Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

[moose97]

Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

Got it in one.

The allure is mostly basketball, but if you play football, I suppose you could get some extra dollars by being someone's speedbump.

Basketball is ridiculously cheap to put on, and the teams can easily score a few big payout games (as well as their cut of the NCAA tourney revenue, if they get themselves into a conference), which can easily make basketball break-even, if not fund a few extra sports.

I'm surprised there aren't more "Denver"-type schools out there (i.e. no D-I football, but D-I in everything else) for this exact reason. Football has the potential to bring in big money (Michigan, Florida, USC, Notre Dame, etc.), but in more cases, costs more than it's worth (plus has the title IX ramifications of 100+ male athletes to deal with). Why not "go D-I" without football, invest in basketball, and start pulling in those checks? Seems like a no-brainer to me...

 

[MikeAnderson]

Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

I don't think I was quite clear - by ending the concept of 'playing up,' I mean interpreting D1 hockey more like the NCAA skiing example mentioned above. Since there isn't a real D2 option, D2 schools playing D1 hockey shouldn't count as playing up.

Then you move to the "national collegiate championship" formula and completely kill the tradition and competition in Division III schools.

Division I presidents have rarely been a group that would cut off its nose to spite its face, so I would be shocked to see the presidents fundamentally alter one of their championships in this case.

 

[ChiefWahoo]

Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

I'm surprised there aren't more "Denver"-type schools out there (i.e. no D-I football, but D-I in everything else) for this exact reason. Football has the potential to bring in big money (Michigan, Florida, USC, Notre Dame, etc.), but in more cases, costs more than it's worth (plus has the title IX ramifications of 100+ male athletes to deal with). Why not "go D-I" without football, invest in basketball, and start pulling in those checks? Seems like a no-brainer to me...

Boston University went that route. But invested in hockey instead of Basketball.

 

[Patman]

Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

I'm surprised there aren't more "Denver"-type schools out there (i.e. no D-I football, but D-I in everything else) for this exact reason. Football has the potential to bring in big money (Michigan, Florida, USC, Notre Dame, etc.), but in more cases, costs more than it's worth (plus has the title IX ramifications of 100+ male athletes to deal with). Why not "go D-I" without football, invest in basketball, and start pulling in those checks? Seems like a no-brainer to me...

IIRC football is the loss leader of higher ed... as far as I recall the "revenue potential" is there if you are really good... most schools lose all kinds of money... you have to be really good or have a basketball program so good that you make money just because you don't have to expend that much more (hence why UConn profits).

 

[blockski]

Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

Then you move to the "national collegiate championship" formula and completely kill the tradition and competition in Division III schools.

Division I presidents have rarely been a group that would cut off its nose to spite its face, so I would be shocked to see the presidents fundamentally alter one of their championships in this case.

No, no, no. Again, I'm not being clear. Make a special case for hockey and any other sports with such a small participation rate that having three divisions is pointless. D3 is a totally different beast - the differences between D3 and D2 are far bigger than those between D2 and D1.

There are currently only two options for NCAA hockey - D3 and D1. Let the D3 schools play in D3, as they do now. Let everyone else play in D1 regardless of their school's larger affiliation, as they do now.

Nothing changes, except the nomenclature. It makes no sense for a school like UMD to 'play up' to the D1 hockey level because there is no level where they can 'play even,' and 'playing down' would be totally unfair to the D3 schools.

When I say 'end the concept of playing up,' I'm not proposing to change anything about how college hockey is structured today. I'm talking about changing the definition of playing up.

Since there are only two options, D2 schools have no choice but to play up. Since they have no choice, they really shouldn't be considered as playing up at all, just as all the D3 skiing participants aren't considered to be playing up, as they only have one option.

 

[Jim]

Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

Got it in one.

The allure is mostly basketball, but if you play football, I suppose you could get some extra dollars by being someone's speedbump.

Basketball is ridiculously cheap to put on, and the teams can easily score a few big payout games (as well as their cut of the NCAA tourney revenue, if they get themselves into a conference), which can easily make basketball break-even, if not fund a few extra sports.

The allure is almost exclusively basketball. The cost of running a D-1 football program is extremely high, and really only the major conferences make money. For every Notre Dame and Michigan, there is an Eastern Michigan struggleing to break even. Some of them play money games which are exactly what they sound like, but that is really aimed at not losing too much. And Division 1AA (FCS I guess it is now called) is really a no-win situation. I think I read somewhere that 2 teams finished in the black a couple of years ago. And I remember hearing the UMASS AD saying that they actually lost more money the year they won the national championship than they would had they not made the playoffs. And for the most part, you play in front of "crowds" of 7,500-10,000 at the Bigger FCS programs, the real successful ones draw 20,000, some draw maybe a couple of thousand.

Basketball is a whole different animal, though. If you get into a league, and virtually everyone is in one, you share in the NCAA revenues. And the costs

Basketball, on the other hand, is relatively inexpensive to run and you can play at a modest level and still do ok. for every Duke or UCONN or Kansas that plays in palatial facilities, there are a bunch of Sacred Hearts and Howards that play in on campus gyms that are pretty basic. You can get money games here too, and lotsof the D-1 powers make it a point to play a bunch of local mid-majors early in the year.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

I'm surprised there aren't more "Denver"-type schools out there (i.e. no D-I football, but D-I in everything else) for this exact reason. Football has the potential to bring in big money (Michigan, Florida, USC, Notre Dame, etc.), but in more cases, costs more than it's worth (plus has the title IX ramifications of 100+ male athletes to deal with). Why not "go D-I" without football, invest in basketball, and start pulling in those checks? Seems like a no-brainer to me...

True, But football does generate a lot of alumni that once they've graduated and have moved on from the sport, that are usually quite willing to give back to the University. Hell, it wasn't that long ago where some MTU football alums got together and pooled their cash together to save that program, and they pretty much pay for that program themselves without the University really having to spend a dime from their other funds. I bet if you went and surveyed most universities and their donors who donate over a thousand dollars a year, I would bet that most of those donors would have likely played football at the school, or perhaps been involved in another activity that would have been closely related to the football program, such as the Marching Band, Cheer leading, Dance team or some other part of the game-day experience. Football on average directly involves more people on campus than any other sport.