Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Cost of FBS vs FCS football
Author Message
p23570 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: -21
I Root For: OU Sooners
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-21-2017 03:58 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  
(02-21-2017 02:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  
(02-21-2017 01:39 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The Athletic department has gone through major changes and the budget has gone from 25.2 Mill to 36.5 Million. In 5 years the budget increased 11.3 Million, 45%.

My point was strictly responding to ArkState fan work on FCS vs FBS.

You are correct that things could have gone much better, with the old AD scheduling all P5 teams for OOC play and then leaving us in terrible shape for the 2016 schedule. Ryan Bamford did a great job with the schedule but the damage is done. Most of the new fans around Boston did not stick because we were out classed, out coached and played terrible.

Do have maroon glasses and expecting 4-6 wins this year playing two P5 teams, BYU and several G5 conference champions.
Last year was the first good recruiting year and those guys have a year under their belts.

We also landed Western Michigan's defensive coordinator Ed Pinkham.
Everything looks maroon in regards to football.
Expecting an up year!
I have no expectations for UMass and have not even looked at the schedule. But again nice try.

I simply read your comments about tickets sales increasing and donations increasing and decided to see if that was true, and found out it really wasn't. In fact the real increase in AD budget was subsidy which accounted for most of the increase. That's really not what you described as moving to FBS to not lose as much as they were playing FBS, in realty they lost even more money operating the AD after the move which you said was what they were trying to avoid.

I really don't think there is a financial incentive to move to FBS for these schools. Quite the opposite. I think boosters love the idea and AD's love the idea but from a financial standpoint taxpayers end up footing the bill, not increases in ticket sales, donations, etc...

Get that subsidy down to 50% or better and you have an AD budget in the 20's which is FCS level for a state flagship like UMAss. UMass does not meet minimum requirements for attendance anyway so in reality they should be excluded on that alone.

I simply dont' see what they are trying to accomplish playing up a league from where they belong. Same goes for Idaho and NMSU.

Let me ask you one thing, what do you thing the athletic budget of UMass would be if we went FCS? Do you think it would be in the $20's like you say?
Fortunately you can look back at 2011 to see since that's when the move was made. Leading up to that 25, 25, 25, 27 were the budget numbers.

Budget for UMass depends on how much money taxpayers will fork over. The rest of the income in the AD is pretty constant.
02-21-2017 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,340
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 69
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #62
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
Ah P23570 is the world so simple for you. Do you think that is all that has happen during those years.

Every sport has seen improvements, field hockey got a their own area/field/bleaches, baseball had some renovation, lacrosse got a new field, basketball got a 27 Million dollar practice facility, Football got a new Performance Center and a new Press and Skybox for around 37 Million, new field turf, the women rowing team got a brand new boat house with radiant heated cement floors. We fired coaches, football and staff for a million, women's BB and men's hockey for 1/2 million. There are a few other things including COA. But hope you get the picture. It's not so simple as looking at the numbers. Ignoring the other revenue sport and the above saying, hey it's all because you went FBS.

Were a flagship campus and started acting like one. We are improving everything, especially the campus and moving up the academic rankings. We are spending billions and billions. We are a leading research university and pumping more money back into the economy.
02-21-2017 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
p23570 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: -21
I Root For: OU Sooners
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-21-2017 04:42 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Ah P23570 is the world so simple for you. Do you think that is all that has happen during those years.

Every sport has seen improvements, field hockey got a their own area/field/bleaches, baseball had some renovation, lacrosse got a new field, basketball got a 27 Million dollar practice facility, Football got a new Performance Center and a new Press and Skybox for around 37 Million, new field turf, the women rowing team got a brand new boat house with radiant heated cement floors. We fired coaches, football and staff for a million, women's BB and men's hockey for 1/2 million. There are a few other things including COA. But hope you get the picture. It's not so simple as looking at the numbers. Ignoring the other revenue sport and the above saying, hey it's all because you went FBS.

Were a flagship campus and started acting like one. We are improving everything, especially the campus and moving up the academic rankings. We are spending billions and billions. We are a leading research university and pumping more money back into the economy.
This has nothing to do with me personally so stop trying to steer the conversation that way.

And since 2012 was the year UMAss transitioned I think it's a fair time to look for differences. What timeframe would you use to look at the cost difference in FCS vs FBS for UMAss?

The reason you don't like looking at the actual finances is becasue it makes your comments about ticket sales and donations turn out to be not true.

Don't be mad. Easier to just admit that after looking at the finances it seems there wasn't' really much of a boost to ticket sales or donations, certainly not enough to offset the costs of operating a FBS program, which the taxpayers ended up footing the bill for.

That is the subject after all.
02-21-2017 06:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Minutemen429 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 675
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 25
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-21-2017 04:11 PM)p23570 Wrote:  
(02-21-2017 03:58 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  
(02-21-2017 02:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  
(02-21-2017 01:39 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The Athletic department has gone through major changes and the budget has gone from 25.2 Mill to 36.5 Million. In 5 years the budget increased 11.3 Million, 45%.

My point was strictly responding to ArkState fan work on FCS vs FBS.

You are correct that things could have gone much better, with the old AD scheduling all P5 teams for OOC play and then leaving us in terrible shape for the 2016 schedule. Ryan Bamford did a great job with the schedule but the damage is done. Most of the new fans around Boston did not stick because we were out classed, out coached and played terrible.

Do have maroon glasses and expecting 4-6 wins this year playing two P5 teams, BYU and several G5 conference champions.
Last year was the first good recruiting year and those guys have a year under their belts.

We also landed Western Michigan's defensive coordinator Ed Pinkham.
Everything looks maroon in regards to football.
Expecting an up year!
I have no expectations for UMass and have not even looked at the schedule. But again nice try.

I simply read your comments about tickets sales increasing and donations increasing and decided to see if that was true, and found out it really wasn't. In fact the real increase in AD budget was subsidy which accounted for most of the increase. That's really not what you described as moving to FBS to not lose as much as they were playing FBS, in realty they lost even more money operating the AD after the move which you said was what they were trying to avoid.

I really don't think there is a financial incentive to move to FBS for these schools. Quite the opposite. I think boosters love the idea and AD's love the idea but from a financial standpoint taxpayers end up footing the bill, not increases in ticket sales, donations, etc...

Get that subsidy down to 50% or better and you have an AD budget in the 20's which is FCS level for a state flagship like UMAss. UMass does not meet minimum requirements for attendance anyway so in reality they should be excluded on that alone.

I simply dont' see what they are trying to accomplish playing up a league from where they belong. Same goes for Idaho and NMSU.

Let me ask you one thing, what do you thing the athletic budget of UMass would be if we went FCS? Do you think it would be in the $20's like you say?
Fortunately you can look back at 2011 to see since that's when the move was made. Leading up to that 25, 25, 25, 27 were the budget numbers.

Budget for UMass depends on how much money taxpayers will fork over. The rest of the income in the AD is pretty constant.

The football budget is $8 million it used to be $5 million in FCS the Boston Globe documents it very well in their annual piece on UMass football. FCS football is still expensive.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2017 06:43 PM by Minutemen429.)
02-21-2017 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.