https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...tball-bowl


It seems that the issue with the haves and have nots is going to hurt all the teams at the FBS level down the road. There are issues about anti-trust and all that, and ways to avoid it by having salary caps for coaches and all that. The model as is is unsustainable for even P5 schools. If schools at the FBS drops football or move down to FCS? It would hurt even P5 schools. It is no guarantee that a P5 schools like Duke, Iowa State and some lower rung P5 might face in the future to follow the route of Idaho or UAB. Reform at the D1 level may be needed including a cap on how much a school can spend. This points out from a few months ago about schools from the FCS levels could be brought up as FBS in new conferences to help bring the spending down for all FBS schools in the future. This could be more regional conferences to the conferences in the future. Which means D2 schools could be brought up as well to fill in spots where it is needed.

I think this is more of an idea about Idaho, Montana, Montana State and some others to FBS talk recently.

(10-25-2016 11:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...tball-bowl


It seems that the issue with the haves and have nots is going to hurt all the teams at the FBS level down the road. There are issues about anti-trust and all that, and ways to avoid it by having salary caps for coaches and all that. The model as is is unsustainable for even P5 schools. If schools at the FBS drops football or move down to FCS? It would hurt even P5 schools. It is no guarantee that a P5 schools like Duke, Iowa State and some lower rung P5 might face in the future to follow the route of Idaho or UAB. Reform at the D1 level may be needed including a cap on how much a school can spend. This points out from a few months ago about schools from the FCS levels could be brought up as FBS in new conferences to help bring the spending down for all FBS schools in the future. This could be more regional conferences to the conferences in the future. Which means D2 schools could be brought up as well to fill in spots where it is needed.

I think this is more of an idea about Idaho, Montana, Montana State and some others to FBS talk recently.

The NCAA had some caps on salaries (think it was on their part time coaches). They lost in court under the anti-trust act in the last 10 years.

That is why I think some schools could qualified to be FBS from the FCS and D2 levels even some with small stadiums, but could use part time large stadiums like Indianapolis, Georgetown, Villanova and so forth. Azusa Pacific could use the Rose Bowl to play some games. Central Oklahoma could use OU's stadium for some home games until they add more seats to their's, and so forth.

During the meeting, the commission released a report that examined the various sources from which Division I institutions receive their revenue and how the money is spent. For the FBS, about 8 percent of athletic budget revenue comes from student fees, with another 11 percent coming from institutional and government support. At the Football Championship Subdivision level, student fees account for 26 percent of revenues and 43 percent of the budget is provided through institutional and government support.

For colleges that have no football program, the athletic department is mostly subsidized, with 41 percent of the funds coming from student fees and 35 percent from institutional support.

These two paragraphs say that the percentage of an athletic department budget coming from student fees and institutional support increases for schools playing football at a lower level or no team at all. This suggests that for whatever a school saves on football expenditures is more than ofset by reduced revenues and donations.

(10-26-2016 08:02 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  During the meeting, the commission released a report that examined the various sources from which Division I institutions receive their revenue and how the money is spent. For the FBS, about 8 percent of athletic budget revenue comes from student fees, with another 11 percent coming from institutional and government support. At the Football Championship Subdivision level, student fees account for 26 percent of revenues and 43 percent of the budget is provided through institutional and government support.

For colleges that have no football program, the athletic department is mostly subsidized, with 41 percent of the funds coming from student fees and 35 percent from institutional support.

These two paragraphs say that the percentage of an athletic department budget coming from student fees and institutional support increases for schools playing football at a lower level or no team at all. This suggests that for whatever a school saves on football expenditures is more than ofset by reduced revenues and donations.

Not really. They spend a lot less. So it doesn't really tell you without looking at the amount of subsidy.

And FCS schools generally subsidize less than G5 FBS schools.

bullet,

If you're going to lump FCS schools together, but extract a subset of FBS out, that's not valid. FCS has as much, or more, of a gradient among its members as FBS.

Yeah, a lot is being spent at the top level. ..... So??

These people are trying to sell you that schools are going to ramp up student fees and institutional support to achieve a higher and higher level of athletic budget. But ..... So??


Each school's students get to vote if they want to pay those higher fees, or not. At some point, students will say no. And every school has a CFO that constantly monitors spending of every aspect of the school. At some point, the CFO will say no.

Each school can only do what it can do. At some point, it reaches a ceiling, whatever that is.


So I don't get the point of trying to say that we should artificially and arbitrarily limit what every schools can spend to be below that ceiling or some overall ceiling. Let the school's students and CFO decide that. It's no one else's business!!

(10-26-2016 08:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 08:02 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  During the meeting, the commission released a report that examined the various sources from which Division I institutions receive their revenue and how the money is spent. For the FBS, about 8 percent of athletic budget revenue comes from student fees, with another 11 percent coming from institutional and government support. At the Football Championship Subdivision level, student fees account for 26 percent of revenues and 43 percent of the budget is provided through institutional and government support.

For colleges that have no football program, the athletic department is mostly subsidized, with 41 percent of the funds coming from student fees and 35 percent from institutional support.

These two paragraphs say that the percentage of an athletic department budget coming from student fees and institutional support increases for schools playing football at a lower level or no team at all. This suggests that for whatever a school saves on football expenditures is more than offset by reduced revenues and donations.

Not really. They spend a lot less. So it doesn't really tell you without looking at the amount of subsidy.

And FCS schools generally subsidize less than G5 FBS schools.

I'm going by the article which indicates the subsidies for lower level football schools and non-footballs is proportionally higher than FBS schools. Says so right there in the bold sections. The negatives in this article would support all the claims from schools moving up that FCS schools loose MORE money than FBS schools.

(10-26-2016 01:01 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 08:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 08:02 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  During the meeting, the commission released a report that examined the various sources from which Division I institutions receive their revenue and how the money is spent. For the FBS, about 8 percent of athletic budget revenue comes from student fees, with another 11 percent coming from institutional and government support. At the Football Championship Subdivision level, student fees account for 26 percent of revenues and 43 percent of the budget is provided through institutional and government support.

For colleges that have no football program, the athletic department is mostly subsidized, with 41 percent of the funds coming from student fees and 35 percent from institutional support.

These two paragraphs say that the percentage of an athletic department budget coming from student fees and institutional support increases for schools playing football at a lower level or no team at all. This suggests that for whatever a school saves on football expenditures is more than offset by reduced revenues and donations.

Not really. They spend a lot less. So it doesn't really tell you without looking at the amount of subsidy.

And FCS schools generally subsidize less than G5 FBS schools.

I'm going by the article which indicates the subsidies for lower level football schools and non-footballs is proportionally higher than FBS schools. Says so right there in the bold sections. The negatives in this article would support all the claims from schools moving up that FCS schools loose MORE money than FBS schools.

Yes, but his point is a correct one. For example, let's take schools X and Y, where X is a lower-level football playing FBS and Y is a no-football school.

The article says X student subsidy is 33% while Y student subsidy is 41%.

But, football costs more than other sports. So let's say X has an athletic budget of $20 million while Y has an athletic budget of $10 million.

That means X sucks up $6.6m in student subsidies per year ($20m x .33), while Y sucks up $4.1m in subsidies from its students per year. For Y, the percentage of students subs is higher but the dollar amount is lower, which is what matters to the student paying.

(10-25-2016 11:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...tball-bowl


It seems that the issue with the haves and have nots is going to hurt all the teams at the FBS level down the road. There are issues about anti-trust and all that, and ways to avoid it by having salary caps for coaches and all that. The model as is is unsustainable for even P5 schools. If schools at the FBS drops football or move down to FCS? It would hurt even P5 schools. It is no guarantee that a P5 schools like Duke, Iowa State and some lower rung P5 might face in the future to follow the route of Idaho or UAB. Reform at the D1 level may be needed including a cap on how much a school can spend. This points out from a few months ago about schools from the FCS levels could be brought up as FBS in new conferences to help bring the spending down for all FBS schools in the future. This could be more regional conferences to the conferences in the future. Which means D2 schools could be brought up as well to fill in spots where it is needed.

I think this is more of an idea about Idaho, Montana, Montana State and some others to FBS talk recently.

(10-26-2016 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 01:01 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 08:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 08:02 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  During the meeting, the commission released a report that examined the various sources from which Division I institutions receive their revenue and how the money is spent. For the FBS, about 8 percent of athletic budget revenue comes from student fees, with another 11 percent coming from institutional and government support. At the Football Championship Subdivision level, student fees account for 26 percent of revenues and 43 percent of the budget is provided through institutional and government support.

For colleges that have no football program, the athletic department is mostly subsidized, with 41 percent of the funds coming from student fees and 35 percent from institutional support.

These two paragraphs say that the percentage of an athletic department budget coming from student fees and institutional support increases for schools playing football at a lower level or no team at all. This suggests that for whatever a school saves on football expenditures is more than offset by reduced revenues and donations.

Not really. They spend a lot less. So it doesn't really tell you without looking at the amount of subsidy.

And FCS schools generally subsidize less than G5 FBS schools.

I'm going by the article which indicates the subsidies for lower level football schools and non-footballs is proportionally higher than FBS schools. Says so right there in the bold sections. The negatives in this article would support all the claims from schools moving up that FCS schools loose MORE money than FBS schools.

Yes, but his point is a correct one. For example, let's take schools X and Y, where X is a lower-level football playing FBS and Y is a no-football school.

The article says X student subsidy is 33% while Y student subsidy is 41%.

But, football costs more than other sports. So let's say X has an athletic budget of $20 million while Y has an athletic budget of $10 million.

That means X sucks up $6.6m in student subsidies per year ($20m x .33), while Y sucks up $4.1m in subsidies from its students per year. For Y, the percentage of students subs is higher but the dollar amount is lower, which is what matters to the student paying.

Quo - I generally agree with that analysis. The absolute value of the subsidy is close even if the percentage is different.

Using the midpoint of the budget ranges, I calculate that the average absolute subsidy for FBS 4th quartile is $12.71 million ($20.5m x 62%), for FCS it's $16.6 million ($24m x 69%), and for non-football D1 it's $12.2 ($16m x 76%). Based on this, FBS football appears to pay for itself for schools in the 4th quartile, while FCS football requires an incremental subsidy. Indeed, it would seem that dropping to FCS is a worse choice than competing with a low budget in FBS.

However, moving up to the 3rd quartile, which may require spending more without adequate funding resources, requires an average $20.5 million subsidy ($41m x 50%).

Moving into the 2nd quartile requires only an average subsidy of $8.5 million ($70.5 x 12%). These would presumably be lower revenue P5 schools and a few high revenue G5 schools. At this point, football is clearly paying for itself and contributing to the budget of other sponsored sports.

(10-26-2016 02:23 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  That is why I think some schools could qualified to be FBS from the FCS and D2 levels even some with small stadiums, but could use part time large stadiums like Indianapolis, Georgetown, Villanova and so forth. Azusa Pacific could use the Rose Bowl to play some games. Central Oklahoma could use OU's stadium for some home games until they add more seats to their's, and so forth.

(10-26-2016 10:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah, a lot is being spent at the top level. ..... So??

These people are trying to sell you that schools are going to ramp up student fees and institutional support to achieve a higher and higher level of athletic budget. But ..... So??


Each school's students get to vote if they want to pay those higher fees, or not. At some point, students will say no. And every school has a CFO that constantly monitors spending of every aspect of the school. At some point, the CFO will say no.

Each school can only do what it can do. At some point, it reaches a ceiling, whatever that is.


So I don't get the point of trying to say that we should artificially and arbitrarily limit what every schools can spend to be below that ceiling or some overall ceiling. Let the school's students and CFO decide that. It's no one else's business!!

The point is that Arkansas Tech will never be able to spend as much Arkansas and he doesn't think that's fair. So he wants a cap on what Arkansas can spend in the hopes that way one day Arkansas Tech can catch up and compete as equals by holding Arkansas back.

Obviously this will never happen and is a crackpipe dream

So because East Central Podunk State can't raise as much money as Clemson then Clemson has to artificially hold back it's spending?

(10-26-2016 01:57 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 01:01 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 08:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 08:02 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  During the meeting, the commission released a report that examined the various sources from which Division I institutions receive their revenue and how the money is spent. For the FBS, about 8 percent of athletic budget revenue comes from student fees, with another 11 percent coming from institutional and government support. At the Football Championship Subdivision level, student fees account for 26 percent of revenues and 43 percent of the budget is provided through institutional and government support.

For colleges that have no football program, the athletic department is mostly subsidized, with 41 percent of the funds coming from student fees and 35 percent from institutional support.

These two paragraphs say that the percentage of an athletic department budget coming from student fees and institutional support increases for schools playing football at a lower level or no team at all. This suggests that for whatever a school saves on football expenditures is more than offset by reduced revenues and donations.

Not really. They spend a lot less. So it doesn't really tell you without looking at the amount of subsidy.

And FCS schools generally subsidize less than G5 FBS schools.

I'm going by the article which indicates the subsidies for lower level football schools and non-footballs is proportionally higher than FBS schools. Says so right there in the bold sections. The negatives in this article would support all the claims from schools moving up that FCS schools loose MORE money than FBS schools.

Yes, but his point is a correct one. For example, let's take schools X and Y, where X is a lower-level football playing FBS and Y is a no-football school.

The article says X student subsidy is 33% while Y student subsidy is 41%.

But, football costs more than other sports. So let's say X has an athletic budget of $20 million while Y has an athletic budget of $10 million.

That means X sucks up $6.6m in student subsidies per year ($20m x .33), while Y sucks up $4.1m in subsidies from its students per year. For Y, the percentage of students subs is higher but the dollar amount is lower, which is what matters to the student paying.

Quo - I generally agree with that analysis. The absolute value of the subsidy is close even if the percentage is different.

Using the midpoint of the budget ranges, I calculate that the average absolute subsidy for FBS 4th quartile is $12.71 million ($20.5m x 62%), for FCS it's $16.6 million ($24m x 69%), and for non-football D1 it's $12.2 ($16m x 76%). Based on this, FBS football appears to pay for itself for schools in the 4th quartile, while FCS football requires an incremental subsidy. Indeed, it would seem that dropping to FCS is a worse choice than competing with a low budget in FBS.

However, moving up to the 3rd quartile, which may require spending more without adequate funding resources, requires an average $20.5 million subsidy ($41m x 50%).

Moving into the 2nd quartile requires only an average subsidy of $8.5 million ($70.5 x 12%). These would presumably be lower revenue P5 schools and a few high revenue G5 schools. At this point, football is clearly paying for itself and contributing to the budget of other sponsored sports.

This is where the pain apparently is. That 3rd quartile. These are the "strivers", schools that are in the G5, but are investing and spending with the goal of reaching the P5. This is a probably a BIG chunk of the G5 schools out there and essentially all of the AAC and MWC schools. $40m to $70m budgets. They are really taking a budget hit by doing their best to prop themselves up as "big time" football schools. The whole school has been mobilized in the form of fees and subsidies to prop up football.

That's why the desperation is so great. The current level of spending while earning G5 money is unsustainable. It's P5 or bust for them, the alternative is to permanently ratchet their football down to bottom-tier FBS or FCS, ending the Big Dream.

(10-26-2016 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 01:57 PM)orangefan Wrote:  However, moving up to the 3rd quartile, which may require spending more without adequate funding resources, requires an average $20.5 million subsidy ($41m x 50%).

Moving into the 2nd quartile requires only an average subsidy of $8.5 million ($70.5 x 12%). These would presumably be lower revenue P5 schools and a few high revenue G5 schools. At this point, football is clearly paying for itself and contributing to the budget of other sponsored sports.

This is where the pain apparently is. That 3rd quartile. These are the "strivers", schools that are in the G5, but are investing and spending with the goal of reaching the P5. This is a probably a BIG chunk of the G5 schools out there and essentially all of the AAC and MWC schools. $40m to $70m budgets. They are really taking a budget hit by doing their best to prop themselves up as "big time" football schools. The whole school has been mobilized in the form of fees and subsidies to prop up football.

That's why the desperation is so great. The current level of spending while earning G5 money is unsustainable. It's P5 or bust for them, the alternative is to permanently ratchet their football down to bottom-tier FBS or FCS, ending the Big Dream.

Look at the USA Today list of D-I athletic department revenues and expenses, click on the "Total Subsidy" column head to sort the list by subsidy amount, and you'll see that the highest subsidy FBS programs are either subsidizing to ramp up spending to a higher level, or they're using the subsidy to compensate for not generating enough of their own revenue via ticket sales and donations.

The FCS and no-football programs in that high-subsidy category are probably all leaning on the subsidies for the second reason, i.e., to compensate for not generating enough of their own revenue.

Can't stop schools from spending their own money. Even public schools, which are getting increasingly less of a portion of their budgets from the states. For example, I think South Carolina is only 8% funded by public money.

My guess is South Carolina would rather go fully private than give up football at a high level. The donors would step up to make it happen

People also missed the point that P5 could be in trouble as well if you are not a school like Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas and so forth. Even some P5 schools said it is not sustainable even between the P5 schools. Duke can't spend the money like Clemson or Florida State could. That includes tv networks and all that. Minnesota could be hurt as well in the Big 10.

You have to take these things into account.

1.The other sports, including the ones that don't make money.
2.FCOAs that is going to be kicked in.
3.The rising cost of paying coaches. Houston wants to give Herman another raise.
4.Rising cost of medical insurance for the players.
5.Court cases against NCAA and individual schools.
6.Players get caught doing criminal behavior.
7.The other athletes from the non-revenue sports will now start demanding FCOAs like Tennis, LAX, Wrestling, bowling and so forth.
8.Athletes at the FCS levels will now start demanding to get FCOAs.
9.Court cases on rather or not Athletes are employees.
10.If some of these take place like Athletes are ruled employees? Athletes at FCS, D2, D3, 1AAA (non-football schools), NCCAA, USCAA, NAIA and NJCAA will want to be also considered employees.
11.Athletes wants to be unionized. This could go all levels.

The issue I see this is that P5 and FBS at D1 should be careful, and look through it this way. They need to have a plan in place when things like this could happen. One of the issues is to move some D2 and D3 schools up to D1. The D3 schools could be that moved to D1 status could be called the Pioneer League Tier 4 of FCS. Combined the rest of the D2 and D3 together to eliminate 1 division. It would be D2 with scholarships and an FCS type Pioneer League at D2. NAIA, NCCAA, and a couple of USCAA could do a joint venture to help control costs with the D2.
The west coast football schools of the NAIA could be football only at D1.
College of Idaho, Eastern Oregon, Western Oregon, Arizona Christian, Carroll, Montana Tech, Montana-Northern, Rocky Mountain, Montana-Western schools. Langston and Texas College could rejoin the SWAC for football only since they were former football members. Bacone and the Texas schools at the NAIA with Lyon could join the GAC for football to replace schools that would be part of the new revision D1.

(10-26-2016 05:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  People also missed the point that P5 could be in trouble as well if you are not a school like Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas and so forth. Even some P5 schools said it is not sustainable even between the P5 schools. Duke can't spend the money like Clemson or Florida State could. That includes tv networks and all that. Minnesota could be hurt as well in the Big 10.

You have to take these things into account.

1.The other sports, including the ones that don't make money.
2.FCOAs that is going to be kicked in.
3.The rising cost of paying coaches. Houston wants to give Herman another raise.
4.Rising cost of medical insurance for the players.
5.Court cases against NCAA and individual schools.
6.Players get caught doing criminal behavior.
7.The other athletes from the non-revenue sports will now start demanding FCOAs like Tennis, LAX, Wrestling, bowling and so forth.
8.Athletes at the FCS levels will now start demanding to get FCOAs.
9.Court cases on rather or not Athletes are employees.
10.If some of these take place like Athletes are ruled employees? Athletes at FCS, D2, D3, 1AAA (non-football schools), NCCAA, USCAA, NAIA and NJCAA will want to be also considered employees.
11.Athletes wants to be unionized. This could go all levels.

The issue I see this is that P5 and FBS at D1 should be careful, and look through it this way. They need to have a plan in place when things like this could happen. One of the issues is to move some D2 and D3 schools up to D1. The D3 schools could be that moved to D1 status could be called the Pioneer League Tier 4 of FCS. Combined the rest of the D2 and D3 together to eliminate 1 division. It would be D2 with scholarships and an FCS type Pioneer League at D2. NAIA, NCCAA, and a couple of USCAA could do a joint venture to help control costs with the D2.
The west coast football schools of the NAIA could be football only at D1.
College of Idaho, Eastern Oregon, Western Oregon, Arizona Christian, Carroll, Montana Tech, Montana-Northern, Rocky Mountain, Montana-Western schools. Langston and Texas College could rejoin the SWAC for football only since they were former football members. Bacone and the Texas schools at the NAIA with Lyon could join the GAC for football to replace schools that would be part of the new revision D1.

Power Five schools are gonna be fine. Revenue is at an all time high. Duke and Northwestern are gonna be fine

(10-26-2016 05:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The issue I see this is that P5 and FBS at D1 should be careful, and look through it this way. They need to have a plan in place when things like this could happen. One of the issues is to move some D2 and D3 schools up to D1. The D3 schools could be that moved to D1 status could be called the Pioneer League Tier 4 of FCS. Combined the rest of the D2 and D3 together to eliminate 1 division. It would be D2 with scholarships and an FCS type Pioneer League at D2. NAIA, NCCAA, and a couple of USCAA could do a joint venture to help control costs with the D2.
The west coast football schools of the NAIA could be football only at D1.
College of Idaho, Eastern Oregon, Western Oregon, Arizona Christian, Carroll, Montana Tech, Montana-Northern, Rocky Mountain, Montana-Western schools. Langston and Texas College could rejoin the SWAC for football only since they were former football members. Bacone and the Texas schools at the NAIA with Lyon could join the GAC for football to replace schools that would be part of the new revision D1.

So your solution to schools not being able to keep up financially is to bring up a bunch more schools who will be unable to keep up financially?

You write regulations for the federal government as your day job don't you? The only people who can come up with such an asinine theory all work in Washington DC.