Well, they are not market-based professional teams, in the sense that their finances are subsidized.At the BCS level, and certainly the top echelon of the BCS, it is fully professionalized. These programs are for all intent and purposes professional sport franchises of their respective universities. The problem, as I see it, is that without guardrails (salary caps being one) the system gets under severe strain and the competitive landscape can quickly get severely tilted to an even greater extent than it already is.
This system has absolutely nothing to do with academics anymore, absolutely nothing. The Ivies made exactly the right decision years ago in avoiding this.
No. UConn simply doesn't fit the B1G mold. The ACC and B12 are more realistic aspirations.If the B1G decided to go to an uneven revenue distribution model like the ACC, would the B1G have any more interest in UConn?
Football wise, UConn would likely receive a very low payout, with a higher payout for basketball. If UConn's total payout was only say $25-$30 million, then UConn would not be taking money away from the other B1G schools by having an equal payout. Does that make UConn more valuable to the B1G?
Well, they are not market-based professional teams, in the sense that their finances are subsidized.
So, I would say they are still mostly state-subsidized entities. Let them go fully pro and share the money 50/50 like the NFL does.
NoIf the B1G decided to go to an uneven revenue distribution model like the ACC, would the B1G have any more interest in UConn?
Bama in decline under Saban is a real stretch.Gonna be great in a few weeks when that Bama win doesn’t look that valuable.
Bama was in a decline under Saban and Deboer has just made it worse.
Bama in decline under Saban is a real stretch.
Were they in decline under Saban after 2012?
His last few seasons they lost in the national championship game to Georgia and finished #1 in the CFB playoff rankings after blowing out Ohio State the year before to win the national championship. The next season they won the Sugar Bowl and finished the season #5 in the CFB playoff rankings. His final season they lost to Michigan in the Rose Bowl finished the season ranked #4 in the CFB playoff rankings.Sure it was. Just take ten seconds and google the results under Saban in his last few seasons. You don't need to thank me.
His last few seasons they lost in the national championship game to Georgia and finished #1 in the CFB playoff rankings after blowing out Ohio State the year before to win the national championship. The next season they won the Sugar Bowl and finished the season #5 in the CFB playoff rankings. His final season they lost to Michigan in the Rose Bowl finished the season ranked #4 in the CFB playoff rankings.
His last 4 seasons they went 13-0, 13-2, 11-2, 12-2.
After they won the national championship in 2012 they lost back to back Sugar Bowls finishing 11-2 and 12-2.
Were they in decline under Saban after 2012?
You realize they lost 2 games and lost back to back bowl games in the 2013 and 2014 season?You realize that losing two games at Alabama is considered catastrophic right? He did that three years in a row. Two years in a row they struggled against USF. Alabama took a back seat to Georgia. There was a noticeable decline.
And there was a reason he punched out when he did.
You realize they lost 2 games and lost back to back bowl games in the 2013 and 2014 season?
He was 72 years old, it was time to retire.
Not a fan of Belichick nor would I have hired him but he is the type of coach UNC needs long term. We need proven evaluators & developer's of talent. We need the Dave Clawson type instead of a Lincoln Riley type