(10-04-2023 02:17 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:14 PM)hburg Wrote:  I wonder if this will deter Delaware if they are indeed part of a move with UMass?

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

I doubt it. I am guessing they or any other FCS->FBS aspirant can come up with a 1 time $5mil payment. If they can't, then they probably can't properly fund an FBS program and shouldn't be moving up anyway.

I wonder if this may not stop some D2 schools go to FBS if they can afford it? Central Oklahoma, Wayne State Mich, Central Missouri or Colorado Mesa are a few examples. Colorado Mesa already have more than 16 sports they give scholarships.

(10-04-2023 02:31 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:24 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  Does the 90% and 6 million in aid rule apply to current FBS schools too?

Like is anyone at risk of getting kicked out?

Existing FBS have to August 2027 to comply. There are some schools in the south only doing $3M-ish in grant dollars today.

The "no minimum attendance" rule isn't so much for move-ups needing stadiums but for the MAC (and their sketch numbers at times).

From Knight Commission of Intercollegiate Athletics (public schools only) for 2021-22:

Appalachian State: $5.85M
Louisiana-Monroe: $5.71M
Central Michigan: $5.60M
Akron: $5.57M
Florida Atlantic: $4.27M
Louisiana Tech: $5.91M
Kennesaw State: $4.50M
Jacksonville State: $5.61M
Sam Houston: $5.12M

It is possible that schools can use out of state tuition rates. If the purpose of intercollegiate athletics at the FBS-level is to provide educational opportunities to student athletes it shouldn't matter that the state is subsidizing tuition for in-state students.

I suspect that the 210 scholarships may be difficult for some schools to reach with 16 sports. They have likely chosen sports that are less expensive. 210 - 85 football = 125 other. 125/15 = 8.3 per sport. CC/T&F has a limit of 12.6 grants for 3 sports.

Illinois State $7,687,637 19 sports
Northern Arizona $7,279,284 15 sports
Stony Brook $8,367,833 18 sports
Towson $8,329,889 19 sports
Albany $8,375,566 18 sports
UC-Davis $8,338,310 25 sports
Delaware $13,415,334 21 sports
Maine $6,597,768 17 sports
New Hampshire $9,867,696 20 sports

The rest which are mainly between $5 million to 6 million, some at $4 million to 5, and a handful are at below $4 million out of the FCS. This is not including the private schools who did not disclosed their numbers plus some like UTRGV or UTA one which is adding football and other sports while the other the students want football.

On a different forum I did a quick eval of some of the northern tier and where they stand relative to these new rules. Here's my guess on biggest hurdle:

NDSU: $5M in grants today, adding 22 (FBS) doesn't get them to $6M and they are already max'ed out on grants allowed (fully funded) so might need to add W sport to add total dollars to get to $6M

SDSU: $4.26M in grants today, and 19 sports. I'd say a reshuffle (cut sports, reallocate dollars)

Montana: 15 sports, need to add

Montana State: 15 sports, need to add

North Dakota: $5.94M grants, add 22 more (FBS) is over 210 and over $6M. Watch the Title IX balance but otherwise effectively at the new FBS required. (Past problem was Alerus Center is only 12,400 seats; problem no more).

(10-04-2023 04:45 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:38 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  The short answer is yes, but there are complications.

The long answer is here, if you want to know the full story in all its gory detail:

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topi...nt-3372964

What a fantastic explanation HM!!

All things being equal and taking all key aspects (including parking and transportation) into account, which is better location for UH's new stadium: the Aloha Stadium site or on campus?

Where do you think it ends up getting built when all is said and done?

Thanks Pete.

IMHO the better outcome for UH football would be for the NASED project to fail and some or most of the $400 million state appropriation to be redirected to the university to upgrade Ching Field into a first-class 20K-25K seat on-campus stadium. Access and parking would be issues but fans would find ways to make it to the games. It would be far easier for students to attend, the game day atmosphere would be superior, and recruiting would benefit.

I also think this is a slightly more likely outcome than a rebuild at the Aloha Stadium site, just because the persistence of higher interest rates is going to play havoc with the entertainment district ROI projections when the development teams sit down next year to write their responses to the NASED RFP. The money-hungry politicians will be disappointed when they’re told the numbers don’t pencil out, but they’re a practical self-serving bunch and will probably decide they can benefit at the ballot box instead by repurposing the Aloha Stadium site for affordable workforce housing development.

(10-04-2023 02:57 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few things here:

* This policy has been floating around for about three months. When I called a few ADs tied to schools that are considering FBS reclassifications, the feedback I got was that the $5 million upfront cost sucks, but wouldn't change any of their minds. The scholarship requirements are a much, MUCH bigger consideration, since that's an annual expense, and is more than what most of them are currently funding. I wrote about this in late June (https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/reclassi...soon-heres)

* The handful of schools that have been pretty open about potentially moving to FBS in the near future, (Delaware, Tarleton, Austin Peay, EKU, Missouri State, McNeese, etc) also have been operating on the assumption since like, 2021, that the financial requirements for FBS membership were going up, and have been budgeting accordingly.

I don't have reason to think that these rules are going to dissuade anybody who is *seriously* considering moving up. If you're the kind of school that can't come up with 5M, you have no business operating in FBS anyway. These rules *may* be the sort of thing that push schools that were considering a move over a much longer timeline (like say, a SFA or a ACU).

The June NCAA D1 Council committee report

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committ...Report.pdf

Said that the new standards would affect around 10% of current FBS members and that less than 10 FCS schools met the standards.

(10-05-2023 03:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Illinois State $7,687,637 19 sports
Northern Arizona $7,279,284 15 sports
Stony Brook $8,367,833 18 sports
Towson $8,329,889 19 sports
Albany $8,375,566 18 sports
UC-Davis $8,338,310 25 sports
Delaware $13,415,334 21 sports
Maine $6,597,768 17 sports
New Hampshire $9,867,696 20 sports

The rest which are mainly between $5 million to 6 million, some at $4 million to 5, and a handful are at below $4 million out of the FCS. This is not including the private schools who did not disclosed their numbers plus some like UTRGV or UTA one which is adding football and other sports while the other the students want football.

You need to add Sacramento State to that list.

(10-04-2023 08:44 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:01 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I see the revised FBS membership requirements as potentially lowering the obstacles to more FCS programs moving up to FBS. The biggest financial consideration for schools considering the move will no longer be whether they can raise huge sums of money for football stadium expansion. Instead it will be whether they're prepared to grow their overall athletic budgets to meet the new ongoing sports sponsorship and scholarship requirements, which IMHO is really where the emphasis should be. As for the one-time FCS-to-FBS move-up fee, while $5 million is a lot more than $5,000, it's way less than the cost of expanding a stadium.

They should require at least 15,000 seats for FBS.

I get built for comfort but less than that is a HS stadium.

Yep

(10-04-2023 02:57 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few things here:

* This policy has been floating around for about three months. When I called a few ADs tied to schools that are considering FBS reclassifications, the feedback I got was that the $5 million upfront cost sucks, but wouldn't change any of their minds. The scholarship requirements are a much, MUCH bigger consideration, since that's an annual expense, and is more than what most of them are currently funding. I wrote about this in late June (https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/reclassi...soon-heres)

* The handful of schools that have been pretty open about potentially moving to FBS in the near future, (Delaware, Tarleton, Austin Peay, EKU, Missouri State, McNeese, etc) also have been operating on the assumption since like, 2021, that the financial requirements for FBS membership were going up, and have been budgeting accordingly.

I don't have reason to think that these rules are going to dissuade anybody who is *seriously* considering moving up. If you're the kind of school that can't come up with 5M, you have no business operating in FBS anyway. These rules *may* be the sort of thing that push schools that were considering a move over a much longer timeline (like say, a SFA or a ACU).

That makes a lot of sense that the overall scholarship costs are the bigger issue compared to the $5 million move up cost. Great info as always.

(10-05-2023 01:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:57 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few things here:

* This policy has been floating around for about three months. When I called a few ADs tied to schools that are considering FBS reclassifications, the feedback I got was that the $5 million upfront cost sucks, but wouldn't change any of their minds. The scholarship requirements are a much, MUCH bigger consideration, since that's an annual expense, and is more than what most of them are currently funding. I wrote about this in late June (https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/reclassi...soon-heres)

* The handful of schools that have been pretty open about potentially moving to FBS in the near future, (Delaware, Tarleton, Austin Peay, EKU, Missouri State, McNeese, etc) also have been operating on the assumption since like, 2021, that the financial requirements for FBS membership were going up, and have been budgeting accordingly.

I don't have reason to think that these rules are going to dissuade anybody who is *seriously* considering moving up. If you're the kind of school that can't come up with 5M, you have no business operating in FBS anyway. These rules *may* be the sort of thing that push schools that were considering a move over a much longer timeline (like say, a SFA or a ACU).

That makes a lot of sense that the overall scholarship costs are the bigger issue compared to the $5 million move up cost. Great info as always.

Just like in private business - it is a heck of a lot easier for me to get a temp approved on a 3-month contract to do a specific project than to add a permanent staff member, even if it is just renewing the temp contract.

One-time costs can be handled easier than on-going commitments.

(10-05-2023 11:43 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 03:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Illinois State $7,687,637 19 sports
Northern Arizona $7,279,284 15 sports
Stony Brook $8,367,833 18 sports
Towson $8,329,889 19 sports
Albany $8,375,566 18 sports
UC-Davis $8,338,310 25 sports
Delaware $13,415,334 21 sports
Maine $6,597,768 17 sports
New Hampshire $9,867,696 20 sports

The rest which are mainly between $5 million to 6 million, some at $4 million to 5, and a handful are at below $4 million out of the FCS. This is not including the private schools who did not disclosed their numbers plus some like UTRGV or UTA one which is adding football and other sports while the other the students want football.

You need to add Sacramento State to that list.

Sacramento State is at $5.4 million for last year.

(10-05-2023 12:53 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 08:44 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:01 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I see the revised FBS membership requirements as potentially lowering the obstacles to more FCS programs moving up to FBS. The biggest financial consideration for schools considering the move will no longer be whether they can raise huge sums of money for football stadium expansion. Instead it will be whether they're prepared to grow their overall athletic budgets to meet the new ongoing sports sponsorship and scholarship requirements, which IMHO is really where the emphasis should be. As for the one-time FCS-to-FBS move-up fee, while $5 million is a lot more than $5,000, it's way less than the cost of expanding a stadium.

They should require at least 15,000 seats for FBS.

I get built for comfort but less than that is a HS stadium.

Yep

Elimination of the 15k average rule was to help the MAC. They were having to be "creative" to meet the 15k average.

A stadium size requirement does exactly what to help student-athletes (beside raise cost of ownership of facilities and that takes dollars from student-athletes). These new criteria sends more money their way.

Put another way, why mandate building a church for Easter Sunday.

If the school can support "90%/$6M/210/16" that's what matters.

SDSU has 19k seats. Last home game of 2022 v Ill St:
DATE: 11/12/2022 SITE: Brookings, South Dakota STADIUM: Dana J. Dykhouse Stadium ATTENDANCE: 8160 KICKOFF TIME: 02:05 PM END OF GAME: 04:48 PM DURATION: 02:42 TEMPERATURE: 21 WIND: NW 11mph WEATHER: Cloudy

19k seats, under half used.

(10-04-2023 08:44 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:01 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I see the revised FBS membership requirements as potentially lowering the obstacles to more FCS programs moving up to FBS. The biggest financial consideration for schools considering the move will no longer be whether they can raise huge sums of money for football stadium expansion. Instead it will be whether they're prepared to grow their overall athletic budgets to meet the new ongoing sports sponsorship and scholarship requirements, which IMHO is really where the emphasis should be. As for the one-time FCS-to-FBS move-up fee, while $5 million is a lot more than $5,000, it's way less than the cost of expanding a stadium.

They should require at least 15,000 seats for FBS.

I get built for comfort but less than that is a HS stadium.

North Dakota's Alerus Center only seats 12,300, but I think this is a bit more than a high school stadium.

Plus it is connected to a 12 story hotel/conference center with restaurants/bars and an indoor water park.

I would put North Dakota's facilities up against half of the FBS. A new softball complex was announced this week.

(10-05-2023 08:25 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  On a different forum I did a quick eval of some of the northern tier and where they stand relative to these new rules. Here's my guess on biggest hurdle:

NDSU: $5M in grants today, adding 22 (FBS) doesn't get them to $6M and they are already max'ed out on grants allowed (fully funded) so might need to add W sport to add total dollars to get to $6M

SDSU: $4.26M in grants today, and 19 sports. I'd say a reshuffle (cut sports, reallocate dollars)

Montana: 15 sports, need to add

Montana State: 15 sports, need to add

North Dakota: $5.94M grants, add 22 more (FBS) is over 210 and over $6M. Watch the Title IX balance but otherwise effectively at the new FBS required. (Past problem was Alerus Center is only 12,400 seats; problem no more).

Yeah, I think for you guys the extra scholarships will be a whole lot cheaper than expanding the stadium for the sole purpose of meeting the old FBS criteria. And that same thing will be the case for most schools, too.

(10-05-2023 12:21 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  I suspect that the 210 scholarships may be difficult for some schools to reach with 16 sports. They have likely chosen sports that are less expensive. 210 - 85 football = 125 other. 125/15 = 8.3 per sport. CC/T&F has a limit of 12.6 grants for 3 sports.

For a school with 7 Men's sports and 9 Women's sports, this would be the minimal path to get over 210:

FBS Football: 85
Men's Basketball: 13
Men's Golf: 4.5
Men's Rife: 3.6
Men's Tennis: 4.5
Men's Volleyball: 4.5
Men's Fencing: 4.5
Total Men's scholarships: 119.6

Women's Basketball: 15
Women's Softball: 12
Women's Volleyball: 12
Women's Soccer: 14
Field Hockey: 12
Women's Tennis: 8
Women's Water Polo: 8
Women's Fencing: 5
Women's Golf: 6
Total Women's scholarships: 92.0

Total Scholarships: 211.6

If an athletic department wants to make an attempt at a 50/50 balance, it would probably need to swap out women's water polo for rowing (additional 12 scholarships), women's fencing for swimming (additional 9 scholarships) and then women's golf for gymnastics (additional 6 scholarships), which gets the total for women up to 119.0.

Good. Hopefully, Stephen F. Austin will make the move up and join CUSA so the Battle of the Piney Woods will be renewed. (Also, my niece is a freshman there. She really likes it.)

(10-05-2023 03:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Illinois State $7,687,637 19 sports
Northern Arizona $7,279,284 15 sports
Stony Brook $8,367,833 18 sports
Towson $8,329,889 19 sports
Albany $8,375,566 18 sports
UC-Davis $8,338,310 25 sports
Delaware $13,415,334 21 sports
Maine $6,597,768 17 sports
New Hampshire $9,867,696 20 sports

The rest which are mainly between $5 million to 6 million, some at $4 million to 5, and a handful are at below $4 million out of the FCS. This is not including the private schools who did not disclosed their numbers plus some like UTRGV or UTA one which is adding football and other sports while the other the students want football.

I'm curious what the Vaqueros number looks like in comparison.

(10-07-2023 02:41 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 12:21 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  I suspect that the 210 scholarships may be difficult for some schools to reach with 16 sports. They have likely chosen sports that are less expensive. 210 - 85 football = 125 other. 125/15 = 8.3 per sport. CC/T&F has a limit of 12.6 grants for 3 sports.

For a school with 7 Men's sports and 9 Women's sports, this would be the minimal path to get over 210:

FBS Football: 85
Men's Basketball: 13
Men's Golf: 4.5
Men's Rife: 3.6
Men's Tennis: 4.5
Men's Volleyball: 4.5
Men's Fencing: 4.5
Total Men's scholarships: 119.6

Women's Basketball: 15
Women's Softball: 12
Women's Volleyball: 12
Women's Soccer: 14
Field Hockey: 12
Women's Tennis: 8
Women's Water Polo: 8
Women's Fencing: 5
Women's Golf: 6
Total Women's scholarships: 92.0

Total Scholarships: 211.6

If an athletic department wants to make an attempt at a 50/50 balance, it would probably need to swap out women's water polo for rowing (additional 12 scholarships), women's fencing for swimming (additional 9 scholarships) and then women's golf for gymnastics (additional 6 scholarships), which gets the total for women up to 119.0.

Interesting work. Most of these near the minimum schools seem to have 6 men's and 10 women's or 7 men's and 10 women's.

I know conferences have to have team sports for each sex in every season. Did not find that requirement for individual schools, but I might have missed it. Your men's list has no spring team sport.

For schools that sponsor football (FCS or FBS), no other team sport is required besides basketball. This applies to conferences as well. The Big Sky, for example, does not sponsor baseball or men's soccer (golf and tennis are not considered team sports). The team sport requirement (basketball plus two others) is in effect on the women's side. I believe men have to have at least one sport in each season, but it need not be a team sport.

A conference is free to require sponsorship levels above the Division I minimums, which may include additional team sports.

Also, men's volleyball is a spring team sport.