The Price of going FBS

[darell1976]

Some interesting tweets from National Collegiate Sportswriter Bryan Fischer:

https://twitter.com/BryanDFischer






.@NCAAResearch (https://twitter.com/NCAAResearch) says revenues at FBS schools grew 83.2% the past 10 years. Expenses grew by 114.6%.

The same goes for D1 schools without football, no department had revenue exceed expenses in 2013.

According to the NCAA, no FCS athletic department made money in 2013.

Per @NCAAResearch (https://twitter.com/NCAAResearch), gap between median Power 5 total revenues and median of other FBS total revenue in 2013 was $54.7 million.



Makes you wonder, how long schools are willing to stay in the FCS, and how long can some FBS schools stay at that level? You see problems with Idaho with conference affiliation, you see Hawaii with major money issues for travel. How long can these schools last at the top level. And then for FCS teams, if no one in the whole subdivision is making money, where do you cut, or do you drop football altogether, which according to one of the tweets isn't the answer either. Its a mess!!

[BisonFan02]

Define profit/revenue in this case. Athletics is a marketing tool for the whole university as far as enrollment and the student experience. It shouldn't necessarily be the reason one goes to the school of their choosing, but you would be naive to assume that doesn't happen in a lot of cases.

[darell1976]

Define profit/revenue in this case. Athletics is a marketing tool for the whole university as far as enrollment and the student experience. It shouldn't necessarily be the reason one goes to the school of their choosing, but you would be naive to assume that doesn't happen in a lot of cases.

We have seen examples of schools struggling to balance their books and contemplate the idea of dropping football. Hawaii, Portland State, St. Cloud State at the DII level. Idaho had to drop back to the Big Sky in all sports to help them since the price of travel in the Sun Belt would be too much for them. They would be in the BSC for football in a heartbeat but don't want to "drop down". Now with schools wanting to pay players in the p5 it will eventually filter down to include the subdivision too, then AD's will have to find other ways to get money for that.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

The problem is the long term FBS programs, especially the traditionally successful ones (Cincy, Boise State, Air Force, UCF, Fresno State, Toledo, Ohio, ECU, Navy, Houston etc.) are getting screwed. Every few years these teams are capable of playing in a Final 4 type setting like in college hoops. From what I gather, people do realize and want to keep the "Cinderella" aspect in college football. They just don't Butler and VCU there every year or even every 2-3 years.....

Temple has a losing history YET we're the only program to be in a BCS conference twice. We have appeal and marketability (what matters) despite futility. Yet, we're stuck in the middle....

[BisonFan02]

We have seen examples of schools struggling to balance their books and contemplate the idea of dropping football. Hawaii, Portland State, St. Cloud State at the DII level. Idaho had to drop back to the Big Sky in all sports to help them since the price of travel in the Sun Belt would be too much for them. They would be in the BSC for football in a heartbeat but don't want to "drop down". Now with schools wanting to pay players in the p5 it will eventually filter down to include the subdivision too, then AD's will have to find other ways to get money for that.

Don't necessarily disagree, but we just have to be careful when we toss the profitability word around when only looking at athletics in an isolated silo. Like St. Cloud and UND...what's more marketable for their institutions...hockey or football? (No...not trying to start a flame war...just an honest question). Schools will allocate funds where they deem them necessary...football, basketball...etc.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Don't necessarily disagree, but we just have to be careful when we toss the profitability word around when only looking at athletics in an isolated silo. Like St. Cloud and UND...what's more marketable for their institutions...hockey or football? (No...not trying to start a flame war...just an honest question). Schools will allocate funds where they deem them necessary...football, basketball...etc.

This is where is gets dicey. The AAC, Big East, MWC and to some extent the A10/WCC/MVC are comprised of big time to "very serious" hoops programs. These programs have the same resources, if not more than 75% of the P5 programs.

How can you change that fact without literally forcing the programs to scale back?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

FCS is not about making money for the university. It's about making a great atmosphere for students, athletes and alumni, an atmosphere that FCS schools are willing to pay to have on their campuses. Ideally it breaks even and makes a lifetime of mostly positive memories for all.

[walliver]

The key to continuing FCS football, as it always has been, is cost control.

That is why there is a 63 scholarship limit, and why some conferences have lower limits. Maybe the limits will be lower in the future. Costs can be controlled by reducing travel expenses. Many of the Carolinas' SoCon teams play OOC against Carolina Big South teams. Games against Gardner-Webb, PC, and CSU generally don't create a lot of fan interest, but it keeps travel expenses low. CCU creates more interest, but is still frequently a short bus trip. Unfortunately, it may be that FCS Marquee games will not be feasible (Montana-Appy, etc). Many/Most FCS schools are going to tell their athletes, "We can't pay you, be happy with a $50K a year scholaship, and by the way, our marketing rights aren't worth much, if you need cash look somewhere else."

Obviously, the Big Sky is another situation altogether with the long travel distances involved, and their solutions will likely be different.


And to be honest, I am getting tired of all the Sky Is Falling threads. Maybe a separate sub-forum can be set up for gloom and doom threads.
I still believe the greatest risk to FCS football will be concussion and other injury liability.

[citdog]

Getting rid of the excremental 'dayton rule' would be the best thing for the subdivision. Let the pretenders get to Div III where they belong.

[darell1976]

Don't necessarily disagree, but we just have to be careful when we toss the profitability word around when only looking at athletics in an isolated silo. Like St. Cloud and UND...what's more marketable for their institutions...hockey or football? (No...not trying to start a flame war...just an honest question). Schools will allocate funds where they deem them necessary...football, basketball...etc.

This is why I would love to see specifics on what made money and where money is lost. I am sure women's sports don't make money, and sports up here like baseball can't make anything especially when we spend the first 20+ games on the road. Also when they mention FBS and FCS schools are they saying football didn't make money or the school as a whole. A lot of ??? SCSU and UND do make more money in hockey, playing at the DI level in that sport for almost 70 years, sending players to the pros and olympics will pump more money into that sport compared to football where UND has had some success (1 NC, and a couple bowl wins). UND will always be a hockey school just as NDSU will always be a football school. So one can see where a school like UND may not make money on football, where NDSU should be able too, problem is we don't have the specifics to see it.

[citdog]

SCSU and UND do make more money in hockey.


South Carolina State University Hockey?

[darell1976]

South Carolina State University Hockey?

St. Cloud State University.

[Bisonator]

Getting rid of the excremental 'dayton rule' would be the best thing for the subdivision. Let the pretenders get to Div III where they belong.
This has always been my question, why does the NCAA want everything to fit in the same box. Why not allow schools to put their programs where they fit best? If your school has a great BB tradition and wants to play D1 hoops fine, if the FB program isn't fully funded or competitive let them play DII or DIII. Wouldn't that make more sense then trying to pigeon hole schools into the same templates?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

About 30 schools, +-10 schools "make money" in that revenues exceed expenses. Out of more than 300 D-I schools.

Some number, let's call it 30, mostly FBS schools with giant subsidies are paying big bucks to be considered FBS schools. Let's define that number as more than 50% of the budget is subsidized by student fees or out-and-out payments from the university. Hawai'i, UAB, Idaho clearly fall in this category, UL-Laf, UL-Monroe, FAU, FIU do too. App State and Georgia Southern almost certainly will. UMass I'm less certain, but I think so.

Additionally, there are most definitely this type of school in FCS as well. Not to pick on JMU, but I think they apply (>50% subsidized).

The rest break even, or essentially break even, in athletics. Some spend $10 mil, some spend $30 mil, some spend $50 mil. They take in some money, which essentially gets poured into student aid or the occasional stadium or facility upgrade, breaking even. A good number of FBS schools do. Most FCS schools do.

[SIUSalukiFan]

About 30 schools, +-10 schools "make money" in that revenues exceed expenses. Out of more than 300 D-I schools.

Some number, let's call it 30, mostly FBS schools with giant subsidies are paying big bucks to be considered FBS schools. Let's define that number as more than 50% of the budget is subsidized by student fees or out-and-out payments from the university. Hawai'i, UAB, Idaho clearly fall in this category, UL-Laf, UL-Monroe, FAU, FIU do too. App State and Georgia Southern almost certainly will. UMass I'm less certain, but I think so.

Additionally, there are most definitely this type of school in FCS as well. Not to pick on JMU, but I think they apply (>50% subsidized).

The rest break even, or essentially break even, in athletics. Some spend $10 mil, some spend $30 mil, some spend $50 mil. They take in some money, which essentially gets poured into student aid or the occasional stadium or facility upgrade, breaking even. A good number of FBS schools do. Most FCS schools do.

I agree with almost everything you said but I do not believe most FCS schools break even on football. The vast majority of them lose money.

Talk to me, Montana fans ... wasn't your AD quoted a couple of years back as saying the Griz football program only makes money if you advanced to the second round of the playoffs and got to pocket the proceeds of two home playoff games?

If I'm mistaken I apologize.

[PAllen]

It's all a shell game. This everybody's losing money crap is just massaging the numbers until you get the story you want. Remember, GE hasn't made money in years, yet their EBIT numbers have been pretty solid if not fantastic. These athletic programs are parts of colleges and universities that are not-for-profit organizations. Showing a profit can be a bad thing in those circumstances.

[Laker]

Football (and hockey) are very expensive sports. Do they need different outfits for every game? Couldn't they save a ton of money by using one helmet and having one home and one away uniform? Just because Oregon does it because they are subsidized by Nike the rest of the sheep don't have to follow along. There are a lot of other areas that they could cut costs too.

[darell1976]

This has always been my question, why does the NCAA want everything to fit in the same box. Why not allow schools to put their programs where they fit best? If your school has a great BB tradition and wants to play D1 hoops fine, if the FB program isn't fully funded or competitive let them play DII or DIII. Wouldn't that make more sense then trying to pigeon hole schools into the same templates?

I agree. How much money (ballpark avg or %) could be saved by dropping some sports from DI to DII or DIII? If say Portland St is struggling financially could they break even or gain money if say football moved to DII but everything else stayed DI?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I agree with almost everything you said but I do not believe most FCS schools break even on football. The vast majority of them lose money.

Talk to me, Montana fans ... wasn't your AD quoted a couple of years back as saying the Griz football program only makes money if you advanced to the second round of the playoffs and got to pocket the proceeds of two home playoff games?

If I'm mistaken I apologize.

I guess what I'm saying is that the standards need to change on this stuff.

Pretty much everyone at the FCS level, and most at the FBS level (not to mention D-II and III) pay to play football. That's OK. But there has to be some generally agreed point where it seems like it's dangerous to the financial health of the university.

I arbitrarily called that number "more than 50% of the department's revenues come from a subsidy from either the school or the students or both". But I feel that's a pretty good starting point.

Incidentally, there are not an insignificant number of P5 schools that also fall in this category, though that might change with the new TV deals. Though they will be signing up for significant new expenses it seems, too.

Basically, though, I don't think anyone has a problem with most schools paying some amount to sponsor football - it's just when it becomes a threat to the stability of the institution. I feel like there are a significant number of schools (notably Hawai'i, Idaho) where it is a threat, but not all.

[MplsBison]

The quote in the original post is very misleading.

It was talking about revenue and expenses of athletic departments while referencing football. They were trying to trick people into thinking that FBS football program expenses increased higher than revenues.

Athletic departments are vastly more expansive than just the football program. You're talking about expenses related to every other sport!

So for example, FBS football program expenses might've grown 50% while revenues might've grown 55%, as a group. But then you throw the rest of the athletic departments on top of that and it drags it down.


Fact is, without the revenue that FBS schools get from football (and that should include all the booster club and single gift donations that a school receives largely because of the football program, but of course doesn't) then the athletic departments would be SUNK.


For the most part, it's exactly the same at full-scholarship, full-expenses FCS football program schools. The athletic department spends more than the total revenues. DUH! That doesn't mean the football program lost money!

[MplsBison]

The key to continuing FCS football, as it always has been, is cost control.

That is why there is a 63 scholarship limit, and why some conferences have lower limits. Maybe the limits will be lower in the future. Costs can be controlled by reducing travel expenses. Many of the Carolinas' SoCon teams play OOC against Carolina Big South teams. Games against Gardner-Webb, PC, and CSU generally don't create a lot of fan interest, but it keeps travel expenses low. CCU creates more interest, but is still frequently a short bus trip. Unfortunately, it may be that FCS Marquee games will not be feasible (Montana-Appy, etc). Many/Most FCS schools are going to tell their athletes, "We can't pay you, be happy with a $50K a year scholaship, and by the way, our marketing rights aren't worth much, if you need cash look somewhere else."

Obviously, the Big Sky is another situation altogether with the long travel distances involved, and their solutions will likely be different.


And to be honest, I am getting tired of all the Sky Is Falling threads. Maybe a separate sub-forum can be set up for gloom and doom threads.
I still believe the greatest risk to FCS football will be concussion and other injury liability.

Doom and gloom is what gets people to click on the article and increase the hit count (advertising dollars).

There's no news like bad news.

[SUPharmacist]

This has always been my question, why does the NCAA want everything to fit in the same box. Why not allow schools to put their programs where they fit best? If your school has a great BB tradition and wants to play D1 hoops fine, if the FB program isn't fully funded or competitive let them play DII or DIII. Wouldn't that make more sense then trying to pigeon hole schools into the same templates?

Challenge being, if your school wants to field multiple competitive sports, how do you compete with a schools that puts all their money into strictly football, or basketball or whatever it may be. Does this eventually drive the top end to be 1 sport programs?

[MplsBison]

Last but certainly not least, here are a couple tweets that darrell for some reason decided not to include in the original post.

Says a lot.



Bryan Fischer @BryanDFischer (https://twitter.com/BryanDFischer) · 3h (https://twitter.com/BryanDFischer/status/502113916823306242)

Ex. of NCAA fuzzy math: Expenses outpaced revenue growth by 31% past decade but revenue as % of expenses has stayed almost the exactly same


Bryan Fischer @BryanDFischer (https://twitter.com/BryanDFischer) · 4h (https://twitter.com/BryanDFischer/status/502110211168301056)

I have long said NCAA accounting methods and practices are fool’s gold. People can make the numbers what they want easily.


Pretty obvious what the NCAA is trying to do here: make the numbers look bad for the lawsuits.

"Nah uhh!! NCAA schools don't make lots of money! See, we can't share any with the athletes!"

[MplsBison]

I guess what I'm saying is that the standards need to change on this stuff.

Pretty much everyone at the FCS level, and most at the FBS level (not to mention D-II and III) pay to play football. That's OK. But there has to be some generally agreed point where it seems like it's dangerous to the financial health of the university.

I arbitrarily called that number "more than 50% of the department's revenues come from a subsidy from either the school or the students or both". But I feel that's a pretty good starting point.

Incidentally, there are not an insignificant number of P5 schools that also fall in this category, though that might change with the new TV deals. Though they will be signing up for significant new expenses it seems, too.

Basically, though, I don't think anyone has a problem with most schools paying some amount to sponsor football - it's just when it becomes a threat to the stability of the institution. I feel like there are a significant number of schools (notably Hawai'i, Idaho) where it is a threat, but not all.

Disagree with your 50% criteria.

If tuition increases to pay for athletics or if a fee is imposed to pay for athletics - and the students agree to pay that, then that's all there is. Nothing more can be said.


Athletics costs a lot of money. Just like internet access (IT support) costs universities a crap load of money. But students demand it. Students want athletics. It's part of the university experience in the US.


Ideally ticket/concession and donations (booster club or direct gifts) would pay for everything. But that's not reality at 99% of places.

[Bisonator]

Challenge being, if your school wants to field multiple competitive sports, how do you compete with a schools that puts all their money into strictly football, or basketball or whatever it may be. Does this eventually drive the top end to be 1 sport programs?

I think it's already there. When has Duke or Kansas been a top FB school? Or how about the schools who don't even have FB??

[darell1976]

Last but certainly not least, here are a couple tweets that darrell for some reason decided not to include in the original post.

Says a lot.



Pretty obvious what the NCAA is trying to do here: make the numbers look bad for the lawsuits.

"Nah uhh!! NCAA schools don't make lots of money! See, we can't share any with the athletes!"

I didn't include the first one cause it wasn't posted at the time.

[MplsBison]

I think it's already there. When has Duke or Kansas been a top FB school? Or how about the schools who don't even have FB??

Duke went to a bowl game against TA&M last year. It was a great game.

Kansas was ranked #1 for a time, back a few years ago when they and Missouri played in KC as #1 vs #2.

[Bisonator]

Duke went to a bowl game against TA&M last year. It was a great game.

Kansas was ranked #1 for a time, back a few years ago when they and Missouri played in KC as #1 vs #2.

OK so once in a blue moon.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I agree with almost everything you said but I do not believe most FCS schools break even on football. The vast majority of them lose money.

Talk to me, Montana fans ... wasn't your AD quoted a couple of years back as saying the Griz football program only makes money if you advanced to the second round of the playoffs and got to pocket the proceeds of two home playoff games?

If I'm mistaken I apologize.

He may have said that but it's number shuffling and that was said at a time where he was subtly trying to get the FBS move talk going again. He also mentioned we might need to look at D2 because we weren't making it. xlolx

The UM brings in the neighborhood of pretty close to a million each time a home game (not counting business just UM) so once you start siphoning off the money for parking/tailgates to the physical plant, concessions and so forth to another department, and so on and so forth the revenues can be held down to accomplish any asks for cash etc.

If we'r talking an athletic dpt. as a whole UM ain't raking it in but if we're talking about just football then that is another story.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Last but certainly not least, here are a couple tweets that darrell for some reason decided not to include in the original post.

Says a lot.



Pretty obvious what the NCAA is trying to do here: make the numbers look bad for the lawsuits.

"Nah uhh!! NCAA schools don't make lots of money! See, we can't share any with the athletes!"

That's where the subsidy numbers come in. Revenues = expenses on the EADA reports, but some percentage of that $ is taxpayer money or student fees funneled into the "revenue" portion of the house. At some places this subsidy is more than half the revenue of the entire department.

The USA Today has an excellent database detailing this information (dating from the 2012-2013 season):

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Something that ought to alarm you: Of the 230 schools that were required to publicly report, 130 of them had a $ subsidy greater than 50%.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

One interesting thing about the database is that of the teams with more than 50% subsidy, there are (to my untrained eye) pretty much an equal number of FBS and FCS schools. Of course, amounts are different. Rutgers blowing $46 million per year (59.50%) is a lot different than Western Illinois forking over $9 million per year (77.34%).

Size of the school also would play into this.

[SIUSalukiFan]

He may have said that but it's number shuffling and that was said at a time where he was subtly trying to get the FBS move talk going again. He also mentioned we might need to look at D2 because we weren't making it. xlolx

The UM brings in the neighborhood of pretty close to a million each time a home game (not counting business just UM) so once you start siphoning off the money for parking/tailgates to the physical plant, concessions and so forth to another department, and so on and so forth the revenues can be held down to accomplish any asks for cash etc.

If we'r talking an athletic dpt. as a whole UM ain't raking it in but if we're talking about just football then that is another story.

You know, I remember thinking that didn't seem possible but I also didn't realize there was a Griz propaganda campaign of which I was unaware. xlolx

[MplsBison]

OK so once in a blue moon.

Mangino wasn't able to keep it going at Kansas. Can't quite remember what the deal was, if it got in trouble and they fired him/he quit. Too long ago.

But Missouri has kept it going. I had never heard of Missouri being a football power in any capacity before the last few years. Congrats to Gary Pinkel.

Duke is getting things rolling too, thanks to Cutcliffe. This year will be crucial to seeing if they can keep it rolling.

[MplsBison]

That's where the subsidy numbers come in. Revenues = expenses on the EADA reports, but some percentage of that $ is taxpayer money or student fees funneled into the "revenue" portion of the house. At some places this subsidy is more than half the revenue of the entire department.

The USA Today has an excellent database detailing this information (dating from the 2012-2013 season):

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Something that ought to alarm you: Of the 230 schools that were required to publicly report, 130 of them had a $ subsidy greater than 50%.

It's really not any harder than this:

- create rules disallowing the school from using any of the state dollars on athletics
- the athletic department creates a budget for each year and projects the money they'll need to balance that budget
- that money comes from each student paying an "athletics fee" as part of their student bill. For example, 10,000 students paying a $250 fee provides a $2.5million subsidy to the athletic department in addition to any money they intake from ticket sales, merchandise royalties, booster club, gift donations, facility rentals, camps, etc.
- if the AD/school want to increase the fee, the students must vote on it and approve it

- facilities are a separate matter

That's how it should be. If the students and alumni want a strong athletic department -- no surprise, it takes money! You have to pay for nice things. That's that.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It's really not any harder than this:

- create rules disallowing the school from using any of the state dollars on athletics
- the athletic department creates a budget for each year and projects the money they'll need to balance that budget
- that money comes from each student paying an "athletics fee" as part of their student bill. For example, 10,000 students paying a $250 fee provides a $2.5million subsidy to the athletic department in addition to any money they intake from ticket sales, merchandise royalties, booster club, gift donations, facility rentals, camps, etc.
- if the AD/school want to increase the fee, the students must vote on it and approve it

- facilities are a separate matter

That's how it should be. If the students and alumni want a strong athletic department -- no surprise, it takes money! You have to pay for nice things. That's that.

104 of these subsidy payments (which includes student fees but also includes payments from the school to the athletic department) exceed $10 million per year in size. For a large school like Rutgers (58,000) this might not be a problem, but at New Mexico State (just under 18,000) it might be.

I'd love to know the grand total yearly of subsidy across all institutions. It would easily be in the billions of dollars.

[Bisonoline]

Mangino wasn't able to keep it going at Kansas. Can't quite remember what the deal was, if it got in trouble and they fired him/he quit. Too long ago.

But Missouri has kept it going. I had never heard of Missouri being a football power in any capacity before the last few years. Congrats to Gary Pinkel.

Duke is getting things rolling too, thanks to Cutcliffe. This year will be crucial to seeing if they can keep it rolling.

You are very young or dont know much about CFB. Missouri has been regarded as a power in the past. They have appeared in at least one bowl a decade since the 1920s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Tigers_footballhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Tigers_football

[Gangtackle11]

You are very young or dont know much about CFB. Missouri has been regarded as a power in the past. They have appeared in at least one bowl a decade since the 1920s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Tigers_footballhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Tigers_football

Mel Gray, Roger Wehrli, Kellen Winslow......those were the days!

[AshevilleApp2]

Duke went to a bowl game against TA&M last year. It was a great game.

Kansas was ranked #1 for a time, back a few years ago when they and Missouri played in KC as #1 vs #2.

I think that was Kansas State. May be wrong though.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

I think that was Kansas State. May be wrong though.

It was Kansas. The Jayhawks had Aqib Talib that year when they beat Va Tech in the Orange Bowl. That was when Chase Daniels was at Missouri...

[AshevilleApp2]

It was Kansas. The Jayhawks had Aqib Talib that year when they beat Va Tech in the Orange Bowl. That was when Chase Daniels was at Missouri...

Thanks! I never remembered Kansas being that good.

[walliver]

I think it's already there. When has Duke or Kansas been a top FB school? Or how about the schools who don't even have FB??

Duke at one time was a national player. Once they left the SoCon, is was downhill for the next 40-50 years (although the Old Ball Coach had a few decent years).

[Libertine]

Kansas has never been ranked #1 in football since the Great Depression. In 2007, they got all the way up to #2 in both the AP and the coaches' poll for one week in late November. They then completely browned the sheets against Missouri and finished out the year at #7.

[darell1976]

Kansas has never been ranked #1 in football since the Great Depression. In 2007, they got all the way up to #2 in both the AP and the coaches' poll for one week in late November. They then completely browned the sheets against Missouri and finished out the year at #7.

They also put up 76 points on Nebraska. I have never seen that.

[MplsBison]

104 of these subsidy payments (which includes student fees but also includes payments from the school to the athletic department) exceed $10 million per year in size. For a large school like Rutgers (58,000) this might not be a problem, but at New Mexico State (just under 18,000) it might be.

I'd love to know the grand total yearly of subsidy across all institutions. It would easily be in the billions of dollars.

*shrug* If students and alumni want an expensive athletic department, then they have to pay for it!

18,000 fee paying students would have to pay a $228 athletics fee per semester to make a $10 million yearly subsidy. Not really that bad considering a $10,000+ bill for tuition and other fees per year.


Now here's an easy way to reduce some expenses: don't require athletic departments to sponsor a bunch of sports that don't make money!

[MplsBison]

You are very young or dont know much about CFB. Missouri has been regarded as a power in the past. They have appeared in at least one bowl a decade since the 1920s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Tigers_football

The link confirms what I suspected was true: Missouri football has not been much to write home about from 1984 - 2006 seasons. They've achieved double digit wins in 2007 (the first time since their only other time in 1960), 2008, 2010 and 2013.

[MplsBison]

Kansas has never been ranked #1 in football since the Great Depression. In 2007, they got all the way up to #2 in both the AP and the coaches' poll for one week in late November. They then completely browned the sheets against Missouri and finished out the year at #7.

Thanks, that's the year I was thinking of.

Mind you, they were facing #1 ranked Missouri as the #2 ranked team, in a huge rivalry game played in the KC Chiefs stadium.

I remember thinking how unfair it was that Kansas got to go to a BCS bowl game and Missouri didn't even though they lost to Missouri in that rivalry game, because Missouri went on to lose to Oklahoma in the Big XII championship game.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Now here's an easy way to reduce some expenses: don't require athletic departments to sponsor a bunch of sports that don't make money!

Last I checked, college athletics departments don't like to pay lawyers to fight Title IX lawsuits they'll never win.

[MplsBison]

Last I checked, college athletics departments don't like to pay lawyers to fight Title IX lawsuits they'll never win.

I didn't say have unequal participation.

For example, there is absolutely no reason that NDSU should have a Men's or a Women's Golf team. It wouldn't save much money, of course. But there's still no reason for it.

[URMite]

The link confirms what I suspected was true: Missouri football has not been much to write home about from 1984 - 2006 seasons. They've achieved double digit wins in 2007 (the first time since their only other time in 1960), 2008, 2010 and 2013.

But they did do ok in the 60s, 76-23-6 in a conference with Nebraska & Oklahoma isn't terrible.

[MplsBison]

But they did do ok in the 60s, 76-23-6 in a conference with Nebraska & Oklahoma isn't terrible.

I wasn't following college football in the 60s, so that fact is not inconsistent with my post #33.

No point in arguing it further. I relent, Missouri was a decent team in the past. They don't need to be included on the same list as Duke and Kansas. Sheesh.

AGS is nothing if not a bunch of people who love nothing more than to play fact checker with each other's posts.

[Bisonoline]

The link confirms what I suspected was true: Missouri football has not been much to write home about from 1984 - 2006 seasons. They've achieved double digit wins in 2007 (the first time since their only other time in 1960), 2008, 2010 and 2013.

No it just confirms that once again you were talking out of your azz on a subject you have no knowledge of.

[MplsBison]

No it just confirms that once again you were talking out of your azz on a subject you have no knowledge of.

It confirms nothing of the sort.

And this post confirms that you add nothing to discussions. You're just a troll.

[Bisonoline]

It confirms nothing of the sort.

And this post confirms that you add nothing to discussions. You're just a troll.

I provided facts. You provided uninformed BS like usual. Now that you have been proven wrong you say I added nothing? xlolx xlmaoxxlmaox

[citdog]

It confirms nothing of the sort.

And this post confirms that you add nothing to discussions. You're just a troll.

Mpls the season starts tomorrow. Are you trying to get someone to use a banhammer on you?

[MplsBison]

I provided facts. You provided uninformed BS like usual. Now that you have been proven wrong you say I added nothing? xlolx xlmaoxxlmaox

You literally proved no facts. You did link to a wikipedia article, that supported my position.

- - - Updated - - -


Mpls the season starts tomorrow. Are you trying to get someone to use a banhammer on you?

You're welcome for my financial contributions to AGS.

That's correct, I am a defacto donor to AGS. Every time a banhammer is used on me, it means I just donated to support AGS. Again, you're welcome.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You're welcome for my financial contributions to AGS.

That's correct, I am a defacto donor to AGS. Every time a banhammer is used on me, it means I just donated to support AGS. Again, you're welcome.

I think there needs to be a side award graphic "AGS Banhammer Hall of Fame" to recognize these donations, ursus.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I think there needs to be a side award graphic "AGS Banhammer Hall of Fame" to recognize these donations, ursus.

I have mentioned to him in a pm that I recognize him as a de facto donor to AGS cuz it is true but I ain't making any more user bars currently.

[BisonFan02]

I have mentioned to him in a pm that I recognize him as a de facto donor to AGS cuz it is true but I ain't got no time fo dat.

FIFY

[Bisonoline]

You literally proved no facts. You did link to a wikipedia article, that supported my position.

- - - Updated - - -



You're welcome for my financial contributions to AGS.

That's correct, I am a defacto donor to AGS. Every time a banhammer is used on me, it means I just donated to support AGS. Again, you're welcome.









xrotatehxxrotatehxxrotatehxxrotatehx

You and Lakes related?

[MplsBison]

I'm sorry that your head spins when you try to read logical, straight forward arguments.

No, we're not related thankfully. His online caricature is disgusting.

[bjtheflamesfan]

*shrug* If students and alumni want an expensive athletic department, then they have to pay for it!

18,000 fee paying students would have to pay a $228 athletics fee per semester to make a $10 million yearly subsidy. Not really that bad considering a $10,000+ bill for tuition and other fees per year.


Now here's an easy way to reduce some expenses: don't require athletic departments to sponsor a bunch of sports that don't make money!

I did some basic math and according to my calculations, 18,000 students paying $228 per semester (or $456) equates to around $8 million ($8,208,000 to be precise)...so if that athletics fee is supposed to serve as funding for an annual subsidy of $10m, it would need to be about $277.78 in order to be the sole source of funding

[Bisonoline]

Mangino wasn't able to keep it going at Kansas. Can't quite remember what the deal was, if it got in trouble and they fired him/he quit. Too long ago.

But Missouri has kept it going. I had never heard of Missouri being a football power in any capacity before the last few years. Congrats to Gary Pinkel.

Duke is getting things rolling too, thanks to Cutcliffe. This year will be crucial to seeing if they can keep it rolling.


Thanks, that's the year I was thinking of.

Mind you, they were facing #1 ranked Missouri as the #2 ranked team, in a huge rivalry game played in the KC Chiefs stadium.

I remember thinking how unfair it was that Kansas got to go to a BCS bowl game and Missouri didn't even though they lost to Missouri in that rivalry game, because Missouri went on to lose to Oklahoma in the Big XII championship game.


I wasn't following college football in the 60s, so that fact is not inconsistent with my post #33.

No point in arguing it further. I relent, Missouri was a decent team in the past. They don't need to be included on the same list as Duke and Kansas. Sheesh.

AGS is nothing if not a bunch of people who love nothing more than to play fact checker with each other's posts.


I'm sorry that your head spins when you try to read logical, straight forward arguments.

No, we're not related thankfully. His online caricature is disgusting.

xrotatehxxrotatehx

[MplsBison]

I did some basic math and according to my calculations, 18,000 students paying $228 per semester (or $456) equates to around $8 million ($8,208,000) to be precise...so if that athletics fee is supposed to serve as funding for an annual subsidy of $10m, it would need to be about $277.78 in order to be the sole source of funding

Thanks for checking my math. $10million divided by 18k students is roughly $556 per year. I made a mistake dividing that by two in my head for the per semester fee (was off by $50). So it should have been $278, not $228.

I always make mistakes doing arithmetic in my head.

[MplsBison]

xrotatehxxrotatehx

None of the three lines you highlighted are incorrect on their own or inconsistent relative to each other.

I'm sorry that your head spins when you try to read logical, straight forward arguments.

[bjtheflamesfan]

It happens mpls. better that happen on here than in an administrator's office and it costs somebody about $2m and possibly their job

[Sitting Bull]

I always see the arguments that revenue increases when a school moves FCS to FBS.

What is usually ignored is the expense line, which also goes up considerably.

in the end, on the examples I have seen, the actual gap in money lost grows. No one makes money in either Division outside a few of the extreme power teams.

The majority of such analysis always bake in best case scenarios to boot.

Money aside, the biggest drawback I see is the ridiculous conference line-ups one has to deal with to move up.

One only has has to look at the absolute insanity of UMass to see what is sacrificed for such a move. I don't know who is footing this bill, I assume the tax payer and possibly Mr. Kraft, though being a businessman, I can't imagine he will continue placing big money bets on this nag. Even after three years of this move, their largest crowd last year, or certainly close, was their game against former CAA rival Maine.

[MplsBison]

I always see the arguments that revenue increases when a school moves FCS to FBS.

What is usually ignored is the expense line, which also goes up considerably.

in the end, on the examples I have seen, the actual gap in money lost grows. No one makes money in either Division outside a few of the extreme power teams.

The majority of such analysis always bake in best case scenarios to boot.

Money aside, the biggest drawback I see is the ridiculous conference line-ups one has to deal with to move up.

One only has has to look at the absolute insanity of UMass to see what is sacrificed for such a move. I don't know who is footing this bill, I assume the tax payer and possibly Mr. Kraft, though being a businessman, I can't imagine he will continue placing big money bets on this nag. Even after three years of this move, their largest crowd last year, or certainly close, was their game against former CAA rival Maine.

Keep one thing in mind though, a move up to FBS does not have to be immediately successful nor does the initial slate of conference foes have to be perfect.

It's also about the potential of future opportunities.

[citdog]

I always see the arguments that revenue increases when a school moves FCS to FBS.

What is usually ignored is the expense line, which also goes up considerably.

in the end, on the examples I have seen, the actual gap in money lost grows. No one makes money in either Division outside a few of the extreme power teams.

The majority of such analysis always bake in best case scenarios to boot.

Money aside, the biggest drawback I see is the ridiculous conference line-ups one has to deal with to move up.

One only has has to look at the absolute insanity of UMass to see what is sacrificed for such a move. I don't know who is footing this bill, I assume the tax payer and possibly Mr. Kraft, though being a businessman, I can't imagine he will continue placing big money bets on this nag. Even after three years of this move, their largest crowd last year, or certainly close, was their game against former CAA rival Maine.


It is amusing to me that most of the schools that wish to make the jump are those who have never been there before. Schools like the ones we are fans of HAVE and have little interest in returning.