About Temple, but relevant to all of us in the G5


http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootbal...e_owl.html


"And personally, I feel like Power Five membership is the only reason to pursue big-time college football in the current landscape. If you aren't a member of one of the five major leagues (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12), you're in a hand-to-mouth existence, a no man's land in which you are used by the Power Five but never given an opportunity to become one of their club. Your television exposure is second-tier. Your facilities suffer. Your fan base is stagnant. You haven't the funds to keep a good coach. You are a permanent proletariat slave to the ruling class."

Wow. Well put. I really don't understand why all these programs in the past 10-15 years have been dying to move up to FBS. Seems like some of the upper tier FCS teams do really well and would likely be a death sentence to move up. So some of these schools who didn't even have a team and immediately pulled into FBS are just crazy to me. Some of us have just been around so long and have too much history that it would be stupid for us to move down. But if I were at UTSA I'd wonder why my school did that. But then again, they haven't really felt the sting of being "G5" yet really so they might not know any better.

(11-05-2015 10:49 AM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  About Temple, but relevant to all of us in the G5


http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootbal...e_owl.html


"And personally, I feel like Power Five membership is the only reason to pursue big-time college football in the current landscape. If you aren't a member of one of the five major leagues (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12), you're in a hand-to-mouth existence, a no man's land in which you are used by the Power Five but never given an opportunity to become one of their club. Your television exposure is second-tier. Your facilities suffer. Your fan base is stagnant. You haven't the funds to keep a good coach. You are a permanent proletariat slave to the ruling class."

Is this from a member of Temple's administration? A fan? A columnist?

(11-05-2015 10:57 AM)dezagcoog Wrote:  Wow. Well put. I really don't understand why all these programs in the past 10-15 years have been dying to move up to FBS. Seems like some of the upper tier FCS teams do really well and would likely be a death sentence to move up. So some of these schools who didn't even have a team and immediately pulled into FBS are just crazy to me. Some of us have just been around so long and have too much history that it would be stupid for us to move down. But if I were at UTSA I'd wonder why my school did that. But then again, they haven't really felt the sting of being "G5" yet really so they might not know any better.

They do it because of the success stories. UCF was Division 3 in 1979, then Division 2 in 1982, FCS in 1990, and FBS in 1996. They say "If teams like UCF can do it, why can't we?"

(11-05-2015 11:03 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 10:57 AM)dezagcoog Wrote:  Wow. Well put. I really don't understand why all these programs in the past 10-15 years have been dying to move up to FBS. Seems like some of the upper tier FCS teams do really well and would likely be a death sentence to move up. So some of these schools who didn't even have a team and immediately pulled into FBS are just crazy to me. Some of us have just been around so long and have too much history that it would be stupid for us to move down. But if I were at UTSA I'd wonder why my school did that. But then again, they haven't really felt the sting of being "G5" yet really so they might not know any better.

They do it because of the success stories. UCF was Division 3 in 1979, then Division 2 in 1982, FCS in 1990, and FBS in 1996. They say "If teams like UCF can do it, why can't we?"

The point is UCF is still relegated to the "proletariat state." So in Reality, they aren't a "success story." If they get into a P5, that'll be different.

(11-05-2015 11:06 AM)dezagcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:03 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 10:57 AM)dezagcoog Wrote:  Wow. Well put. I really don't understand why all these programs in the past 10-15 years have been dying to move up to FBS. Seems like some of the upper tier FCS teams do really well and would likely be a death sentence to move up. So some of these schools who didn't even have a team and immediately pulled into FBS are just crazy to me. Some of us have just been around so long and have too much history that it would be stupid for us to move down. But if I were at UTSA I'd wonder why my school did that. But then again, they haven't really felt the sting of being "G5" yet really so they might not know any better.

They do it because of the success stories. UCF was Division 3 in 1979, then Division 2 in 1982, FCS in 1990, and FBS in 1996. They say "If teams like UCF can do it, why can't we?"

The point is UCF is still relegated to the "proletariat state." So in Reality, they aren't a "success story." If they get into a P5, that'll be different.

For an FCS or D2 team, being successful in the FBS may be the attainable goal. It's still a step up in competition, recognition, etc. So yes, being successful in the AAC could be a "success story" to FCS programs who want to take the next step.

(11-05-2015 11:15 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:06 AM)dezagcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:03 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 10:57 AM)dezagcoog Wrote:  Wow. Well put. I really don't understand why all these programs in the past 10-15 years have been dying to move up to FBS. Seems like some of the upper tier FCS teams do really well and would likely be a death sentence to move up. So some of these schools who didn't even have a team and immediately pulled into FBS are just crazy to me. Some of us have just been around so long and have too much history that it would be stupid for us to move down. But if I were at UTSA I'd wonder why my school did that. But then again, they haven't really felt the sting of being "G5" yet really so they might not know any better.

They do it because of the success stories. UCF was Division 3 in 1979, then Division 2 in 1982, FCS in 1990, and FBS in 1996. They say "If teams like UCF can do it, why can't we?"

The point is UCF is still relegated to the "proletariat state." So in Reality, they aren't a "success story." If they get into a P5, that'll be different.

For an FCS or D2 team, being successful in the FBS may be the attainable goal. It's still a step up in competition, recognition, etc. So yes, being successful in the AAC could be a "success story" to FCS programs who want to take the next step.

Ya but the move up to FBS means more scholarships, higher budgets, higher paid coaches, higher facility costs, paying player now and higher travel costs so the net-net is probably about the same.

not a bad article..but you cant tell its written by an nfl guy who is casual fan of college

he was trying to make legitimate points, but wasnt basing it off our reality but off stereotypes

our tv deal is as far as exposure is comparable to the ACC... arguably better if you make a debate worse games have a better chance of tv (UL vs UH was regional fsn on the acc control, will be espn main when its aac controlled next year)

the whole P5 thing actually had very little do with with the article, you could have taken the whole "power fiive parts out) and made a had an article habout can their be a successful college team in philadelphia ... the whole p5/g5 parts wouldnt change 1 bit if temple got an acc invite, if rhule was successful in the acc that didnt mean he would magically stay, he'd still be up for every job. if wake had a 10 win coach, he'd be sc's new coach

if wish more people would focus on the real dynamic of big programs feasting on smaller programs ...and not p5 vs g5 ..when some g5 could take p5 coaches

I agree with the principle.

BUT - from a pragmatic perspective, you aren't in the game to try and make money. Very few programs actually make money that gets put back into the university. Breaking even is often just a goal.

Looking at Title9 filings is deceptive, particularly with a private school like Tulsa, but lets pretend the data is accurate. Tulsa spends $15mil a year on football, and breaks even. The stated cost is zero. Ticket revenue, concessions, and TV money fro the AAC makes up about half of that total - the rest is advertisers, marketing/promotional deals, donors, and misc. revenue.

Lets assume that is true - Tulsa gets a FBS football team for the cost of energy spent raising funds, some administrative costs, probably some "creative accounting" subsidies, and maybe opportunity cost (donor would have given money to psychics if not for football?).

In return, U Tulsa gets:

1) Campus life - having sports teams on campus makes living on campus more attractive and makes more of a "college experience"
2) Alumni engagement - I go back to campus a lot more for sporting events than I do for other purposes
3) Community engagement - same!
4) Advertising - how many people on this board would have ever heard of the University of Tulsa if not for athletic programs? How many of the schools in the AAC would be known outside of niche markets but-for athletics? Heck, how many colleges around the country?
5) Institutional relationships - conference are athletic conference, but also encourage other partnerships

And many of those things grow based on the profile of the program. An FCS program draws a limited amount of exposure and interaction. The bigger the perception of the program, the more advantages it can have.

Frankly, for Tulsa, if all we got was people around the country to know we exist... we are spending the $15mil wisely. You couldn't fund a $15mil annual ad campaign to accomplish the same thing, and no such campaign could have a dream goal of breaking even.

(11-05-2015 11:15 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:06 AM)dezagcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:03 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 10:57 AM)dezagcoog Wrote:  Wow. Well put. I really don't understand why all these programs in the past 10-15 years have been dying to move up to FBS. Seems like some of the upper tier FCS teams do really well and would likely be a death sentence to move up. So some of these schools who didn't even have a team and immediately pulled into FBS are just crazy to me. Some of us have just been around so long and have too much history that it would be stupid for us to move down. But if I were at UTSA I'd wonder why my school did that. But then again, they haven't really felt the sting of being "G5" yet really so they might not know any better.

They do it because of the success stories. UCF was Division 3 in 1979, then Division 2 in 1982, FCS in 1990, and FBS in 1996. They say "If teams like UCF can do it, why can't we?"

The point is UCF is still relegated to the "proletariat state." So in Reality, they aren't a "success story." If they get into a P5, that'll be different.

For an FCS or D2 team, being successful in the FBS may be the attainable goal. It's still a step up in competition, recognition, etc. So yes, being successful in the AAC could be a "success story" to FCS programs who want to take the next step.

That's completely contrary to the point of the article. I'm not going to argue with you, but clearly I agree with the article and not you. Moving up to be a doormat for P5 programs to me is not success. Schools like James Madison field a great team with great attendance(better than what we used to have it seems) would have WAY more problems moving up to FBS and might even have to have their program operate in the red...etc.