This could be a huge help for CUSA with the other sports like, Soccer MBB and WBB. If we offer Full Cost and other Mids that don't have football choose not to follow. We could end up with a nice help in recruitment over the other 25 conferences. What are the other G5s doing, is the SunBelt, MAC jumping on board with the added cost? Also what happens with sports like baseball? Are only the players on scholarship getting the added benefits, with stipends and better food choices. That's not cool for the team mates.

Really the separation might become huge with the conferences just below us, think we'll loose another player to a FCS team. That dosen't happens often, but this would kill that from happening again.

(07-25-2014 07:16 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 02:34 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  This should come as a surprise to no one. $500k? That's ~2.5% of the lowest budgets in the conference. You don't fold over $500k when you've got $20M-$35M already in the pot.

And the AAC have higher budgets than we do, who thinks they won't follow suit?

All the G5 conferences will follow suit but a couple of them will have to do it on a school by school basis. There are some schools in the MWC and the MAC they struggle quite a bit when it comes to finances. Not sure about ULM in the SBC but the rest of the SBC will be on board too.

All 11 SBC programs will implement it. League voted for it back in 2012 and the budgets are high enough at App, the two Georgia's, and Texas State to afford it.

ULM knows they cant afford the alternative. They'll make do.

Got this off one of the UTEP message boards

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21444...r-division

(07-29-2014 08:33 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 07:16 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 02:34 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  This should come as a surprise to no one. $500k? That's ~2.5% of the lowest budgets in the conference. You don't fold over $500k when you've got $20M-$35M already in the pot.

And the AAC have higher budgets than we do, who thinks they won't follow suit?

All the G5 conferences will follow suit but a couple of them will have to do it on a school by school basis. There are some schools in the MWC and the MAC they struggle quite a bit when it comes to finances. Not sure about ULM in the SBC but the rest of the SBC will be on board too.

All 11 SBC programs will implement it. League voted for it back in 2012 and the budgets are high enough at App, the two Georgia's, and Texas State to afford it.

ULM knows they cant afford the alternative. They'll make do.

You really have to wonder how ULM does it with a budget as low as theirs. We play NWST in Ruston this year and they have a larger budget and play in the FCS.

(07-29-2014 09:28 PM)winston70 Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 08:33 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 07:16 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 02:34 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  This should come as a surprise to no one. $500k? That's ~2.5% of the lowest budgets in the conference. You don't fold over $500k when you've got $20M-$35M already in the pot.

And the AAC have higher budgets than we do, who thinks they won't follow suit?

All the G5 conferences will follow suit but a couple of them will have to do it on a school by school basis. There are some schools in the MWC and the MAC they struggle quite a bit when it comes to finances. Not sure about ULM in the SBC but the rest of the SBC will be on board too.

All 11 SBC programs will implement it. League voted for it back in 2012 and the budgets are high enough at App, the two Georgia's, and Texas State to afford it.

ULM knows they cant afford the alternative. They'll make do.

You really have to wonder how ULM does it with a budget as low as theirs. We play NWST in Ruston this year and they have a larger budget and play in the FCS.

They put most of the cash in football. Though they've gotten some nice donations out of the Duck Dynasty folks to help.

Its never made sense, but they've been proving everyone wrong for 13 years...why stop now?

(07-29-2014 08:39 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Got this off one of the UTEP message boards

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21444...r-division

If those figures are correct, it would be a significant burden on most G5 programs. I am surprised by some of the schools that did and did not make the cut.

(07-29-2014 08:39 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Got this off one of the UTEP message boards

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21444...r-division

An excerpt from the article:

"The non-power-five conference with the most solvent football members is Conference USA, with Marshall, FAU, UTEP and North Texas all reporting an excess in 2012-13."

(07-29-2014 10:38 PM)WEARE Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 08:39 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Got this off one of the UTEP message boards

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21444...r-division

If those figures are correct, it would be a significant burden on most G5 programs. I am surprised by some of the schools that did and did not make the cut.

1) It is Bleacher Report

2) UCF, Virginia, Pitt, Cincy can't afford $420,000 but Troy is fine? That makes no damn sense.

This one to the trash.

(07-30-2014 08:55 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 10:38 PM)WEARE Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 08:39 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Got this off one of the UTEP message boards

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21444...r-division

If those figures are correct, it would be a significant burden on most G5 programs. I am surprised by some of the schools that did and did not make the cut.

1) It is Bleacher Report

2) UCF, Virginia, Pitt, Cincy can't afford $420,000 but Troy is fine? That makes no damn sense.

This one to the trash.

Hence, the "if" in my statement. I do not foresee many schools folding due to increased costs. It may create greater debt to operate the program, but most schools will be able to handle these increases. What is surprising is the programs that are already operating with a deficit. It was not at all what I expected (if correct).

Troy has a very large online presence. I think they have many programs that cater to military and older adult learners. If we are venturing guesses, I would assume a large surplus of revenue generates from fees associated with their online programs.

What's worse about this article is that it completely obfuscates the variance with which state government entities (i.e. public universities in this case) are required to submit budgets, revenues and expenses.

I'm going to use Middle Tennessee as an example, because that's the one I have the most experience with. Middle Tennessee's expenses and revenues are always going to be equal in the way its reported due to accounting principles within the state government. Because we receive state funding we are not allowed to report a profit even if we had millions in excess unless our revenues exceeded what we were receiving in state benefits, which would mean we would have to be making SEC type revenus for the amout of money we generate to offset state funding. Therefore, any excess is going to be deducted from the state benefit and our revenues and expenses are always going to be the same number that = $0.

Most schools receive a subsisidy through the university/state. Creative accounting allows some schools to count the subsidy toward other sports (let's say non-revenue), so they can then pretend that they are producing a profit on football, because they don't allocate as much of the subsidized money for that sport. In our case, it all goes into one pot and a lot of the money football generates is spread across the others sports.

The reality is none of us are making a lot of money on athletics. Only a handful (maybe 6 to 8 schools) actually generate enough revenues to operate their entire athletic budgets in the black without tax-based assistance. There are more schools that could fund their football programs independentally but if we could all drop our tennis, track and other leaching sports we could probably make enough money just on football to have our programs too. These financial articles about college football are always misguided and a waste of time.

(07-29-2014 08:39 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Got this off one of the UTEP message boards

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21444...r-division

The article is full of nonsense, mostly in the assertion that no AAC teams could afford the extra $420K (many could), but it does highlight a good point:

there is a huge division even within "P5" conferences. The ability to pay, and despire to expand "benefits", is going to be massively different between Texas/OU and Iowa State, OSU, TCU, Kansas.

This will, or should, lead to division and unrest within conferences themselves, especially conferences wehre there are severe differences in revenues such as Big 12 and ACC.

(07-30-2014 09:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  What's worse about this article is that it completely obfuscates the variance with which state government entities (i.e. public universities in this case) are required to submit budgets, revenues and expenses.

I'm going to use Middle Tennessee as an example, because that's the one I have the most experience with. Middle Tennessee's expenses and revenues are always going to be equal in the way its reported due to accounting principles within the state government. Because we receive state funding we are not allowed to report a profit even if we had millions in excess unless our revenues exceeded what we were receiving in state benefits, which would mean we would have to be making SEC type revenus for the amout of money we generate to offset state funding. Therefore, any excess is going to be deducted from the state benefit and our revenues and expenses are always going to be the same number that = $0.

Most schools receive a subsisidy through the university/state. Creative accounting allows some schools to count the subsidy toward other sports (let's say non-revenue), so they can then pretend that they are producing a profit on football, because they don't allocate as much of the subsidized money for that sport. In our case, it all goes into one pot and a lot of the money football generates is spread across the others sports.

The reality is none of us are making a lot of money on athletics. Only a handful (maybe 6 to 8 schools) actually generate enough revenues to operate their entire athletic budgets in the black without tax-based assistance. There are more schools that could fund their football programs independentally but if we could all drop our tennis, track and other leaching sports we could probably make enough money just on football to have our programs too. These financial articles about college football are always misguided and a waste of time.

It is talking about the football program's revenues vs expenses, not the entire athletic department as a whole.