TheJackass
Active Member
This subject is only going to get louder in coming weeks. A couple of thoughts on this subject:
1. Many folks are bemoaning the fact that the politicians are sticking their nose into something where it doesn't belong and that they "have more important things to worry about". I think this couldn't be farther from the truth.
On the surface, we're talking about the involvement of hundreds of millions of dollars and public schools EACH year just on tv contracts. Scratch below the surface, and we're talking BILLIONS of dollars in federally funded research grants and studies. Our higher education system in this country is EXTREMELY important to the ongoing economy, and more importantly, to our future as leaders of the world.
A significant amount of our technological breakthroughs in the last century that makes us what we are are today can be found rooted in our public universities. Continuing this process and advancing the free flow of information between schools (which happens more readily with schools with a conference such as the Big Ten) is critical to our future. Any politician that simply writes all of this off to being a "football" matter would not only be remiss, but negligent in their duties.
I'm not saying that they should or should not take any actions, but I think it definitely needs to at least have a hard look taken at it for that reason (but not because it would be bad for Iowa State (or KSU, KU, MU, etc...Culver looks like an idiot to me, sorry I voted for him four years ago).
2. One of the big issues Senator Grassley and others are going to look at is the tax-exempt status of the universities. This I don't really get. For the last hundred years, politicians have whined about how the universities are such a drain on public funds and that they need to become more self sufficient. This includes everything about universities making more money from the intellectual property those billions of dollars produce to having athletic departments more self sufficient.
However, now that 64 schools appear to be on the way to tapping into a new and very lucrative stream of cash flow to meet these directives, the politicians want to tax it. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
One of their bigger arguments is that they're taking this non-taxed money and paying it out in very high salaries to coaches. Well, it is these coaches that help produce all of this other money that their programs generate for the universities, and I would also bet my last dollar that Kirk did not get $3.2 million in cash last year. I'm pretty sure he paid some pretty hefty taxes on it as its pretty hard to shelter salaries that large without owning the business.
The politicians also act like they schools are hoarding all of this new money and investing it and paying it out in profits to administrators and such. Last time I checked, Iowa used that money to subsidize all of the other non-revenue sports and facilities in the program so they did not have to take $1 of State general funds...and I'm pretty sure Iowa isn't the only Big Ten team doing that. Isn't that what they politicians wanted?
I see a LOT of saber rattling on this subject in the future, but I just don't think it will have legs. How many states are going to stand for having a state-sponsored entity be subject to federal income taxes? You can guarantee that if the Feds start down that road, that won't be their only stop. Also, how many political contributors and movers & shakers donate millions of dollars to their favorite schools for buildings, tickets, private visits, etc.? Don't think that those folks won't be heard on the matter as well.
4. This biggest thing that concerns me is the anti-trust issue. The Big Four schools will most definitely be an oligopoly and a ripe target to anti-trust statutes. They are going to have to be VERY, VERY careful about including the mid-majors in any championship plans, be that the BCS or future playoffs. They don't have to make it easy, but they do have to give access for these schools to tap into the post-season dollar stream.
One solution that I just thought of reading this that might head the politicians off at the pass is to institute a similar revenue sharing system as the NCAA basketball tournament. Granted, the Big Four will not want to share a lot of the money, but if they are making the large majority of their cash from their tv network deals during the season, it might behoove them to share some of the post-season money to keep from killing the golden goose.
Ideally, I'd love to see the conference champions of the Big Four in a three game playoff for the National Title, but that would spell doom as that would freeze out all of the Boise States, Utahs, and Iowa States (tee hee). The Big Four really does have to tread carefully here.
4. Iowa State (tee hee x2). A lot of political hand-wringing locally is over how bad this is going to be for our little sister to the west. On the one hand, I do feel bad for the Ag and Engineering schools in Ames. These really are world-class institutions that belong in a conference with Purdue, Penn State, and Illinois....but the athletic department is a turd that brings little to the table outside of wrestling (which this realignment is very, very bad for).
No amount of political posturing is going to get ISU into the Big Ten equation. It just is not going to happen, especially with KU still being a free agent out there (once again, Harkin and Culver look like doofuses as they are focusing on the sports aspects of this and not what it means to the ag and engineering schools).
Today, ISU runs a significant deficit as a BCS school and has to take State general funds. If they go to the MAC or C-USA, it would probably be better than the MWC (which is a pipe dream) as they could scale back their athletic department expenditures. They could still put 25-30k fans in Jack Trice for MAC play and spend a lot less money to do so. Ultimately, maybe they could cut down their reliance on state general funds.
Who knows what the end result is, but I don't think it is all bad. For the record, Northern Illinois is a pretty comparable school, and they seem to be thriving. I think ISU would make a pretty good partner for them and others like them.
5. The end result is that while I think our governmental leaders absolutely should monitor this process, the ones that are doing do now are doing it for the wrong reasons.
I do not want to begin a political fight (I'm one of the dreaded down-the-middle folks), I find it interesting that the second most conservative senator in the past 10 years was on the radio yesterday arguing for making things fair and spreading the money around. I only mention this in that there are a lot of important objective issues in conference realignment, subjective and superficial passions are going to rule the debate for the next few weeks and months.
Be prepared.
I'm totally open for reasonable debate. Let me know if I'm off base or missing something. This is whole conference realignment is has fascinated me for a long time, and now it is getting REALLY good....
1. Many folks are bemoaning the fact that the politicians are sticking their nose into something where it doesn't belong and that they "have more important things to worry about". I think this couldn't be farther from the truth.
On the surface, we're talking about the involvement of hundreds of millions of dollars and public schools EACH year just on tv contracts. Scratch below the surface, and we're talking BILLIONS of dollars in federally funded research grants and studies. Our higher education system in this country is EXTREMELY important to the ongoing economy, and more importantly, to our future as leaders of the world.
A significant amount of our technological breakthroughs in the last century that makes us what we are are today can be found rooted in our public universities. Continuing this process and advancing the free flow of information between schools (which happens more readily with schools with a conference such as the Big Ten) is critical to our future. Any politician that simply writes all of this off to being a "football" matter would not only be remiss, but negligent in their duties.
I'm not saying that they should or should not take any actions, but I think it definitely needs to at least have a hard look taken at it for that reason (but not because it would be bad for Iowa State (or KSU, KU, MU, etc...Culver looks like an idiot to me, sorry I voted for him four years ago).
2. One of the big issues Senator Grassley and others are going to look at is the tax-exempt status of the universities. This I don't really get. For the last hundred years, politicians have whined about how the universities are such a drain on public funds and that they need to become more self sufficient. This includes everything about universities making more money from the intellectual property those billions of dollars produce to having athletic departments more self sufficient.
However, now that 64 schools appear to be on the way to tapping into a new and very lucrative stream of cash flow to meet these directives, the politicians want to tax it. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
One of their bigger arguments is that they're taking this non-taxed money and paying it out in very high salaries to coaches. Well, it is these coaches that help produce all of this other money that their programs generate for the universities, and I would also bet my last dollar that Kirk did not get $3.2 million in cash last year. I'm pretty sure he paid some pretty hefty taxes on it as its pretty hard to shelter salaries that large without owning the business.
The politicians also act like they schools are hoarding all of this new money and investing it and paying it out in profits to administrators and such. Last time I checked, Iowa used that money to subsidize all of the other non-revenue sports and facilities in the program so they did not have to take $1 of State general funds...and I'm pretty sure Iowa isn't the only Big Ten team doing that. Isn't that what they politicians wanted?
I see a LOT of saber rattling on this subject in the future, but I just don't think it will have legs. How many states are going to stand for having a state-sponsored entity be subject to federal income taxes? You can guarantee that if the Feds start down that road, that won't be their only stop. Also, how many political contributors and movers & shakers donate millions of dollars to their favorite schools for buildings, tickets, private visits, etc.? Don't think that those folks won't be heard on the matter as well.
4. This biggest thing that concerns me is the anti-trust issue. The Big Four schools will most definitely be an oligopoly and a ripe target to anti-trust statutes. They are going to have to be VERY, VERY careful about including the mid-majors in any championship plans, be that the BCS or future playoffs. They don't have to make it easy, but they do have to give access for these schools to tap into the post-season dollar stream.
One solution that I just thought of reading this that might head the politicians off at the pass is to institute a similar revenue sharing system as the NCAA basketball tournament. Granted, the Big Four will not want to share a lot of the money, but if they are making the large majority of their cash from their tv network deals during the season, it might behoove them to share some of the post-season money to keep from killing the golden goose.
Ideally, I'd love to see the conference champions of the Big Four in a three game playoff for the National Title, but that would spell doom as that would freeze out all of the Boise States, Utahs, and Iowa States (tee hee). The Big Four really does have to tread carefully here.
4. Iowa State (tee hee x2). A lot of political hand-wringing locally is over how bad this is going to be for our little sister to the west. On the one hand, I do feel bad for the Ag and Engineering schools in Ames. These really are world-class institutions that belong in a conference with Purdue, Penn State, and Illinois....but the athletic department is a turd that brings little to the table outside of wrestling (which this realignment is very, very bad for).
No amount of political posturing is going to get ISU into the Big Ten equation. It just is not going to happen, especially with KU still being a free agent out there (once again, Harkin and Culver look like doofuses as they are focusing on the sports aspects of this and not what it means to the ag and engineering schools).
Today, ISU runs a significant deficit as a BCS school and has to take State general funds. If they go to the MAC or C-USA, it would probably be better than the MWC (which is a pipe dream) as they could scale back their athletic department expenditures. They could still put 25-30k fans in Jack Trice for MAC play and spend a lot less money to do so. Ultimately, maybe they could cut down their reliance on state general funds.
Who knows what the end result is, but I don't think it is all bad. For the record, Northern Illinois is a pretty comparable school, and they seem to be thriving. I think ISU would make a pretty good partner for them and others like them.
5. The end result is that while I think our governmental leaders absolutely should monitor this process, the ones that are doing do now are doing it for the wrong reasons.
I do not want to begin a political fight (I'm one of the dreaded down-the-middle folks), I find it interesting that the second most conservative senator in the past 10 years was on the radio yesterday arguing for making things fair and spreading the money around. I only mention this in that there are a lot of important objective issues in conference realignment, subjective and superficial passions are going to rule the debate for the next few weeks and months.
Be prepared.
I'm totally open for reasonable debate. Let me know if I'm off base or missing something. This is whole conference realignment is has fascinated me for a long time, and now it is getting REALLY good....
