(12-16-2019 03:46 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:20 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:09 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:17 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  how would $15m/year be saved?

$15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

Agreed about Toledo never having a shot at a national title... FWIW, I seriously doubt Cincy will either...
Instead of dropping down to FCS level, I would love to see 50-60 G5 and possibly a few FCS heavyweights (NDSU, James Madison) to form a lower subdivision below the P5 schools and have our own playoff/national championship... A lot of interest and tv $$$ could be generated if implemented the right way...
It also would level the playing field in regards to home and home contracts eliminating 3 and ones or one and done games ...
A day of watching your alma mater/favorite team could also be more affordable than trekking off to big school state for a nose bleed seat paying big bucks... Sort of like Triple-A baseball or hockey, fan friendly and more doable for families as opposed to major league sports or P5 football...

Oh god no, UC doesn't either. I think they're kind of on the precipice of needing to having some serious conversations about athletics arms race spending down there too. Luckily they're still under 50% subsidy, as opposed to the 70-80% rate of the MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt teams. Realistically, there are a lot of teams who need to start looking.

Also, don't look now, but James Madison is one of the worst athletics department spenders. Last year, they had expenses of over $50M on only $11M in revenue...that's borderline criminal malpractice for their CFO. The issue is not necessarily the ability to play for a national title, it's the lack of institutional self-control when it comes to this stuff. It just isn't worth it anymore when it gets to be this expensive. Hell, I'm of the mindset that UT should really only sponsor 2 men's scholarship sports (Football and Basketball) at this point then just backfill the rest with girls scholarship sports to balance for Title IX if we stay in FBS. The fact that the administration is looking at dropping $5M+ on new baseball and softball diamonds while eating up the only free real-estate on campus AND having to trim millions off of the institution's operating budget every year is malfeasance of a ridiculous extent.

I just can't quite understand how our athletics expenses have jumped from $20M in 2012 to $33M this past year with no increase in revenue (outside of dragging money out of the operational budget of the University) and with no increase in results. That's absolutely ridiculous to me, and is indicative of something needing to change overall for schools like those in the MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA (and even some in the AAC and MWC).

Agree to the fact that it is ludicrous that the powers that be still cling to the idea that we need a 5 million dollar plus baseball/softball complex on campus... The return on that investment will be minimal at best...
If going with your idea of UT staying Div.1/FBS and POSSIBLY only having to sponsor the 2 men’s revenue sports, you would think that would help balance the books and be more feasible for schools like Toledo any other G5 schools to survive financially in the future...

Yeah, I mean it would probably only cut expenses by about 10-15%...but every little bit counts.

Back to the original topic, it would not surprise me to see a couple transfer out and possibly some new blood transfer in...
Addition by attrition...

(12-16-2019 04:01 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Back to the original topic, it would not surprise me to see a couple transfer out and possibly some new blood transfer in...
Addition by attrition...

I would think you could probably get some action depending on the new staff (if they come from the college ranks). There's bound to be a grad transfer or two who has a great relationship with a coach who sees some field time here.

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:17 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  how would $15m/year be saved?

$15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

I doubt travel costs would go down. What FCS conference has all teams closer to UT than the MAC already has?

(12-16-2019 05:29 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:17 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  how would $15m/year be saved?

$15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

I doubt travel costs would go down. What FCS conference has all teams closer to UT than the MAC already has?

look at the FCS Big Sky Conference. they travel 1,000's of miles from Arizona to Montana. Not all FCS conferences are small. One main one in the "area" probably be the Ohio Valley, someone correct me if I'm wrong. But It goes from East Kentucky to Western Missouri, Tennessee to Mid Illinois. There are even some DIII conferences that travel more than the MAC.

(12-16-2019 05:29 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:17 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  how would $15m/year be saved?

$15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

I doubt travel costs would go down. What FCS conference has all teams closer to UT than the MAC already has?

You'd pretty much have to join the city league to reduce travel costs. I think the only workable answer as I've thought before is to make the conference better. They either find ways to synergize and work together in ways other conferences do not or they lose by attrition. That's academically as well as athletically.

(12-16-2019 05:29 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:17 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  how would $15m/year be saved?

$15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

I doubt travel costs would go down. What FCS conference has all teams closer to UT than the MAC already has?

Travel expenses would go up. Just look at the teams in the FCS conferences closest to us and they much more spread out and further from Toledo than in the MAC and the revenue would go down. You may as well drop football or go div 3 and play Ashland, Wooster, Walsh, Mt Union etc. Of course that assumes any of those conferences would want to invite us.

(12-16-2019 07:10 PM)RocketJeff Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 05:29 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:17 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  how would $15m/year be saved?

$15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

I doubt travel costs would go down. What FCS conference has all teams closer to UT than the MAC already has?

Travel expenses would go up. Just look at the teams in the FCS conferences closest to us and they much more spread out and further from Toledo than in the MAC and the revenue would go down. You may as well drop football or go div 3 and play Ashland, Wooster, Walsh, Mt Union etc. Of course that assumes any of those conferences would want to invite us.

In my "hypothetical" all MACs would move down. But realistically, going D2 would be a far better option than FCS.

It would suck in either case.

(12-16-2019 03:20 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:09 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:17 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  how would $15m/year be saved?

$15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

Agreed about Toledo never having a shot at a national title... FWIW, I seriously doubt Cincy will either...
Instead of dropping down to FCS level, I would love to see 50-60 G5 and possibly a few FCS heavyweights (NDSU, James Madison) to form a lower subdivision below the P5 schools and have our own playoff/national championship... A lot of interest and tv $$$ could be generated if implemented the right way...
It also would level the playing field in regards to home and home contracts eliminating 3 and ones or one and done games ...
A day of watching your alma mater/favorite team could also be more affordable than trekking off to big school state for a nose bleed seat paying big bucks... Sort of like Triple-A baseball or hockey, fan friendly and more doable for families as opposed to major league sports or P5 football...

Oh god no, UC doesn't either. I think they're kind of on the precipice of needing to having some serious conversations about athletics arms race spending down there too. Luckily they're still under 50% subsidy, as opposed to the 70-80% rate of the MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt teams. Realistically, there are a lot of teams who need to start looking.

Also, don't look now, but James Madison is one of the worst athletics department spenders. Last year, they had expenses of over $50M on only $11M in revenue...that's borderline criminal malpractice for their CFO. The issue is not necessarily the ability to play for a national title, it's the lack of institutional self-control when it comes to this stuff. It just isn't worth it anymore when it gets to be this expensive. Hell, I'm of the mindset that UT should really only sponsor 2 men's scholarship sports (Football and Basketball) at this point then just backfill the rest with girls scholarship sports to balance for Title IX if we stay in FBS. The fact that the administration is looking at dropping $5M+ on new baseball and softball diamonds while eating up the only free real-estate on campus AND having to trim millions off of the institution's operating budget every year is malfeasance of a ridiculous extent.

I just can't quite understand how our athletics expenses have jumped from $20M in 2012 to $33M this past year with no increase in revenue (outside of dragging money out of the operational budget of the University) and with no increase in results. That's absolutely ridiculous to me, and is indicative of something needing to change overall for schools like those in the MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA (and even some in the AAC and MWC).

Or perhaps just drop DI football all together, like Dayton did years ago. Built up the BB program instead to a protentional national power.

(12-17-2019 12:00 PM)Springboromark Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:20 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:09 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:17 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  how would $15m/year be saved?

$15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

Agreed about Toledo never having a shot at a national title... FWIW, I seriously doubt Cincy will either...
Instead of dropping down to FCS level, I would love to see 50-60 G5 and possibly a few FCS heavyweights (NDSU, James Madison) to form a lower subdivision below the P5 schools and have our own playoff/national championship... A lot of interest and tv $$$ could be generated if implemented the right way...
It also would level the playing field in regards to home and home contracts eliminating 3 and ones or one and done games ...
A day of watching your alma mater/favorite team could also be more affordable than trekking off to big school state for a nose bleed seat paying big bucks... Sort of like Triple-A baseball or hockey, fan friendly and more doable for families as opposed to major league sports or P5 football...

Oh god no, UC doesn't either. I think they're kind of on the precipice of needing to having some serious conversations about athletics arms race spending down there too. Luckily they're still under 50% subsidy, as opposed to the 70-80% rate of the MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt teams. Realistically, there are a lot of teams who need to start looking.

Also, don't look now, but James Madison is one of the worst athletics department spenders. Last year, they had expenses of over $50M on only $11M in revenue...that's borderline criminal malpractice for their CFO. The issue is not necessarily the ability to play for a national title, it's the lack of institutional self-control when it comes to this stuff. It just isn't worth it anymore when it gets to be this expensive. Hell, I'm of the mindset that UT should really only sponsor 2 men's scholarship sports (Football and Basketball) at this point then just backfill the rest with girls scholarship sports to balance for Title IX if we stay in FBS. The fact that the administration is looking at dropping $5M+ on new baseball and softball diamonds while eating up the only free real-estate on campus AND having to trim millions off of the institution's operating budget every year is malfeasance of a ridiculous extent.

I just can't quite understand how our athletics expenses have jumped from $20M in 2012 to $33M this past year with no increase in revenue (outside of dragging money out of the operational budget of the University) and with no increase in results. That's absolutely ridiculous to me, and is indicative of something needing to change overall for schools like those in the MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA (and even some in the AAC and MWC).

Or perhaps just drop DI football all together, like Dayton did years ago. Built up the BB program instead to a protentional national power.

(12-17-2019 12:00 PM)Springboromark Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:20 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:09 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:17 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  how would $15m/year be saved?

$15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

Agreed about Toledo never having a shot at a national title... FWIW, I seriously doubt Cincy will either...
Instead of dropping down to FCS level, I would love to see 50-60 G5 and possibly a few FCS heavyweights (NDSU, James Madison) to form a lower subdivision below the P5 schools and have our own playoff/national championship... A lot of interest and tv $$$ could be generated if implemented the right way...
It also would level the playing field in regards to home and home contracts eliminating 3 and ones or one and done games ...
A day of watching your alma mater/favorite team could also be more affordable than trekking off to big school state for a nose bleed seat paying big bucks... Sort of like Triple-A baseball or hockey, fan friendly and more doable for families as opposed to major league sports or P5 football...

Oh god no, UC doesn't either. I think they're kind of on the precipice of needing to having some serious conversations about athletics arms race spending down there too. Luckily they're still under 50% subsidy, as opposed to the 70-80% rate of the MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt teams. Realistically, there are a lot of teams who need to start looking.

Also, don't look now, but James Madison is one of the worst athletics department spenders. Last year, they had expenses of over $50M on only $11M in revenue...that's borderline criminal malpractice for their CFO. The issue is not necessarily the ability to play for a national title, it's the lack of institutional self-control when it comes to this stuff. It just isn't worth it anymore when it gets to be this expensive. Hell, I'm of the mindset that UT should really only sponsor 2 men's scholarship sports (Football and Basketball) at this point then just backfill the rest with girls scholarship sports to balance for Title IX if we stay in FBS. The fact that the administration is looking at dropping $5M+ on new baseball and softball diamonds while eating up the only free real-estate on campus AND having to trim millions off of the institution's operating budget every year is malfeasance of a ridiculous extent.

I just can't quite understand how our athletics expenses have jumped from $20M in 2012 to $33M this past year with no increase in revenue (outside of dragging money out of the operational budget of the University) and with no increase in results. That's absolutely ridiculous to me, and is indicative of something needing to change overall for schools like those in the MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA (and even some in the AAC and MWC).

Or perhaps just drop DI football all together, like Dayton did years ago. Built up the BB program instead to a protentional national power.

Dayton did not drop football... The Flyers compete at the FCS level, in the Patriot League... (65 scholarships-football)

(12-17-2019 01:20 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 12:00 PM)Springboromark Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:20 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:09 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  $15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

Agreed about Toledo never having a shot at a national title... FWIW, I seriously doubt Cincy will either...
Instead of dropping down to FCS level, I would love to see 50-60 G5 and possibly a few FCS heavyweights (NDSU, James Madison) to form a lower subdivision below the P5 schools and have our own playoff/national championship... A lot of interest and tv $$$ could be generated if implemented the right way...
It also would level the playing field in regards to home and home contracts eliminating 3 and ones or one and done games ...
A day of watching your alma mater/favorite team could also be more affordable than trekking off to big school state for a nose bleed seat paying big bucks... Sort of like Triple-A baseball or hockey, fan friendly and more doable for families as opposed to major league sports or P5 football...

Oh god no, UC doesn't either. I think they're kind of on the precipice of needing to having some serious conversations about athletics arms race spending down there too. Luckily they're still under 50% subsidy, as opposed to the 70-80% rate of the MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt teams. Realistically, there are a lot of teams who need to start looking.

Also, don't look now, but James Madison is one of the worst athletics department spenders. Last year, they had expenses of over $50M on only $11M in revenue...that's borderline criminal malpractice for their CFO. The issue is not necessarily the ability to play for a national title, it's the lack of institutional self-control when it comes to this stuff. It just isn't worth it anymore when it gets to be this expensive. Hell, I'm of the mindset that UT should really only sponsor 2 men's scholarship sports (Football and Basketball) at this point then just backfill the rest with girls scholarship sports to balance for Title IX if we stay in FBS. The fact that the administration is looking at dropping $5M+ on new baseball and softball diamonds while eating up the only free real-estate on campus AND having to trim millions off of the institution's operating budget every year is malfeasance of a ridiculous extent.

I just can't quite understand how our athletics expenses have jumped from $20M in 2012 to $33M this past year with no increase in revenue (outside of dragging money out of the operational budget of the University) and with no increase in results. That's absolutely ridiculous to me, and is indicative of something needing to change overall for schools like those in the MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA (and even some in the AAC and MWC).

Or perhaps just drop DI football all together, like Dayton did years ago. Built up the BB program instead to a protentional national power.

Dayton did not drop football... The Flyers compete at the FCS level, in the Patriot League... (65 scholarships-football)

In a league with SAN DIEGO! Regional my butt.

IMO if the MAC as a whole dropped the entire league to FCS...
1a. Sure same travel costs.
1. Even less people would go to games, in the trade off that one or two would make the playoffs and compete for a title? (One tourney viewed as an ESPN2 game for the final 8, that's it.)
2. Funding would drop like a rock and the stadiums would be massive graveyards for games.
3. Another 10 or more FCS teams would jump up and want to compete at the FBS level.

100PLAYERS x 130 teams is 13,000 college D1A players. There's even far more talent than that to go around! No matter what the next 65 programs have enough talent as a whole or even on individual teams to compete with top 15 P5 teams. Too much talent out there... Too many innovative minds coaching who need a start (somewhere smaller than p5).

(12-17-2019 01:20 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 12:00 PM)Springboromark Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:20 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:09 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  $15M was an exaggeration for impact, but it could reasonably be assumed that $10M would be doable. Expenses would go down considerably as scholarships and sports requirements would go down. Not to mention travel expenses would also decrease considerably. If you look at the University of Idaho's recent report on their first two years of FCS football, they report a loss of roughly $1.7M in revenues from decreases in ticket sales, TV and bowl distributions, and media rights money, but a decrease of $9.1M in expenses with the same coaching staff on board. I would argue that we would probably not lose that type of revenue, and would likely decrease our expenses by more (as we wouldn't be saddled with a $1M/year coach for much longer) and that would just be with moving our Football down.

I just compare our institutional and financial health with that of Grand Valley State (a very similar institution in a lot of regards) and laugh. Why we choose to shuffle $18M in student and general fees to balance the budget in the AD every year, rather than getting down to the business at hand when there is no chance of us competing for a national title in this division and us not moving a needle nationally since the 70s is beyond me.

Agreed about Toledo never having a shot at a national title... FWIW, I seriously doubt Cincy will either...
Instead of dropping down to FCS level, I would love to see 50-60 G5 and possibly a few FCS heavyweights (NDSU, James Madison) to form a lower subdivision below the P5 schools and have our own playoff/national championship... A lot of interest and tv $$$ could be generated if implemented the right way...
It also would level the playing field in regards to home and home contracts eliminating 3 and ones or one and done games ...
A day of watching your alma mater/favorite team could also be more affordable than trekking off to big school state for a nose bleed seat paying big bucks... Sort of like Triple-A baseball or hockey, fan friendly and more doable for families as opposed to major league sports or P5 football...

Oh god no, UC doesn't either. I think they're kind of on the precipice of needing to having some serious conversations about athletics arms race spending down there too. Luckily they're still under 50% subsidy, as opposed to the 70-80% rate of the MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt teams. Realistically, there are a lot of teams who need to start looking.

Also, don't look now, but James Madison is one of the worst athletics department spenders. Last year, they had expenses of over $50M on only $11M in revenue...that's borderline criminal malpractice for their CFO. The issue is not necessarily the ability to play for a national title, it's the lack of institutional self-control when it comes to this stuff. It just isn't worth it anymore when it gets to be this expensive. Hell, I'm of the mindset that UT should really only sponsor 2 men's scholarship sports (Football and Basketball) at this point then just backfill the rest with girls scholarship sports to balance for Title IX if we stay in FBS. The fact that the administration is looking at dropping $5M+ on new baseball and softball diamonds while eating up the only free real-estate on campus AND having to trim millions off of the institution's operating budget every year is malfeasance of a ridiculous extent.

I just can't quite understand how our athletics expenses have jumped from $20M in 2012 to $33M this past year with no increase in revenue (outside of dragging money out of the operational budget of the University) and with no increase in results. That's absolutely ridiculous to me, and is indicative of something needing to change overall for schools like those in the MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA (and even some in the AAC and MWC).

Or perhaps just drop DI football all together, like Dayton did years ago. Built up the BB program instead to a protentional national power.

Dayton did not drop football... The Flyers compete at the FCS level, in the Patriot League... (65 scholarships-football)

The Pioneer Football League (Dayton's league) is a collegiate athletic conference which operates in the United States. The conference participates in the NCAA's Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) as a football-only conference. It has member schools that range from New York, North Carolina, and Florida in the east to California in the west. It is headquartered in St. Louis, in the same complex that also contains the offices of the Missouri Valley Conference and Missouri Valley Football Conference. Unlike most other Division I FCS conferences, the Pioneer League consists of institutions that choose not to award athletic scholarships ("grants-in-aid") to football players.