What will be interesting is if W and O are part of the "elite" tier. They may be today, but is it sustainable when the limited number of booster that each have that pay the big money today pass on. . .
What will be interesting is if W and O are part of the "elite" tier. They may be today, but is it sustainable when the limited number of booster that each have that pay the big money today pass on. . .
I do. I can also spell market crash. An endowment churns out cash at a set rate if done correctly. BUT, we are assuming a rich get richer world. So, sustainability is defined by continuously having more of those entrepreneurial people pooring into your program at greater and greater levels. You can't rest on your laurels. . .
An interesting thought study, if we presume that success in "college" football in the future will be entirely based on money, is which teams will have the advantage. Oregon is good today in large part because of massive investments by Phil Knight. The same can be said of other programs. But, which is sustainable in the long run. Which schools will have the largest pools of money to pay for the best football. And, I don't think some of today's "blue blood" programs make the list. I would put my money on Texas and Texas A&M. Rich schools, rich alumni, prosperous state that is business friendly and a LARGE pool of players who are crazy about football. Who would your picks be? The REAL question is how sustainable is the obscene amount of money being thrown at College Football today. My opinion is that it not sustainable. What do you think?
I think it has more to do with advertising. If advertisers see fewer people watching games, it will reduce what they are willing to pay. The die-hards aren't going anywhere, but they are a small percentage of viewership.
I don't think they would be in a 20-team elite, though it would largely depend on TV ratings at that time. (Not dissimilar to dollar decisions Fox and ESPN made in the most recent round of realignment)
What will be interesting is if W and O are part of the "elite" tier. They may be today, but is it sustainable when the limited number of booster that each have that pay the big money today pass on. . .
Curious Dan do you know how to spell endowment?
I do. I can also spell market crash. An endowment churns out cash at a set rate if done correctly. BUT, we are assuming a rich get richer world. So, sustainability is defined by continuously having more of those entrepreneurial people pooring into your program at greater and greater levels. You can't rest on your laurels. . .
An interesting thought study, if we presume that success in "college" football in the future will be entirely based on money, is which teams will have the advantage. Oregon is good today in large part because of massive investments by Phil Knight. The same can be said of other programs. But, which is sustainable in the long run. Which schools will have the largest pools of money to pay for the best football. And, I don't think some of today's "blue blood" programs make the list. I would put my money on Texas and Texas A&M. Rich schools, rich alumni, prosperous state that is business friendly and a LARGE pool of players who are crazy about football. Who would your picks be? The REAL question is how sustainable is the obscene amount of money being thrown at College Football today. My opinion is that it not sustainable. What do you think?
ItтАЩs as sustainable as the people paying the bills.
I think it has more to do with advertising. If advertisers see fewer people watching games, it will reduce what they are willing to pay. The die-hards aren't going anywhere, but they are a small percentage of viewership.
I don't think they would be in a 20-team elite, though it would largely depend on TV ratings at that time. (Not dissimilar to dollar decisions Fox and ESPN made in the most recent round of realignment)
A 30-team? Probably.
Excellent point