From the announcement, it will be FCS but not offering scholarships for that sport. Just like the Pioneer League schools.

(03-30-2021 08:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:11 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 01:24 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Isn't the whole movement in college athletics these days towards compensating players in more in one form or another, not making money off of them by charging tuition, room and board, etc.?

The movement at the top is to pay players more.

That's NOT the movement at the bottom. D-2 & D-3 schools are adding sports to attract tuition-paying students.

And not just sports. E-Sports, too.

As someone else said, that seems kind of exploitative. I suspect that if pay for play is established at D1, it won't be long before it hits D2/D3/NAIA as well. I don't think that can of regime can survive pay for play.

Exploitative? Lol. If charging tuition for kids to go to school, than I guess it is.

Charging kids for tuition is fine of course, but that's for 'regular' students who aren't athletes and don't have to invest all the time and effort in to athletics. Athletics is very time consuming and makes learning more difficult, so it's exploitative if the "business model" is to make money off athletics by charging athletes for tuition, books, room and board, etc. as if they are normal students. IMO you're basically taking advantage of the kid twice - once by playing off his dream of becoming a pro by dangling the prospect of playing "college athletics" even though his odds of making the pros are near zero, and charging him tuition and all the rest when the athletics will severely curtail his ability to maximize his education.

At many D1 schools, the general student body gets soaked with athletic fees to fund athletes. That's bad. But soaking the athletes themselves with tuition etc. is next-level exploitation, LOL. As much money as say Trevor Lawrence makes for Clemson, probably a lot more than even the high value of his scholarship, I don't think anyone at Clemson ever thought "let's convince TL to come here, so we can make $60,000 off of him by charging him tuition". That would be pretty crass, and exploitative, IMO.

D3 kids put in time/effort at athletics representing their schools just like D1 athletes do. I don't see how pay for play, if it comes at all, won't come to D3 as well.

So Chicago State would be taking advantage of kids, but no others that don't offer scholarships/full scholarships are doing so. Gotcha. Makes no sense whatsoever, but sounds like you just have a problem with CSU no matter what they choose.

Maybe to you, the chance of making it pro is the only reason kids play college athletics, but I can assure you that is not reality. At all. Not even a little bit. And if that is your standard, you might as well just watch the pros and ignore college because you clearly don't get it. So sad.

You must live in a world apart from the rest of us, because there are huge numbers of D1 athletes who currently don't receive full scholarships either. You think every tennis player or track athlete in most conferences in D1 are getting full tuition, room and board etc? Keep dreaming. Not reality. Never has been. Never will be.

But generally, I have found, those claiming to "protect" someone from "exploitation" only end up taking away their opportunity.

I looked up FloSPorts. They are a web streaming service broadcaster. All this means is you can pay a subscription to watch sports that even ESPN+ wont pick up. Chicago State simply signed on. Nothing more. The only thing of note is the had two MLS teams matches but both dropped them after 2019 and 202 respectively for poor streaming broadcast quality and numerous complaints.

This was such a minor deal, FloSports didn't even have web press release for it.

As far as I can tell the rest of the stuff is rehashed vague plans the athletic department has thrown out for a few years, "Pioneer" type football was one of those. They still don't have any seed money for that or anything else. They dropped baseball for men's soccer to reduce costs. As for adding even non-scholarship football, I'll believe it when it happens. No coaches hired and barely 18 months from the supposed kickoff. Where they can get the money for even modest football facilities is beyond me. This isn't happening.

(03-31-2021 01:33 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I looked up FloSPorts. They are a web streaming service broadcaster. All this means is you can pay a subscription to watch sports that even ESPN+ wont pick up. Chicago State simply signed on. Nothing more. The only thing of note is the had two MLS teams matches but both dropped them after 2019 and 202 respectively for poor streaming broadcast quality and numerous complaints.

This was such a minor deal, FloSports didn't even have web press release for it.

As far as I can tell the rest of the stuff is rehashed vague plans the athletic department has thrown out for a few years, "Pioneer" type football was one of those. They still don't have any seed money for that or anything else. They dropped baseball for men's soccer to reduce costs. As for adding even non-scholarship football, I'll believe it when it happens. No coaches hired and barely 18 months from the supposed kickoff. Where they can get the money for even modest football facilities is beyond me. This isn't happening.

You looked up FloSports lol. The fact that you HAD to "look them up" means you don't know what you're talking about. They've been around a long time in the world of streaming.

Doubt you know any more about Chicago State than you do FloSports, or anything else. Best stick to sports center highlights and a little P5 because you don't have a clue about what the majority of college sports is like.

Can I comment? I know FloSports. My school’s football team plays in the CAA. It is an absolutely garbage product. Unwatchable and over priced. There is literally nothing else worth watching on the platform.

(03-31-2021 06:35 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Can I comment? I know FloSports. My school’s football team plays in the CAA. It is an absolutely garbage product. Unwatchable and over priced. There is literally nothing else worth watching on the platform.

It probably is garbage, but I was just laughing the authoritative statements about a company he'd never heard of and to look up to even know what it was.

(03-31-2021 01:33 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I looked up FloSPorts. They are a web streaming service broadcaster. All this means is you can pay a subscription to watch sports that even ESPN+ wont pick up. Chicago State simply signed on. Nothing more. The only thing of note is the had two MLS teams matches but both dropped them after 2019 and 202 respectively for poor streaming broadcast quality and numerous complaints.

This was such a minor deal, FloSports didn't even have web press release for it.

As far as I can tell the rest of the stuff is rehashed vague plans the athletic department has thrown out for a few years, "Pioneer" type football was one of those. They still don't have any seed money for that or anything else. They dropped baseball for men's soccer to reduce costs. As for adding even non-scholarship football, I'll believe it when it happens. No coaches hired and barely 18 months from the supposed kickoff. Where they can get the money for even modest football facilities is beyond me. This isn't happening.

The difference between Flo and ESPN+ is Flo pays the schools for the content, ESPN+ will just host whatever you send them. CAA schools get something like 80k each (I think) out of our deal with them. I would still rather our games just be on ESPN+, but Flo is trying to build out a content library.

I don't know what Flo would pay CSU, maybe 25k or so per year? Comes down to how many CSU fans are willing to pay for the service

(03-30-2021 08:59 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:11 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 01:24 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The movement at the top is to pay players more.

That's NOT the movement at the bottom. D-2 & D-3 schools are adding sports to attract tuition-paying students.

And not just sports. E-Sports, too.

As someone else said, that seems kind of exploitative. I suspect that if pay for play is established at D1, it won't be long before it hits D2/D3/NAIA as well. I don't think that can of regime can survive pay for play.

Exploitative? Lol. If charging tuition for kids to go to school, than I guess it is.

Charging kids for tuition is fine of course, but that's for 'regular' students who aren't athletes and don't have to invest all the time and effort in to athletics. Athletics is very time consuming and makes learning more difficult, so it's exploitative if the "business model" is to make money off athletics by charging athletes for tuition, books, room and board, etc. as if they are normal students. IMO you're basically taking advantage of the kid twice - once by playing off his dream of becoming a pro by dangling the prospect of playing "college athletics" even though his odds of making the pros are near zero, and charging him tuition and all the rest when the athletics will severely curtail his ability to maximize his education.

At many D1 schools, the general student body gets soaked with athletic fees to fund athletes. That's bad. But soaking the athletes themselves with tuition etc. is next-level exploitation, LOL. As much money as say Trevor Lawrence makes for Clemson, probably a lot more than even the high value of his scholarship, I don't think anyone at Clemson ever thought "let's convince TL to come here, so we can make $60,000 off of him by charging him tuition". That would be pretty crass, and exploitative, IMO.

D3 kids put in time/effort at athletics representing their schools just like D1 athletes do. I don't see how pay for play, if it comes at all, won't come to D3 as well.

So Chicago State would be taking advantage of kids, but no others that don't offer scholarships/full scholarships are doing so. Gotcha. Makes no sense whatsoever, but sounds like you just have a problem with CSU no matter what they choose.

Maybe to you, the chance of making it pro is the only reason kids play college athletics, but I can assure you that is not reality. At all. Not even a little bit. And if that is your standard, you might as well just watch the pros and ignore college because you clearly don't get it. So sad.

You must live in a world apart from the rest of us, because there are huge numbers of D1 athletes who currently don't receive full scholarships either. You think every tennis player or track athlete in most conferences in D1 are getting full tuition, room and board etc? Keep dreaming. Not reality. Never has been. Never will be.

But generally, I have found, those claiming to "protect" someone from "exploitation" only end up taking away their opportunity.

You keep explicitly mentioning "Chicago State" while I don't think I have. That's because I know virtually nothing about Chicago State and so haven't been commenting on them specifically, just about the "D3 business model" that has been referenced as their motivation for starting up football - and I don't even know if that is so, btw. And, there are a lot of D3 schools, so obviously what I am saying applies to all of them, not just Chicago State. That's why I have said "D3", not "Chicago State". So where you get the idea that I would think Chicago State alone is exploiting athletes via this alleged model and nobody else who is using it isn't, is not apparent.

And no, I don't think making the pros is the only reason kids play college athletics, nor do I believe that all D1 athletes are on full-ride scholarships. My argument doesn't assume either of those things. It only requires that many kids play D3 college athletics with that dream, and surely many do. And obviously, there are D1 athletes on partial scholarships, and those that are walk-ons. A walk-on isn't exploited because typically the school isn't trying to lure them with athletics. The kids who walk on do so willingly, they are the motivated party. Nobody is trying to boost enrollment and tuition payments by advertising the team to them. Heck, most of the time walk-ons are discouraged by the school, not encouraged. So that strikes me as very different than the "D3 business model", if that model actually exists.

Again, if "pay for play" comes to college athletics, I don't see how D3 will be immune from that any more than D1 will be. But maybe we shall see.

(03-30-2021 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 10:48 AM)MU88 Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 09:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 09:26 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Chicago State Inks Deal With FloSports, Adds Non-Scholarship Football


Football begins in the fall of 2022.

How are they going to pay for it? Football isn’t cheap—even when the kids aren’t on scholarship.

I hope the Pioneer has the sense to black ball them.

Tuition (not including room and board) at CSU is between roughly $14,000 (in-state) and $22,000 (out of state). Lets say they add 100 students, we are talking between $1.4 and $2.2 million in added tuition. You can fund a non-scholarship program for $500,000 or less in some cases. So, it clearly would be a money maker for the school. Given the huge drop in enrollment over the past few yeas, adding football is probably a good move. If they join the Pioneer, you do have a number of schools within driving distance, Drake, Butler, Valpo, etc. Otherwise, they probably could play NAIA. Even if CSU gives out the max scholarships, 24, they still can make money. Overall it is probably a smart move for CSU.

Isn't the whole movement in college athletics these days towards compensating players in more in one form or another, not making money off of them by charging tuition, room and board, etc.?

When you joined the conversation about Chicago State, I thought you were talking about Chicago State. Sorry I didn't know you were only referencing the compensation part.

(03-31-2021 10:03 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 10:48 AM)MU88 Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 09:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 09:26 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Chicago State Inks Deal With FloSports, Adds Non-Scholarship Football


Football begins in the fall of 2022.

How are they going to pay for it? Football isn’t cheap—even when the kids aren’t on scholarship.

I hope the Pioneer has the sense to black ball them.

Tuition (not including room and board) at CSU is between roughly $14,000 (in-state) and $22,000 (out of state). Lets say they add 100 students, we are talking between $1.4 and $2.2 million in added tuition. You can fund a non-scholarship program for $500,000 or less in some cases. So, it clearly would be a money maker for the school. Given the huge drop in enrollment over the past few yeas, adding football is probably a good move. If they join the Pioneer, you do have a number of schools within driving distance, Drake, Butler, Valpo, etc. Otherwise, they probably could play NAIA. Even if CSU gives out the max scholarships, 24, they still can make money. Overall it is probably a smart move for CSU.

Isn't the whole movement in college athletics these days towards compensating players in more in one form or another, not making money off of them by charging tuition, room and board, etc.?

When you joined the conversation about Chicago State, I thought you were talking about Chicago State. Sorry I didn't know you were only referencing the compensation part.

Playing athletics in college is attractive to prospective students. I know a couple of girls from daughter's high school volleyball team, including one of the backups, that signed with D3 teams, because they wanted to continue to play beyond high school. I don't believe these girls have any thoughts of playing professional volleyball, but the D3 schools have given them the opportunity to continue playing a game they love. I have no problem if schools want to add sports to attract students. To me, it's no different than building cool dorms or a fancy rec center. Its just another factor for a kid to consider when they are picking a school.

Also, playing a sport may allow you to get into a school, that you may not be able to get into under normal circumstances. My daughter is a great student and a great athlete and has the option of playing two different sports in college. For one sport, she has heard from coaches at Wash U, Cal Tech, Chicago and others. For her other sport, she is getting D1 interest, including from the Ivy League. None of these schools (D3s and Ivies) are going to give her an athletic scholarship. The Ivies don't even give academic scholarships, everything is need based. What her athletic ability does do is get her admitted into these schools. Would she get in these schools if she wasn't a great athlete? I think the answer is maybe. She would get in some, but not others. But, there are a ton of suburban girls with 4.0 gpas so the changes of her getting into Yale or Harvard are probably <1%. But, as an athlete, if the school wants her to play, she will get admitted.

Admitting kids to play athletics doesn't only happen at high end schools. If a kid is a boarderline admit at CSU but plays football, he will probably be admitted. I am okay with this. It give a kid an opportunity they would not normally have. Its up to the kid if he takes advantage of it. While CSU may not be a great academic institution, I think an individual with a CSU degree is probably much better off than someone who hasn't gone to college. Isn't that the point of college?

Atlantis University To Start Football And Join NAIA In 3 Years


I guess it would start this fall.

(07-22-2015 11:31 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Northland CTC in the NJCAA will be starting football in 2015.

former NCAA D1 school Oklahoma City University is looking to readd football, and will try to move up from NAIA to D2 then to D1 again.

D3 Calvin College is looking into adding football.

Still no word from Mount Mercy, Iowa yet.

Belmont Abbey is looking at restarting football and move to D1. They would fit in Southern Conference.

Wisconsin-Milwaukee could be the next Wisconsin school at D1 to have football if they do get it.

Fullerton State, Long Beach State and North Ridge State are having students want football. The AD at Long Beach State said that they could add football and join the MWC for all sport.
Cal-Irvine AD said she is getting a lot of students asking for football.
The AD at Cal.-Riverside is also getting feedback for football.
FGCU said they will not add football at the time they reported it, but they could add it in the future.
Hartford recently added a club team. Could they turned their club team into a full fledge varsity team?
IUPUI might look into adding football.
Belmont and

Quote:Lipscomb both mentioned that they might look into adding

football.
North Florida announced that they will do a feasabilty study in adding football, but no report back on it. This was after Benson mentioned them on the list as one of the schools to be added into the Sun Belt.
UALR getting a lot of requests for them to start a football team.
UTA, not sure what they are doing right now.
Southern Illinois-Edwardsville does have a club team, but there is an interests that it could be turned into a varsity team in the future. Their website for the school with the Q&A from the President answered that question.
VCU we all have heard about.
Utah Valley, Grand Canyon U. both could add football and join the Big Sky.
Wichita State wants to find a way out of MVC, and looking to join the MWC. I have to say that all that they need to do is add football, and they are in.
Winthrop did a recent study, but have not announced the findings on adding football yet.
Lee University announced that they will not add the sport.
Montana State-Billings will not add football at this time.

There is almost no chance Lipscomb will add football. Lipscomb needs to trim programs and services initiated by its outgoing president rather than undertake a costly venture like adding football.

(08-17-2020 05:44 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  Maine Maritime Academy suspending football:

https://mainemaritime.edu/about-mma/pres...l-program/

MMA is in the middle of a 22 game losing streak.

MMA released an update in January:

"We continue to monitor the mounting costs associated with the pandemic and its significant impacts on the Academy's operations. The mounting financial toll necessitates the continuation of the football program's suspension through at least the fall 2021 semester.

Despite the setback, we have begun the work of reviewing the program's operations and impact in early January. Maureen Devlin is leading us in a thorough review of the program with a report anticipated in April. She has served as the executive director of the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and was affiliated with the commission for nearly 20 years. She is presently the senior advisor to the Forum for the Future of Higher Education, a think tank at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

MMA doesn't really need football to drive enrollment, it's a tiny campus in a tiny town with a specific mission. I'm not sure they could shoehorn many more than 1,000 students onto campus, and you basically walk off campus into a six-figure job. I wouldn't be shocked if football never came back as a varsity sport. It seems like the kind of place that could be a club rugby powerhouse or something like that.

(05-24-2021 03:05 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Atlantis University To Start Football And Join NAIA In 3 Years


I guess it would start this fall.

On their website they call themselves the Atlantis University Owls. How does a school with the name Atlantis pick an Owl as their mascot?

(05-24-2021 03:05 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Atlantis University To Start Football And Join NAIA In 3 Years


I guess it would start this fall.

Hyperbole. I know of another school claiming the same thing that I won't even bother to mention. Joining the NAIA shouldn't even be talked about until the regional accreditation process has started. There is no record of Atlantis at SACS.

I bet the collective minds of csnbbs.com could pull off one of the Community Christian College-Esque fly by night operations.

(05-24-2021 07:32 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(05-24-2021 03:05 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Atlantis University To Start Football And Join NAIA In 3 Years


I guess it would start this fall.

Hyperbole. I know of another school claiming the same thing that I won't even bother to mention. Joining the NAIA shouldn't even be talked about until the regional accreditation process has started. There is no record of Atlantis at SACS.

It is not me posting about it. It was the school itself that put it out there.

(05-24-2021 09:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-24-2021 07:32 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(05-24-2021 03:05 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Atlantis University To Start Football And Join NAIA In 3 Years


I guess it would start this fall.

Hyperbole. I know of another school claiming the same thing that I won't even bother to mention. Joining the NAIA shouldn't even be talked about until the regional accreditation process has started. There is no record of Atlantis at SACS.

It is not me posting about it. It was the school itself that put it out there.

You posted it here. In that way you are helping them.

(03-31-2021 11:24 AM)MU88 Wrote:  Playing athletics in college is attractive to prospective students. I know a couple of girls from daughter's high school volleyball team, including one of the backups, that signed with D3 teams, because they wanted to continue to play beyond high school. I don't believe these girls have any thoughts of playing professional volleyball, but the D3 schools have given them the opportunity to continue playing a game they love. I have no problem if schools want to add sports to attract students. To me, it's no different than building cool dorms or a fancy rec center. Its just another factor for a kid to consider when they are picking a school.

No question, some kids choose a school to play athletics, and some non-athletes attend a school, in part, because they like watching athletics. But, like building a fancy student center or cool dorms, that has to be weighed against the cost of providing that service. In an ideal world, a school could just snap its fingers and have 15 sports for kids to participate in and watch, cost-free. But of course that's not how it works. So costs and benefits should be weighed, etc.