Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Watchdog, post: 4010862, member: 10325"] Isn't it the university Presidents and bureaucracies that brought this on? Money comes from success in academic programs (donors want their names on institutes and buildings) and sports teams (same here), so the more donations for excellence in academics and winning in sports the better. More money from TV contracts brought about lavish facilities and large, prominent, coaching staffs drawing salaries beyond most peoples' imaginations (Brent Venables, the DC at Clemson just signed a new five year contract with a base salary of $2.5M per year for example). [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/clemson-dc-brent-venables-gets-a-massive-contract-extension-will-earn-a-base-salary-of-25-million/ar-AAMbE63.[/URL] The beast sucks up huge amounts of revenue to keep up with the other beasts and on it goes. Emmert was the front man, taking the hits to keep his contract rising while the schools drew in the money and let him draw the flack. Now neither he nor they know what to do. The fans are aging out and younger people care less about sports. Even places like Alabama and Florida are not selling out all games, so they're all milking the system for all they can while it lasts. How will ratings fare when the P5 or whatever less encompassing group runs the basketball championships? If the money schools own the sport because their fans will ante up more NIL money and "lesser" schools have trouble getting the recruits necessary to compete, how long will it be before ratings drop and TV money starts to recede? What then? [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach