Arkstfan

I'll give Ken Starr credit. He knew or should have understood the Federal perjury law well enough to know there was absolutely no chance of Clinton being convicted in a court of law and took his case to a place where laws don't really matter, the US Congress. Parlayed that into presidency of one of the most conservative colleges in California (seriously who moves from Malibu to Waco?). In public relations you learn that if there is bad news you have to assume it is going to be public and it is up to you whether it becomes an expose by an investigative reporter or you announce it and get to shape the message. In theology you should understand the power of confession (unsurprising the Baylor Alumni Association understands that). Baylor needs to get the full report out because someone is going to sue. There will be a subpoena for the report and it will end up being public. Why wait for the report to be released under court order in a year or two shining the ugly spotlight back on Baylor. Get it out there and get it over with.

This is a really crazy idea but has any consideration been given to calling his office and asking for an appointment?

The expectation is that over the next decade college enrollment will be flat or decline on a national basis. Competition for each kid is going to increase. Politically, the "greatest generation" when they held power as much as they felt government could support it, lavished money on higher ed. The "boomers" have held political control since around 1998 (ie. they are the ones elected) and they have figured out that 88% of the voters do not have a college degree and aren't that likely to run you out of office if you freeze or cut higher ed spending and you get weird situations like Louisiana where much of the budget is protected from cuts by the constitution but higher ed isn't so bears the brunt of cuts every time they cut taxes or the oil and gas market tanks. Politically it is "more fun" to appropriate money for scholarships (example Arkansas and Georgia dedicate lottery revenue to scholarships) so it helps the kids pay but the school if revenue is flat or declining raises tuition and fees to offset shortfalls eating up the scholarship. Pell grants have long ago lost much of their value with appropriations not keeping pace. So we have created the borrowing system which works great when college grads find good jobs. Now schools like Alabama and Arkansas have concluded that it is in their best interest to get bigger by enrolling more students, they really like those students to be out-of-state so they will pay more in tuition. Fall 2015 both schools had more out-of-state freshman enrollments than in-state freshmen. While those schools add students, the pool of potential students is finite. That means other schools enroll fewer students. We are already seeing small liberal arts colleges close. Chicago State is barely hanging on and there is some talk of closing it and using some of the buildings as an extension of Northeastern Illinois. In Arkansas the state passed a law that allows colleges to merge on approval of the two school's governing boards without the state having to get involved. There wasn't a lot of action (AState picked up two technical schools that were quasi-jucos with limited offerings and merged them into one of our jucos and one other juco that stands alone with its own chancellor, UArk picked up five). Now the impact of the economy and 0% state funding growth for the past five years or so two more have joined UA and another joined AState. Rumor mill indicates that at least one four year school (with an affiliated juco) is putting together the numbers and looking at joining AState or UArk because they need to consolidate to survive. It's a rough environment out there in higher ed right now.

For all the talk of the importance of athletics, I think that is true only in specific cases. Eastern Michigan has been dreadful at football and not that hot of late in basketball but their enrollment has grown. I'm not sure you can rationally defend heavy fees when athletics doesn't seem core to the school identity, being non-football Division I or once again being a really good Division II would seem to produce similar return at lower cost. FIU according to the USA Today numbers, didn't bring in a million bucks in ticket sales and donations combined. Huge market, huge student body but if no one voluntarily puts money into the program, is it accomplishing its purpose? Just up the road FAU with football only a year longer and same time in FBS pulled in $2.9 million. South Al is newer in football than FIU and pulled in $1.8 million. Some of these schools really need to get out of the "me too" mindset and figure out if they are being good stewards of the money from students and the school budget.

If you don't sell tickets you have to pay for the athletic program somehow. I'm not confident that fees and institutional support can be relied upon. Look at WKU the state has cut funding and enrollment dipped resulting in budget cuts.

Toledo and BGSU are 24 miles apart. Akron and Kent 14 miles apart. Now let's look at MAC schools who reported attendance under 15k last year. Eastern Michigan located 7 miles or so from the University of Michigan. Ball State 165 miles from nearest divisional opponent UMass 385 from nearest opponent. Kent mentioned above. NIU 206 miles from nearest opponent. With the exception of EMU and Kent, the worst attendance tends to belong to the schools furthest from their conference opponents. The key to geographically compact is "close but not too close" If you are fighting for sports report coverage on your local TV station with the school, you are too close. If you are worried about a school that only gets regular local coverage when they play a road game in the market (ie. not a rerun of an AP story or press release) you got problems too big to solve with your athletic department.

Seriously? ESPN handles all our E3 football and a very very limited select number of E3 hoops games. Having ESPN standards production isn't a concern except for extra hoops games, baseball and volleyball. We get real ESPN employees who pop up SECN and ESPN college tournament broadcasts unless we do them ourself then we have to hire announcers.

It's a two year deal so half of it was basically off the table. Boise played six Friday night games in 2015. They are scheduled for four Fridays and one Thursday this year. Compare that to 2014 when Boise played one Thursday and two Fridays, AState has a Friday home game and you'd think the school had suggested Baylor players gang rape the pope for halftime entertainment because of the interference with high school football. Friday's are great for me because my interest in high school football begins and ends with who is signing with AState but I'd rather play a Thursday or Tuesday as play Friday because the guys we are recruiting are playing Friday.

Well with TV taking hit down to what the Sun Belt is paying, CUSA 3.x and Sun Belt earning the same number of basketball units, and the CFP money being better for the Sun Belt members other than changing patches what has really changed? There are now three ain't AAC or MWC conferences with very similar success and money and of the three, only one makes a lick of sense geographically.

Not getting a deal done until after schedules had been made for the season pretty much precluded doing much of anything in the midweek arena.

New owners of WGN ditched the Cubs last season so I didn't have much choice but subscribe.

With CFP revenue sharing making the optimal number for a conference 10 why would MWC go from 12 to 14?

Boston College, Cal, Colorado, Duke, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisville, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, Northwestern, Oregon State, Pitt, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse, TCU, Utah, Vandy and Virginia aren't putting 50k in the stands with their pretty patches and playing big names at home. Boston College, Cal, Colorado, Duke, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisville, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, Northwestern, Oregon State, Pitt, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse, TCU, Utah, Vandy and Virginia aren't putting 50k in the stands with their pretty patches and playing big names at home.

New update to MLB app is supposed to disable push alerts while you are watching. Streams just lag too far behind real time.

I have a hard time believing that since every other device, phone, tablet, laptop, apple TV has lag. If I buy one and have lag you offer a money back guarantee? :)

Other than BYU what potential candidate can consistently put 50k plus in the stands? I thought ECU could do it but they've faded a bit. If the people in your area won't buy a lot of tickets how many choose to watch you on TV when the choice is your team or the local P5?

Streaming cannot win over the sports market and I'm a guy who subscribes to MLB, NHL and MLS streaming services and use ESPN3 frequently. The average sports fan is not going to tolerate their primary video source having that much lag. I get push notifications on goals, runs scored, touchdowns before I see them happen. Until the lag is fixed, no one really into is going to choose that option. I watch streams because it is the only way for me to see certain teams and because I watch some on iPad to keep peace in the home.

When those contracts start expiring is when we will see how much leverage ESPN has with cable and satellite. I suspect many are going to take the stance that their survival depends on being able to offer locals and basic entertainment on a dirt cheap option and will be more than happy to pay more for ESPN to make it part of higher priced packages.

Regional accrediting bodies need better tools. Right now they have option 1, the sternly worded letter, option 2, nuclear winter the school is essentially shut down. They need other options. Auburn got a sternly worded letter over the involvement of a booster in running athletics. UNC should have been severely sanctioned for fake programs but they got a sternly worded letter. The NCAA could hook them on impermissible benefit but do they have the stomach to call getting away with rape a benefit? As for the idea that the NCAA would be afraid to act because Baylor is P5, I don't buy it. If the NCAA fears power schools then they would hammer Baylor for pooping in OU and UT's cereal bowl. The NCAA got exposed bluffing Penn State during the litigation, they will be 100% sure of jurisdiction before they touch it.

Personally I like the too cool for sports hipsters and retired old ladies subsidizing my sports viewing. In the UK if you want their equivalent of ESPN you pay $49.25 a month only for the sports just to stream.

Fees are perfectly acceptable ways to give an athletic department a fairly predictable income stream. But when an athletic department is overly dependent it makes you wonder if they are wasting their time having athletics that no one seems to care about, if the athletic department is hungry enough to build revenue, and whether the athletic department is stable enough to be viable long-term as it becomes more challenging to fill classes as we head into an era when overall enrollment is likely to decline and major name brand schools are often turning to enrollment to replace lost funding from states. In the latest USA Today I count these FBS schools getting 75% or more of budget from the school/students. Troy 75.45%, Buffalo 75.67%, Georgia State 76.85%, UMass 78.55%, Eastern Michigan 80.43%, FIU 82.55% For contrast, the list of FBS in 2011. Ohio 76.9%, Kent State 77.9%, South Alabama 80.2%, FIU 80.3%, Eastern Michigan 82.1% I understand heavy reliance starting out or undertaking a limited term construction project but at some point you have to make some money. What I find interesting is that terrorists could attack EMU or FIU games and not manage to hurt anyone but both seem to be pretty solid in enrollment (and in EMU's case they are BAD to mediocre in the two biggest sports). I question whether they are getting any real value from athletics to justify the cost.

I don't have a crystal ball, I thought it was likely that Fox would try to engage ESPN in competition at FS2 and online making CUSA potentially more valuable. But I really think next thing down the pike is the only money guaranteed money we see will come from moving games to weird days and times and the Saturday games we will pay production hand it over to one or more distributors who will pay based on viewership and/or the value of the inserted ads. Some point in November an EFT will hit the bank account for the games played in September. That's how huge swathes of internet content are paid for and how artists are paid for music on streaming services. Just seems likely that something similar comes to sports.

I like ESPN3. It's the silver standard in sports streaming (MLB.TV is the gold standard and they provide streaming tech to WWE and a variety of other services). I use E3 a great deal (heck I stream a lot of sports, I subscribe to the MLS, NHL, and MLB packages) and E3 is a great tool. I sat in the stands bored and cold as AState pounded TXST in football and watched part of Georgia State humiliating Georgia Southern after hearing GaSo fans ridicule AState for not putting away GaSt early). I've watched women's volleyball, men's and women's basketball and baseball. Now I usually watch on my iPad while I'm doing something else but with Apple TV I can watch on my TV. The only complaint I have is the lag and even MLB.TV has that (sucks getting a push alert that the guy who just stepped in the batters box on my TV has hit a home run). That is why cable/satellite won't die. Lag matters in sports. But what I find interesting is there are two ways to get TV to your house. Way one, the wire or the satellite sends EVERYTHING. A box sorts it out as to what you are permitted to see and it tunes the channel you want. Way two, the box tells a server someplace what to send to you. That's what UVerse and Fios do and it's what Apple TV and Roku do. Cord cutting is overblown, greatly overblown. Sure there are people who limit themselves to an over-the-air signal and what they can get free but the rest are still paying to view. Netflix is a bundler, they buy the rights to lots of stuff and you pay to watch it. SlingTV's product is just another cable/sat provider they just let someone else pay for the cost of the infrastructure to get the signal to your house. The majority will always prefer a bundler who will give them x number of networks. The bad news for sports fans is sports fans are a small group. Go look at the best ever ratings for ESPN content. There are millions and millions who have ESPN today who would happily sign up with a bundler who doesn't include ESPN and because of that the cost is going to rise for those of us who do watch sports. Here is the thing that baffles me about the new CUSA deal. The length. CUSA left money on the table with it being a short deal and left money on the table not having more weeknight action (at least this year, who knows what next year includes). Eight years is typically the shortest deal you see. Is the thinking get some games on ESPN and negotiate from a better position if that delivers better ratings than the generally awful FS1 ratings? Is the thinking that the numbers will be better with someone else negotiating? Is it just a case of there was no consensus so go short and hope the mood improves to sign a new deal next year? Are there schools thinking they are headed AAC fighting for short and cheap since departure penalties are tied to decreases in TV rights? Is there a divorce movement floating out there kicking the can down the road until continuity is met? Two years is shockingly short for a TV deal.

I've dealt with RV and felt he was a class act in a business that needs more class acts. He got the significance of the internet before a lot of G5 types did. But he never found his groove in scheduling from what I could see as an outsider and frankly how do you make a bowl and lose season ticket holders, how do you win four league titles and not get a serious capital campaign going? I don't know the politics at UNT and maybe some of that doesn't land on him or was only open to him with onerous restrictions. I hope he has massive success and happiness in whatever happens next. Truthfully I think he'd be a helluva conference commissioner. Despite the constant message board harping on commissioners the reality is they carry very little power with the member schools having the real power and the Commissioner's role is one of providing advice and helping the members find consensus, my impression is he could be very good in that role for someone.

Bowl games are going to flex and change. Look at Detroit, the MAC tied game basically got kicked out of Ford Field so B1G could create a "new" game there that had the ACC instead of the MAC as an opponent. When you look at the bowl agreements currently, MAC situation stinks, with the loss of Detroit not a single game that is easily accessible. AAC has a nice portfolio if you are in the eastern division, the west teams? The closest tied game is in Birmingham. MWC has a nice portfolio all are regional (if Hawaii is bowl eligible) but all at campus sites except Tucson. That sort of takes some of the fun out, either playing at home or at a stadium you've played at in league play. CUSA has two the casual fan is hard pressed to attend. Hawaii is uber expensive and Bahamas requires a passport though you can get much better travel deals. If UTEP isn't available for the New Mexico game then three outside the footprint. RIght now we are in a moratorium so the value of a bowl license has improved. Unless Tucson finds the money to make the game P12-B12 or P12-MWC in the near future the game is worth more relocating and right now there are two reportedly well financed groups in South Carolina trying to get a bowl. The lifting of the NCAA ban on South Carolina coupled with Coastal going FBS has some strong interest there. By 2020 barring an infusion of cash, the Tucson game will end up moving and South Carolina looks like the prime landing spot. Wouldn't shock me one bit to see the game land in Charleston or Columbia and be Sun Belt vs. CUSA in a few years probably replacing Hawaii or possibly Bahamas