Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[JohnFSilver]

It's more complicated than this. You are correct, companies can now measure which articles are read and how long people stay on the page, but that is not necessarily how reporters are allocated. One of my friends who is a reporter at a large newspaper that has a union told me it is very difficult to fire the writers that don't get read. The union reporter salaries are capped by the union contract so many of the popular writers will leave for a better opportunity if they can. Those that don't have better opportunities stay. I asked how the most popular writers stay and he told me the very top writers are promoted to management (like asst editor,...) so they can be paid a higher salary.

Where do we start with metrics….i know this very well.

Using views and engagement, on a news story, to determine the worth of the writer is such a bad way to manage (places do it). Usually it is corporate managers who don’t understand news’ place in society. Places like the Courant have turned to this model, letting free market decide what is relevant, and that has predictably devolved into lessening quality and more click bait stories.

I don’t have time to really get into this, could be a Masters Thesis, but the best thing a journalist and editor can do is ignore what “rates” and concentrate on doing relevant and good content.

Chasing clicks devolves into less quality, more content, more click bait.

Views are valuable metric, the most, but your CPMs on click bait content is god awful.

 

[huskymedic]

Bubble leaking…

 

[CL82]

I am not gonna disagree on the culpability of the people with money.

But while I get the metaphor I think you are really downplaying the power the presidents have here. The power isn’t in espn hand. It is in the conferences hands because espn wants the content.

Maybe presidents should have thought about the sport than about their bloated budgets.

football was always so decentralized. The consolidation was never thought out. You got leagues fighting each other and we get stupid conferences that make no sense.

Fully agree that the school presidents opted in what they thought was in their best interest, just like addicts opt in to get their next high. But it is indisputable that ESPN has been a, if not, the prime mover in the conference realignment that we all despise. That they did so in a manner that cost Connecticut taxpayers literally hundreds of millions of dollars, should never be forgotten. Had they decided not to screw over the university in the state that they occupy, the university whose sports were actually the central part of their original business plan, we would not be on the outside, looking in right now and what was indisputably far away the best basketball conference in the country would still be in existence.

Isn't "follow the money" a core principal in investigative journalism? If it was good enough for Woodward and Bernstein, it ought to be good enough for us.

 

[noeynox]

Blame? No one forced schools to get greedy. There was no need for these huge television contracts and realignment.

Blame the schools.

This is odd. So when networks started offering huge sums of money, the schools should have been like, "no thanks"? We just agreed to pay our men's BB coach more per year than the entirety of our TV contract. College sports has been big business for a very LONG time.

 

[huskymedic]

Bubble leaking…

 

[ZooCougar]

I think we can all agree that espn played a major role in destroying the Big East, however way you want to call it. Has there been one news article written and published by espn placing blame on espn? That was and continues to be a major news event. How has espn the great news center reported it?

Yeah but the writers didn’t make those decisions.

Executives did.

 

[ZooCougar]

I am not gonna disagree on the culpability of the people with money.

But while I get the metaphor I think you are really downplaying the power the presidents have here. The power isn’t in espn hand. It is in the conferences hands because espn wants the content.

Maybe presidents should have thought about the sport than about their bloated budgets.

football was always so decentralized. The consolidation was never thought out. You got leagues fighting each other and we get stupid conferences that make no sense.

John,

The networks are running college football now. The NCAA and the conferences were too incompetent so the networks took over. The networks were sick of the scheduling issues and everything else.

School Presidents and Commissioners are just along for the ride.

 

[Jbirdp5]

So even Ohio state, one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country with all that big 10 money coming in are not making enough to support their revenue producing sports and need to trim the fat? I don’t understand how they aren’t solvent with all the revenue they have coming in

 

[Revrat]

So even Ohio state, one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country with all that big 10 money coming in are not making enough to support their revenue producing sports and need to trim the fat? I don’t understand how they aren’t solvent with all the revenue they have coming in

Same reason many individuals are not. I forget where I saw the article but basically most people and in this case universities spend all their money. So no matter how much they make they are still always broke. New facilities, equipment, staff they will always spend it all in the arms race.

 

[Samoo]

Oh the irony

Blame the junky, not the dealer. Actually, blame them both.

 

[Ldandy]

John,

The networks are running college football now. The NCAA and the conferences were too incompetent so the networks took over. The networks were sick of the scheduling issues and everything else.

School Presidents and Commissioners are just along for the ride.

While not officially in charge, they most certainly are pulling the strings that run major college sports. I believe that we're rapidly heading to an era of super conferences for both football and basketball. They may be organized under a single media deal for both sports or under separate deals with differing membership for each. Basketball likely having more member programs than football.

The remainder of non-revenue sports will likely realign into more sensible regional conferences. They may still be overseen by a diminished NCAA, as these programs will more resemble the original student athlete model that The NCAA was tasked with managing. If we're being honest there really is no good reason for a Women's Volleyball or Men's Swimming Team to be flying cross country to compete. Conference realignment made that a thing. There are often multiple programs within a 3–6-hour bus ride to where most schools are located. These schools need to be competing against each other.

 

[JohnFSilver]

This is odd. So when networks started offering huge sums of money, the schools should have been like, "no thanks"? We just agreed to pay our men's BB coach more per year than the entirety of our TV contract. College sports has been big business for a very LONG time.

Then they need to act like it. They been in a gray area for a long time .

 

[JohnFSilver]

So even Ohio state, one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country with all that big 10 money coming in are not making enough to support their revenue producing sports and need to trim the fat? I don’t understand how they aren’t solvent with all the revenue they have coming in

Totally going against their stated mission. It’s just minor league sports now.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

So even Ohio state, one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country with all that big 10 money coming in are not making enough to support their revenue producing sports and need to trim the fat? I don’t understand how they aren’t solvent with all the revenue they have coming in

I don't think it's a matter of solvency. My interpretation was if the sport isn't generating revenues, the only reason to throw money away at that sport would be if a national championship is a possibility.

 

[Jbirdp5]

I don't think it's a matter of solvency. My interpretation was if the sport isn't generating revenues, the only reason to throw money away at that sport would be if a national championship is a possibility.

I just see how so many people on this board worry about the AD losing money and this makes it seem like if we were getting a check for 60 million a year from the big ten we would still have to trim the fat. I guess it could just be that they just look at it as throwing good money away, but that’s certainly devaluing non revenue sports.

 

[uconndogs]

So even Ohio state, one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country with all that big 10 money coming in are not making enough to support their revenue producing sports and need to trim the fat? I don’t understand how they aren’t solvent with all the revenue they have coming in

I think it's even worse than that. How can any of these programs know what their payroll costs are going to be? If you want to compete for a NC every season you will need to compete in an open market to attract and retain talent. What do you think is going to happen when programs like tOSU, Michigan, LSU, Bama, USC start competing for talent? Remember, all of this is now in place WITHOUT anything that resembles a salary cap. It would not surprise me in the least if a lot of kids make more money in college than they ever do in the pros.

It's not sustainable.

 

[Forte]

Same reason many individuals are not. I forget where I saw the article but basically most people and in this case universities spend all their money. So no matter how much they make they are still always broke. New facilities, equipment, staff they will always spend it all in the arms race.

THIS 10000%. Ever wonder why college costs have skyrocketed compared to the past, when students were riding lunch trays down Horse Barn Hill? Nowadays, the university might install a ski lift for the same activity. Luxuries like rock climbing walls, gourmet dining halls, and other non-academic amenities come with a hefty price tag. These additions are designed to attract top talent, both academically and athletically, raising the university’s profile. However, this often comes at the expense of the core education, which hasn’t changed much. It’s essentially an arms race that undermines what a public university should be.

 

[ZooCougar]

I think it's even worse than that. How can any of these programs know what their payroll costs are going to be? If you want to compete for a NC every season you will need to compete in an open market to attract and retain talent. What do you think is going to happen when programs like tOSU, Michigan, LSU, Bama, USC start competing for talent? Remember, all of this is now in place WITHOUT anything that resembles a salary cap. It would not surprise me in the least if a lot of kids make more money in college than they ever do in the pros.

It's not sustainable.

There will be two levels.

Pro College Sports
College Sports Classic

 

[noeynox]

Then they need to act like it. They been in a gray area for a long time .

The gray area was the players not getting paid. NCAA tournament alone generates billions. As does the CFP. The coaches at highest levels make more than NFL and NBA coaches. A split of haves and have nots makes sense.

 

[JohnFSilver]

This is odd. So when networks started offering huge sums of money, the schools should have been like, "no thanks"? We just agreed to pay our men's BB coach more per year than the entirety of our TV contract. College sports has been big business for a very LONG time.

What do they use the money for?

That’s the problem with how much they get. They don’t put it back into the school. They don’t fund other athletics. They essentially just fund ways to spend it because it is a non-profit.

How do you spend? Luxury infrastructure and really high salaries for administrators and coaches.

No one cares how much your school makes in tv money.

 

[AllHusky]

THIS 10000%. Ever wonder why college costs have skyrocketed compared to the past, when students were riding lunch trays down Horse Barn Hill? Nowadays, the university might install a ski lift for the same activity. Luxuries like rock climbing walls, gourmet dining halls, and other non-academic amenities come with a hefty price tag. These additions are designed to attract top talent, both academically and athletically, raising the university’s profile. However, this often comes at the expense of the core education, which hasn’t changed much. It’s essentially an arms race that undermines what a public university should be.

Point of order, there was a ski slope with a rope tow in the 70’s!

 

[JMick]

There will be two levels.

Pro College Sports
College Sports Classic

I'm not sure how college sports classic will work if revenue sharing is mandatory. Does everyone drop to division 3? Another court case? Limited fan attendance and marketing?

 

[Patman]

But the journalists want to keep their jobs so.....I don't expect any honest reporting from them. Unless they are saying this is primarily espn's fault.

It's not like journalists don't know the score or what keeps them fed. And some of the mouthpieces who aren't reporters, like herbstreit, who are absolutely company men

 

[CL82]

Nowadays, the university might install a ski lift for the same activity

Actually, there used to be a rope tow on horse barn hill. If you walk back there you can still sense the remnants of it.

 

[Chin Diesel]

It's more complicated than this. You are correct, companies can now measure which articles are read and how long people stay on the page, but that is not necessarily how reporters are allocated. One of my friends who is a reporter at a large newspaper that has a union told me it is very difficult to fire the writers that don't get read. The union reporter salaries are capped by the union contract so many of the popular writers will leave for a better opportunity if they can. Those that don't have better opportunities stay. I asked how the most popular writers stay and he told me the very top writers are promoted to management (like asst editor,...) so they can be paid a higher salary.

Where do we start with metrics….i know this very well.

Using views and engagement, on a news story, to determine the worth of the writer is such a bad way to manage (places do it). Usually it is corporate managers who don’t understand news’ place in society. Places like the Courant have turned to this model, letting free market decide what is relevant, and that has predictably devolved into lessening quality and more click bait stories.

I don’t have time to really get into this, could be a Masters Thesis, but the best thing a journalist and editor can do is ignore what “rates” and concentrate on doing relevant and good content.

Chasing clicks devolves into less quality, more content, more click bait.

Views are valuable metric, the most, but your CPMs on click bait content is god awful.

Print media is dead as a standalone business model.

The difference between good journalism practices and editorial discretion with a profitable business model is like the difference between being a chef and a restaurant owner.
And there's a reason why there are more McD's than there are Michelin star restaurants.