Future Schedules

[Terry in Crapchester]

And aren't you the one who thinks teams should be restricted to their home state to recruit?

Pretty ease to support... when you live in by far the most populous state in the country.

From a purely selfish standpoint, I could support this -- with a twist. Require the in-state/out-of-state proportions on the football team's roster to match the in-state/out-of-state proportions of the student body as a whole. I'd even allow a variance of +/- 10%, given that there are only 85 football scholarships available at any given time.

That would mean business as usual for the school I root for when it comes to recruiting, while many other schools would have to change their recruiting practices drastically.

That having been said, I do realize that if such a rule were ever installed, it would be disastrous for BTPCF as a whole, even though certain schools (sup, Rutgers) would stand to benefit drastically from it.

[Mikey]

And aren't you the one who thinks teams should be restricted to their home state to recruit?

Pretty ease to support... when you live in by far the most populous state in the country.

From a purely selfish standpoint, I could support this -- with a twist. Require the in-state/out-of-state proportions on the football team's roster to match the in-state/out-of-state proportions of the student body as a whole. I'd even allow a variance of +/- 10%, given that there are only 85 football scholarships available at any given time.

That would mean business as usual for the school I root for when it comes to recruiting, while many other schools would have to change their recruiting practices drastically.

That having been said, I do realize that if such a rule were ever installed, it would be disastrous for BTPCF as a whole, even though certain schools (sup, Rutgers) would stand to benefit drastically from it.

That would put public universities, and not just ones from smaller states, at a distinct disavantage due to the fact that tuition differences slant the general student population heavily towards in-state students. Private schools tend to have a much higher proportion of out of state students.

[King Crimson]

it would generally work even further to reward population dense states and in that way mirror the destructive (in my view) tendency for the political economy of media markets (a function of urban and regional centers as pop. density understood as media consumers) to not only influence but eventually dictate the content and results of rosters and on the field play. how would a state like Nebraska compete? they couldn't.

why not just sell the sport to advertisers now, cut to the chase 20 years down the road, and let them write scripts that skew heavily towards the victories and titillation of the population centers to thereby increase viewership and ad revenue?

the Big 8 cannot exist as a conference because it lacks population density....not because of it's quality of play. when the Big 8 folded tent in 95, it was routinely sending 5 of 8 teams to the NCAA tournament. 60% of the league. When the Big East sends 60% of it's league to the NCAA (10), the ESPN guys and Syracuse honks wet themselves. Big 8 had 3 MNC's in the 90's, and 4 in it's last decade of existence. But, because it lacks urban or exurban centers (and media consumers), it cannot exist feasibly. Basically, the new currency of sport isn't play on the field....it's fannies on couches translated as ad revenue. to me, that's sort of disconcerting....though, it's easy to witness others (on homer boards) blather the default "that's just capitalism at work" or something similarly intellectually lazy.

[Terry in Crapchester]

From a purely selfish standpoint, I could support this -- with a twist. Require the in-state/out-of-state proportions on the football team's roster to match the in-state/out-of-state proportions of the student body as a whole. I'd even allow a variance of +/- 10%, given that there are only 85 football scholarships available at any given time.

That would mean business as usual for the school I root for when it comes to recruiting, while many other schools would have to change their recruiting practices drastically.

That having been said, I do realize that if such a rule were ever installed, it would be disastrous for BTPCF as a whole, even though certain schools (sup, Rutgers) would stand to benefit drastically from it.

That would put public universities, and not just ones from smaller states, at a distinct disavantage due to the fact that tuition differences slant the general student population heavily towards in-state students. Private schools tend to have a much higher proportion of out of state students.

Not entirely. Remember my line above . . .

certain schools (sup, Rutgers) would stand to benefit drastically from it.

Rutgers is a public school. It also happens to be the only BTPCF school in a relatively talent-rich state. Such a rule effectively would allow Rutgers to put up a fence around the entire state.

And, of course, it goes without saying that the tuition differences are designed to slant the enrollment toward in-state students. It's an intended cause, rather than an accident. And most state universities reserve the overwhelming majority of their admissions slots for in-state residents.

But you're correct in that other schools that would benefit from such a rule include ND, Miami, USC, Stanford, etc. Of course, three of those schools already are located in talent-rich states. But it probably would also benefit schools such as Baylor, Northwestern, Vandy, Wake, Duke, BC, Syracuse, etc. who wouldn't have anywhere near the geographic recruiting restrictions that most of their conference competitors would have.

[Dinsdale]

That would put public universities, and not just ones from smaller states, at a distinct disavantage due to the fact that tuition differences slant the general student population heavily towards in-state students.

Wouldn't æffect the University of California Eugene Campus much.

[The Seer]

And aren't you the one who thinks teams should be restricted to their home state to recruit?

That would reinforce the whole tribal notion of geographic superiority. Kind of funny for fans of teams from say, the northeast to jump up and down and say we are MIGHTY ________, even though the team is made up of mostly out of staters....Yes, you could claim a superior ability to RECRUIT and coach...but certainly not produce or develop.

Mexifornia, Tejas, and Fla...stocking a roster near you.....

[SoCalTrjn]

How about a compromise and instead of a ban on out of state recruiting or forcing a program to represent the make up of the student body +/- 10%, that a scholarship actually have a monetary value to it. If the tuition cost is 8,000 a year for an instate student and 24,000 a year to an out of state student, an out of state athletes scholarship must count as 3 towards the allotted 85. I can see no valid argument against that system.

Johnson, Prater and Perry are not from Indiana

[Killian]

And I said midwest, dipshit. And how would you suggest the scholarship be handled for private schools? Nice that your little plan still benefits USC.

[King Crimson]

I can see no valid argument against that system.

1. it's moronic.
2. not all state public institutions have the same "mandate" in terms of OOS students. for instance, the U of North Carolina is fiercely committed to providing top education to people from N. Carolina. It's very very difficult to be admitted out of state at UNC since there is a high demand (low cost, high quality education) and very few slots available. Something like 10% of each FR class. Oppositely, the U of Colorado makes it's "hay" off expensive out of state tuition and over 40 % of each class is OOS. So, by your scheme, CU would be rewarded and UNC punished for historical mandates dating back to the founding of the school. CU's OOS admission criteria are roughly equal to in-state, UNC's are vastly imbalanced and skewed toward OOS being much much more competitive. thus, OOS numbers at CU are high....at UNC low. advantage CU for entirely non-football, student population-based reasons.
3. States with only one D-1 institution would be arbitrarily advantaged v. those with say 2. Nebraska or Missouri (until Mis State, do they play football?) vs. Oklahoma that finished last season with 2 public U. ranked teams in a low population density state.
4. Cost of living varies and is reflected in tuition costs...which would come to bear on per player/scholly costs integral to this "proposal".
5. 2, 3, 4 do not give you a constant to make valid cross-state determinations of cost per player re: tuition costs.
6. would destroy many state U' baskteball programs...they would simply be unable to compete with 12 scholarships and only 2 or 3 allocated to OOS players. UCONN, for instance.
7. sounds like Canadian Pro Football....certain # of American players, etc. which is ghey.
8. recruiting would turn to high school JR's and elaborate and probably unethical ways to have them live "in-state" their senior year and get in-state residency. a more sophisticated cheating can of worms, just a year earlier. State legislatures full of football boosters would relax state residency requirements, etc. easy loopholes.
9. the tremendous advantage it would give private schools is not at all justifiable by a philosophical, principled argument. it tends towards a 2 division set up if you cannot establish a criterion for making the argument other than 1. it pleases me and my team to do so or 2. you are some kind of weird sporting Federalist.
10. again, to my point before, it steers "control" of the game to urban centers by virtue of the intensification of the logic of the political economy of media markets. might as well be the NFL.

[SunCoastSooner]

why do you seem to think that USC or Stanford has anything to gain by playing notre dame? A team plays OOC or road games because it wants to have a presence in certain regions, the reason oregon and washington cried to play in LA every year is because they recruit most of their talent from the LA area. There is nothing in indiana that is of any use to USC or Stanford, nothing. Its time to let that tradition die, USC would be better off playing OOC games vs schools in the south east or texas where the talent lies, indiana is a wasteland.

You're falling into the ESPN-esque trap of thinking that ND only has a regional appeal. Not true -- ND has national appeal, witness the NBC contract.

An OOC game vs. ND guarantees both USC and Stanford a nationally-televised game every other year. In the other years, it guarantees, at a minimum, a regional TV broadcast affecting a significant region of the country outside California -- likely most of the U.S. east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line. That's an area where USC is rarely on TV, and Stanford is on TV even less often than USC. At a minimum. And ND @ USC could very well be a national TV matchup, depending on how both teams are doing.

Go ahead, why don't you list for me the potential OOC opponents for USC and Stanford that offer the same kind of TV exposure that ND does, regardless of how well the team is doing in any given year? It won't be a long list.

Oh, and weren't you the one who said that Syracuse was a more attractive OOC opponent than ND because there was more recruiting talent available in New York than in Indiana? I'll call bullshit on that one, based on the following:

1. I live about a two-hour drive away from SU, so I have at least some idea of the amount of talent coming out of this area. As I said, about a dozen or so 1-A recruits per year, on average. And if anything, that's probably a generous estimate.

2. There are two other BCS-level schools in Indiana besides ND, both of whom apparently rely on in-state talent to a far greater extent than ND does.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/teams/ppj/roster
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/teams/iie/roster

And as Killian noted, you're the one who thinks teams should only recruit in-state. So I guess that means that USC's OOC schedule should include Fresno State, San Diego State and San Jose State every year. In that case, maybe you should apply for membership to the SEC.

Terry I love reading your posts and think you're a pretty level headed guy but please show me the throngs of Notre Dame fans or even those remotely interested in them any more in: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.

[Dinsdale]

Every now and then, I see some ND gear around here, but I'd say they're a long way from "popular."

And bear in mind, this is in the city where "The Other Notre Dame," ND's "sister school," that I believe... whatever the folks who built ND are called had a hand in building (I didn't know until recently that U Portland was affiliated with ND).

I would have assumed that since football is the only sport UP doesn't do, there'd be throngs of ND fans around here -- but doesn't seem to work out that way.

[SoCalTrjn]

I can see no valid argument against that system.

1. it's moronic.
2. not all state public institutions have the same "mandate" in terms of OOS students. for instance, the U of North Carolina is fiercely committed to providing top education to people from N. Carolina. It's very very difficult to be admitted out of state at UNC since there is a high demand (low cost, high quality education) and very few slots available. Something like 10% of each FR class. Oppositely, the U of Colorado makes it's "hay" off expensive out of state tuition and over 40 % of each class is OOS. So, by your scheme, CU would be rewarded and UNC punished for historical mandates dating back to the founding of the school. CU's OOS admission criteria are roughly equal to in-state, UNC's are vastly imbalanced and skewed toward OOS being much much more competitive. thus, OOS numbers at CU are high....at UNC low. advantage CU for entirely non-football, student population-based reasons.
3. States with only one D-1 institution would be arbitrarily advantaged v. those with say 2. Nebraska or Missouri (until Mis State, do they play football?) vs. Oklahoma that finished last season with 2 public U. ranked teams in a low population density state.
4. Cost of living varies and is reflected in tuition costs...which would come to bear on per player/scholly costs integral to this "proposal".
5. 2, 3, 4 do not give you a constant to make valid cross-state determinations of cost per player re: tuition costs.
6. would destroy many state U' baskteball programs...they would simply be unable to compete with 12 scholarships and only 2 or 3 allocated to OOS players. UCONN, for instance.
7. sounds like Canadian Pro Football....certain # of American players, etc. which is ghey.
8. recruiting would turn to high school JR's and elaborate and probably unethical ways to have them live "in-state" their senior year and get in-state residency. a more sophisticated cheating can of worms, just a year earlier. State legislatures full of football boosters would relax state residency requirements, etc. easy loopholes.
9. the tremendous advantage it would give private schools is not at all justifiable by a philosophical, principled argument. it tends towards a 2 division set up if you cannot establish a criterion for making the argument other than 1. it pleases me and my team to do so or 2. you are some kind of weird sporting Federalist.
10. again, to my point before, it steers "control" of the game to urban centers by virtue of the intensification of the logic of the political economy of media markets. might as well be the NFL.

If a school is going to charge an out of state student more than an in state student to attend the school, an out of state scholarship should count as more than an in state scholarship.
The north carolina argument is moot because I wasn't saying that the athletes be more representative of the student body, I only said that if a school is going to charge different amounts to average students then the scholarships should be counted differently. After all the NCAA feels that student athletes be treated just as regular students right?
What it would do is cause the public schools to charge the same amount to all students, that is a more likely side effect than schools trying to move 11th graders families in to their states to establish residency.
Oregon for example charges 8,000 dollars a year for Oregon residents but out of state residents have to pay 26,000 dollars, so a player like Devon Blackmon should cost the school 3.25 scholarships towards their allotted 85/25 but on the bright side for Oregon, they charge undocumented illegal aliens the instate 8,000 dollar fee so their soccer program should be amazing. Oregon shouldnt worry though, Phil will just write a bigger check to make up for the lower tuition costs to out of state students if the school decides to make instate and out of state tuition the same.
And fuck basketball, private schools have been fucked for 30 years by the scholarship limit the NCAA put on the baseball programs, 35 man roster, 11 scholarships. Let basketball programs deal with having 1/3 the amount of scholarships that they should have for 30+ years. Or just have the schools charge everyone the same tuition cost.

[SunCoastSooner]

USC as a private school should only be allowed to sign student athletes who attended private schools or prep schools.

[Mikey]

I can see no valid argument against that system.

1. it's moronic.
2. not all state public institutions have the same "mandate" in terms of OOS students. for instance, the U of North Carolina is fiercely committed to providing top education to people from N. Carolina. It's very very difficult to be admitted out of state at UNC since there is a high demand (low cost, high quality education) and very few slots available. Something like 10% of each FR class. Oppositely, the U of Colorado makes it's "hay" off expensive out of state tuition and over 40 % of each class is OOS. So, by your scheme, CU would be rewarded and UNC punished for historical mandates dating back to the founding of the school. CU's OOS admission criteria are roughly equal to in-state, UNC's are vastly imbalanced and skewed toward OOS being much much more competitive. thus, OOS numbers at CU are high....at UNC low. advantage CU for entirely non-football, student population-based reasons.
3. States with only one D-1 institution would be arbitrarily advantaged v. those with say 2. Nebraska or Missouri (until Mis State, do they play football?) vs. Oklahoma that finished last season with 2 public U. ranked teams in a low population density state.
4. Cost of living varies and is reflected in tuition costs...which would come to bear on per player/scholly costs integral to this "proposal".
5. 2, 3, 4 do not give you a constant to make valid cross-state determinations of cost per player re: tuition costs.
6. would destroy many state U' baskteball programs...they would simply be unable to compete with 12 scholarships and only 2 or 3 allocated to OOS players. UCONN, for instance.
7. sounds like Canadian Pro Football....certain # of American players, etc. which is ghey.
8. recruiting would turn to high school JR's and elaborate and probably unethical ways to have them live "in-state" their senior year and get in-state residency. a more sophisticated cheating can of worms, just a year earlier. State legislatures full of football boosters would relax state residency requirements, etc. easy loopholes.
9. the tremendous advantage it would give private schools is not at all justifiable by a philosophical, principled argument. it tends towards a 2 division set up if you cannot establish a criterion for making the argument other than 1. it pleases me and my team to do so or 2. you are some kind of weird sporting Federalist.
10. again, to my point before, it steers "control" of the game to urban centers by virtue of the intensification of the logic of the political economy of media markets. might as well be the NFL.

If a school is going to charge an out of state student more than an in state student to attend the school, an out of state scholarship should count as more than an in state scholarship.
The north carolina argument is moot because I wasn't saying that the athletes be more representative of the student body, I only said that if a school is going to charge different amounts to average students then the scholarships should be counted differently. After all the NCAA feels that student athletes be treated just as regular students right?
What it would do is cause the public schools to charge the same amount to all students, that is a more likely side effect than schools trying to move 11th graders families in to their states to establish residency.
Oregon for example charges 8,000 dollars a year for Oregon residents but out of state residents have to pay 26,000 dollars, so a player like Devon Blackmon should cost the school 3.25 scholarships towards their allotted 85/25 but on the bright side for Oregon, they charge undocumented illegal aliens the instate 8,000 dollar fee so their soccer program should be amazing. Oregon shouldnt worry though, Phil will just write a bigger check to make up for the lower tuition costs to out of state students if the school decides to make instate and out of state tuition the same.
And fuck basketball, private schools have been fucked for 30 years by the scholarship limit the NCAA put on the baseball programs, 35 man roster, 11 scholarships. Let basketball programs deal with having 1/3 the amount of scholarships that they should have for 30+ years. Or just have the schools charge everyone the same tuition cost.

By this logic USC should be charged about 6 scholarships for every one that Oregon gives out to a resident.

[Terry in Crapchester]

And fuck basketball, private schools have been fucked for 30 years by the scholarship limit the NCAA put on the baseball programs, 35 man roster, 11 scholarships. Let basketball programs deal with having 1/3 the amount of scholarships that they should have for 30+ years.

Mens' basketball is a revenue sport. Baseball is not. That may you not like those facts doesn't change that they are true. And to compare scholarship limits for a revenue sport with scholarship limits for a non-revenue sport is simply asinine.

Or just have the schools charge everyone the same tuition cost.

Much as I'd love to see private schools charge tuition at the public school rate, I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.

[Terry in Crapchester]

why do you seem to think that USC or Stanford has anything to gain by playing notre dame? A team plays OOC or road games because it wants to have a presence in certain regions, the reason oregon and washington cried to play in LA every year is because they recruit most of their talent from the LA area. There is nothing in indiana that is of any use to USC or Stanford, nothing. Its time to let that tradition die, USC would be better off playing OOC games vs schools in the south east or texas where the talent lies, indiana is a wasteland.

You're falling into the ESPN-esque trap of thinking that ND only has a regional appeal. Not true -- ND has national appeal, witness the NBC contract.

An OOC game vs. ND guarantees both USC and Stanford a nationally-televised game every other year. In the other years, it guarantees, at a minimum, a regional TV broadcast affecting a significant region of the country outside California -- likely most of the U.S. east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line. That's an area where USC is rarely on TV, and Stanford is on TV even less often than USC. At a minimum. And ND @ USC could very well be a national TV matchup, depending on how both teams are doing.

Go ahead, why don't you list for me the potential OOC opponents for USC and Stanford that offer the same kind of TV exposure that ND does, regardless of how well the team is doing in any given year? It won't be a long list.

Oh, and weren't you the one who said that Syracuse was a more attractive OOC opponent than ND because there was more recruiting talent available in New York than in Indiana? I'll call bullshit on that one, based on the following:

1. I live about a two-hour drive away from SU, so I have at least some idea of the amount of talent coming out of this area. As I said, about a dozen or so 1-A recruits per year, on average. And if anything, that's probably a generous estimate.

2. There are two other BCS-level schools in Indiana besides ND, both of whom apparently rely on in-state talent to a far greater extent than ND does.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/teams/ppj/roster
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/teams/iie/roster

And as Killian noted, you're the one who thinks teams should only recruit in-state. So I guess that means that USC's OOC schedule should include Fresno State, San Diego State and San Jose State every year. In that case, maybe you should apply for membership to the SEC.

Terry I love reading your posts and think you're a pretty level headed guy but please show me the throngs of Notre Dame fans or even those remotely interested in them any more in: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.

I didn't say anything about ND having "throngs" of fans in those states.

What I did say above, was that by playing ND, USC and Stanford are both guaranteed a nationally-televised matchup every other year (i.e., when the game is played at ND), and in the other year, they are guaranteed, at a minimum, a regionally-televised game which is televised in most if not all of the U.S. east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line. Nothing you posted refutes that.

But since you brought it up, fwiw there was a survey done by Harris Interactive in 2001 as to fans' favorite college football teams, broken down by regions of the country (Northeast, South, Midwest and West). ND was the only school to make the Top 10 in every region of the country.

That's not to say, of course, that ND's popularity doesn't vary significantly from one region to another, or even from one area to another within the same region. And the survey may be old enough that it's no longer completely reliable. But based on that survey, I'd still be willing to make an educated guess that ND still has the most geographically diverse fanbase in the country.

[SoCalTrjn]

Or just have the schools charge everyone the same tuition cost.

Much as I'd love to see private schools charge tuition at the public school rate, I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.

thats not what I am saying. I am saying that every student at the same school should pay the same amount, or if a school is going to charge an out of state student more than an in state student, then scholarships for out of state athletes should reflect that same ratio. Obviously some schools provide a better service for their students than other schools and those schools deserve to charge more than schools providing less do.


If basketball is such a revenue producing sport and the state in which the school resides can not develop its own talent, maybe the school should take that profit and use it to subsidize the cost of out of state tuition so that all of the students at the school pay the same amount.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Or just have the schools charge everyone the same tuition cost.

Much as I'd love to see private schools charge tuition at the public school rate, I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.

thats not what I am saying. I am saying that every student at the same school should pay the same amount, or if a school is going to charge an out of state student more than an in state student, then scholarships for out of state athletes should reflect that same ratio. Obviously some schools provide a better service for their students than other schools and those schools deserve to charge more than schools providing less do.

You seem to be confused about the difference between state schools and private schools.

State schools are charged primarily with providing higher education to the residents of their state (although, as King Crimson pointed out, the extent of that charge can vary among the state schools). Accordingly, they usually do charge a different tuition rate for non-resident students than for resident students. Private schools, by contrast, have no such charge, and for that reason, usually have a higher percentage of out-of-state residents among their student body than state schools do, and they also charge the same tuition for in-state and out-of-state residents.

As for tuition differences between state and private schools, those have more to do with the fact that state schools receive heavy subsidies from the taxpayers of their state, which private schools do not, than with anything else. Also, state schools generally have higher enrollment, as well as a more disproportionate student:faculty ratio, than do most private schools, and those factors also play a role.

If basketball is such a revenue producing sport and the state in which the school resides can not develop its own talent, maybe the school should take that profit and use it to subsidize the cost of out of state tuition so that all of the students at the school pay the same amount.

That's not what I said. I said that mens' basketball generates revenue, whereas baseball generally does not. Don't believe me? Attend a Division I mens' basketball game on campus, then attend a Division I baseball game on campus. Which one did you have to pay to see?

As for the amount of revenue generated, mens' basketball at most schools generates about enough revenue to pay for the program, and that's about it. I never said that it generated anywhere near the amount of revenue of a BTPCF program.

[SoCalTrjn]

I had to pay to see USC baseball play several times last year, I even paid to take the kids to see the Trojans play CS Bakersfield mid week. I was given basketball tickets for free as part of my C&G package and threw them in the trash