university. I would say that they earn the scholarships. Do you know how many events they handle? I'm friends with multiple former lion mascots and they were incredibly busy going from event to event. I'm friends with a number of former RAs as well and they worked as well for their payments (certainly well short of a full scholarship).
Sports should be evaluated just like any other financial/life choices: worth the investment in $$, time, effort, or not worth it. At PSU, a “cold weather” northeast state university, I contend that country club sports like golf and tennis, niche activities like fencing, and a sport dominated by southern and California schools like swimming/diving cannot possibly be worth ANY investment. We are not, nor ever will be, nationally relevant in country club or warm weather school dominated sports, nor should PSU spend dollar one on something as absurd as fencing. We have far better sports to invest in.
Choose: waste investment in sports/activities where we are irrelevant, and will become more so with UCLA and USC joining the conference, or follow a far more productive investment strategy by paring down the number of sports, and being competitive for conference and national titles in the remaing ones.
I know which I’d choose.
Choose: waste investment in sports/activities where we are irrelevant, and will become more so with UCLA and USC joining the conference, or follow a far more productive investment strategy by paring down the number of sports, and being competitive for conference and national titles in the remaing ones.
I know which I’d choose.
RAs are "working" to in theory provide support to students. Giving out a scholarship due diverse candidates isn't costing the school money in additional to the partial free education like Olympic sports.
I understand the diverse environment perspective but at some point you cut your losses. For better or worse a lot of non-revenue sports will die in the coming years as many have already vanished. The only reason most survive is a courtesy thanks to football programs.
The conferences aren't the ones pulling the strings here, they are simply doing the bidding of the media partners. We are in a world where FOX and ESPN/ABC are basically running football due to the money they dangle in front of the conferences. The non football sports are just along for the ride. It's not a good situation for the sport and will create an NFL like football league that will over time continue to eliminate all of the things that made CFB different, and better than the NFL.
It's a create situation for the sport. Many rivalry games died off decades okay. That will unfortunately continue but aside from that there's nothing bad here. The games themselves are going to get better. The worst part of college football, for me, was that to be the best the expectation was to run the table or lose once. That should never be the case as the best teams improve. An expanded playoff helps that. Plus, we already have more than half the league that's irrelevant day 1....hopefully this leads to 3 tiers in FBS. And the best thing is bowl game are going to die...that needed to happen in the 80s.
With the new additions to the three (and possibly four) conferences coupled with the expanded playoff, I think there will be more teams with two losses participating in the playoffs.
And maybe 3 or 4 losses which I'm fine with. It keeps more teams relevant and makes more game meaningful.
I know people like the current set up but even now there's maybe 20 teams with any real hope if making the playoff this year.
Last edited:
Yes, think NCAA bball tourney. Don't need a perfect or 1 loss record to get in it and win it.
IMO that was one of the best parts of CFB. Every single game mattered. With the 12 team playoff, and in all likelihood in the future changes will be made to make it so 3-4 teams each from the B1G and SEC get in, the regular season is completely diluted. Bowl games as well, they now have little meaning. Regional and historical rivalries are dying. These are all things that made CFB different. I don't think the average CFB fan wants an NFL experience, otherwise they'd favor the NFL.
My ideal scenario is still a 6 team playoff. Byes for the top 2 seeds, an on campus game for seed #3 and #4, then use the bowl sites for the semifinals and national championship. This keeps the importance of the regular season fully intact as even the top teams need to keep winning in hopes of getting a bye or home game. The only thing I struggle with is how to remove some of the subjectivity from the selection of the top 6. I think a combination of polls, computer rankings (including strength of schedule metrics) and the committee is the way to go. Today it's far too subjective and too heavily weighted on wins and losses when some teams only have 0 or 1 loss because they played a crap schedule.
Explain how every single game matters when most teams are eliminated by week 5. That's the part that kills the argument. Every single game matters for maybe 10 schools.
Most die hard fans love college and the NFL. Casual fans will still watch their school.
I understand the nostalgia involved but bowl games and a lot of rivalries really weren't good. Look at the record in many rivalry games. One team dominates which isn't a rivalry.
You want 6 teams. I want 24 and for teams to be playing for seeding at the top to get a bye and multiple home games.
There's no right or wrong here but for better or worse we're moving forward. We don't have much option other than to embrace it unless you give up on the sport entirely. I think many will threaten that but few will follow through.
There's a power 2 then 2 second tier conferences.
Also using this why is anyone else im FBS. They're eliminated day 1.
That is why playoff games need to be held at the home of the higher seeded team. To reward those who go 13-0 or 12-1 over those that squeak in at 11-1 or 11-2.
The only game that should be played on a neutral field is the FINAL.
Do we know how insane it is to say someone was 11-1 and they "squeaked in"? I agree about home field but 11-1 or 11-2 in any sport should be in.
That's why I can't wait for 2024 and the 12-team Playoff
You know exactly what it means when it's said that every game matters, you're being intentionally obtuse. It applies to contending teams, they are in the hunt for a title until they lose 1 or 2 games. Once you lose then you're out of contention, but still have opportunities to spoil a season for other contending teams.
In a 24 team playoff it will be common to have a 4 loss team in the playoff. How many tough opponents does a team typically play in a season, 3-4 max? A team could hypothetically lose to every single good team they play on the schedule and still make the playoff if they started high enough in the preseason rankings to not drop all the way out. That would be monumentally stupid but that's where the sport is headed. The future will be many teams from a couple of superconferences (Big 10 and SEC will run things), they will have a playoff bracket to pick their champion and will play the winner of the other conference. It will be just like the NFL playoff model but with far less parity between teams than the NFL that model does not work for CFB. The difference in quality between the #1 team and #24 team in CFB can be massive. How exciting is a first round playoff game between 11-0 Michigan hosting 7-4 Illinois where Michigan is favored by 3 touchdowns? It's not. You'll just shift some of those unexciting matchups where one team is heavily favored out of the regular conference season and put them into the playoffs. But the media companies that now run the sport won't care as long as people watch the games and they get their money, and people will watch because "it's the playoffs."
Success for CFB as a whole isn't defined by revenue and profit, but that's exactly where it's headed with the media companies running things. Those companies do not care about the sport, the competition, the fans, the schools, the conferences, etc., if the sport is making money.
Why? With only four slots (for now), and what? 132 teams? You could easily have two 13-0 teams, two 12-1 teams, and a 12-0 ND. Supply and demand. An 11-1 team is much more likely to get the 4th slot than the first.
With your first paragraph--what is the point of the other teams being in FBS other than 10-20? To spoil someone else's season--what if you don't play any of those teams--then what's every game is meaningless.
If Michigan is 11-0 they'd have a first round bye in a 24 team playoff. And that game is far better than any bowl game outside the 4 team playoff currently.
To me, this entire post is just being resistant to change.
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting Placing multiple FutureCasts in favor of Penn State- Latest: Sportfan2017
-
-