(12-10-2017 01:30 AM)grapes Wrote: [ -> ]UCF would demolish FAU...
Have they figured out who's coaching the bowl game? Last I heard they Frost staff was holding UCF for ransom?
(12-10-2017 10:09 AM)CoachMaclid Wrote: [ -> ] (12-10-2017 01:30 AM)grapes Wrote: [ -> ]UCF would demolish FAU...
Have they figured out who's coaching the bowl game? Last I heard they Frost staff was holding UCF for ransom?
At this point, I would rather the new crew give it a shot. They can run a very similar system. The Nebraska coaching staff, even if they come, are only planning 3 practices. I find that absurd. Let the new staff come in and give it a shot, even if its a lost cause. The kids deserve to have a coaching staff that simply is not just going through the motions. Frost coming will just give him an opportunity to pick off more recruits. Win with JH, and the rewards will be epic.
(12-08-2017 02:51 PM)va-eagle Wrote: [ -> ]At one time, someone on this forum posted some school's travel expense costs. If I recall, they were lower than what everyone would have guessed (in the $300k range). Then the discussion was that regional alignment really wouldn't move the travel cost savings needle enough to care. I don't think there is any realignment scenario with the SBC that is going to energize the USM fan base to the point where attendance is impacted (and probably same for many other schools) enough to justify a change.
Out of all the SBC and CUSA teams, Marshall is highest on my list for a home game in H'burg. Appalachian St would be second. If I only had $s to go to 2 games, those would be them. Neither of those schools would be grouped with USM in a regional divide.
Nothing should change, but maybe some teams dropping to FCS so CUSA can get to 12 or less teams. If there was a SBC or CUSA realignment, we still wouldn't be happy because attendance would still suck and the travel savings wouldn't be enough to matter.
How a school reports travel costs may not be the same as what your travel costs actually are.
You move a football team via charter and send that equipment truck out on the road you are going to spend right at $100,000. A reasonably short flight across the south of no more than an hour in the air will run you $35,000 to $53,000 just for the flight. Then you need bus charter to the airport, from the destination airport to the team hotel, then hotel to stadium, stadium to airport and then from your home airport to your football complex. If you double up with two players per room, that is going to be roughly 30 player rooms, another 10 for the coaches, and maybe another 10 for managers, trainers, GA's. So get a good rate for 50 rooms, call it $3500 for rooms. You will also need a hotel that has meeting capacity because you are going to set up for player treatments (massage, ice baths, etc) and have a place to meet with the team. Tack on another $500. If you leave home after lunch, you feed the team supper, probably a late evening training table snack, breakfast and another training table snack if you are kicking off at noon. Then you are feeding them after the game as well. Most schools are also going to stick some high level administrators on the flight and put them up as well and throw in some trips for bigger donors. You eat the transport costs and lodging, they buy their own meals.
Actual spending? $300,000 wouldn't cover a typical FBS traveling six times a year and that doesn't even touch volleyball, men's and women's hoops, baseball, softball, soccer.
Baseball traveling by bus with a travel party of say 30. If you can shave one meal on the way out and one on the way back that probably would save you at least $500 before you even get to spending less on the driver and fuel.
(12-08-2017 02:29 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 02:03 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:37 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote: [ -> ]Why aren't SunBelt and CUSA realigning between West and East? I believe neither conference makes enough profits to justify the wide geographical footprint.
Lets trade some teams. CUSA can have Texas State, ULL, ULM, Ark State, and USA. That should generate some nice in-state games in Texas and Louisiana.
Some teams along the Atlantic Coast can join the SunBelt. App State and CCU wanted some nearby teams in the conference. Problem solved!
Problem is that you have an uneven amount of teams (assuming NMSU is included). If you leave them out then its fine, but it takes away a very close game for UTEP. If they are in, then a school needs to be brought up from FCS. Most likely is 2 conferences of 12 with NMSU out vs. one conference at 14 and one at 12.
But you would have 9 schools west of the Mississippi, so then take USM, USA and Troy. The rest go to the other 12 team conference. It's geographically coherent at least and relatively equal.
But it's not likely to happen, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
NMSU and Idaho were booted.
conference 1: UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice, TXST, ULM, ULL, LA Tech, USM, Ark State (maybe invite NMSU if another suitable school wants to join)
conference 2: FIU, FAU, GS, GSU, CCU, App State, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, Charlotte, ODU, Troy, UAB, USA
Not crazy about reforming into another 14 member conference
(12-10-2017 06:46 AM)BRtransplant Wrote: [ -> ]The AAC will never be a P6 conference member because there will NEVER be a P6. Only an idiot would think that The P5 conferences will relinquish the strangle hold they now have on absolute power over what happens in college football. The sole reason that the access bowl exists at all is that the P5 conferences's want to prevent an anti trust lawsuit. Being a crybaby wannabe is very unbecoming, and the P6 drivel coming from AAC members is asinine and it makes them look foolish. They should instead celebrate being the "best of the rest" for now. That's as good as any of us can hope for.
This is your best work that I've seen! Prisoners of the moment thinking one season means every season that follows will be the same. Arkansas State took UCF to the woodshed less than a year ago and with Frost gone there is no guarantee that they will return to anything near their 2017 season next year. There is not an never will be a "P6".
(12-12-2017 12:54 PM)Crump1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-10-2017 06:46 AM)BRtransplant Wrote: [ -> ]The AAC will never be a P6 conference member because there will NEVER be a P6. Only an idiot would think that The P5 conferences will relinquish the strangle hold they now have on absolute power over what happens in college football. The sole reason that the access bowl exists at all is that the P5 conferences's want to prevent an anti trust lawsuit. Being a crybaby wannabe is very unbecoming, and the P6 drivel coming from AAC members is asinine and it makes them look foolish. They should instead celebrate being the "best of the rest" for now. That's as good as any of us can hope for.
This is your best work that I've seen! Prisoners of the moment thinking one season means every season that follows will be the same. Arkansas State took UCF to the woodshed less than a year ago and with Frost gone there is no guarantee that they will return to anything near their 2017 season next year. There is not an never will be a "P6".
AAC has three schools (essentially four) that are using $25 million or more in university fund and/or student fees to supplement their athletic department and that is without having access to data from SMU, Tulsa, Temple, Tulane or Navy to see how they are funding.
Among publics there are 10 FBS that transfer $24.8 million or more, four are AAC.
If that investment doesn't result in higher revenue and the political environment for higher ed doesn't start improving, things could get really sticky.
I think the point stands that we are in a failing Conference and nothing is going to change that internally. We can rearrange the deck chairs all we want but it not going to stop the titanic from sinking. Our biggest problem is leadership and none of our Presidents feel the need to fix that.
(12-12-2017 12:54 PM)Crump1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-10-2017 06:46 AM)BRtransplant Wrote: [ -> ]The AAC will never be a P6 conference member because there will NEVER be a P6. Only an idiot would think that The P5 conferences will relinquish the strangle hold they now have on absolute power over what happens in college football. The sole reason that the access bowl exists at all is that the P5 conferences's want to prevent an anti trust lawsuit. Being a crybaby wannabe is very unbecoming, and the P6 drivel coming from AAC members is asinine and it makes them look foolish. They should instead celebrate being the "best of the rest" for now. That's as good as any of us can hope for.
This is your best work that I've seen! Prisoners of the moment thinking one season means every season that follows will be the same. Arkansas State took UCF to the woodshed less than a year ago and with Frost gone there is no guarantee that they will return to anything near their 2017 season next year. There is not an never will be a "P6".
Yep. If the AAC wants anyone to take the P6 stuff seriously they are going to have to lock up the Access bowl every year for a number of years. Probably need to go above 0.500 in the games as well. Last years helmet stickers were just ignorant and backfired big time. I personally like the idea of earning it first and then claiming the name, but no one has the patience for that these days.
(12-12-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]AAC has three schools (essentially four) that are using $25 million or more in university fund and/or student fees to supplement their athletic department and that is without having access to data from SMU, Tulsa, Temple, Tulane or Navy to see how they are funding.
Among publics there are 10 FBS that transfer $24.8 million or more, four are AAC.
If that investment doesn't result in higher revenue and the political environment for higher ed doesn't start improving, things could get really sticky.
Sorry old friend but you've been pushing that tired message for nigh on 20 years. Perhaps it's time to shelve that idea and get on with the program; we sure aint wait'n around for you. Might be why the AAC and C-USA are chock full of large metro-area schools.
(12-12-2017 03:56 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]AAC has three schools (essentially four) that are using $25 million or more in university fund and/or student fees to supplement their athletic department and that is without having access to data from SMU, Tulsa, Temple, Tulane or Navy to see how they are funding.
Among publics there are 10 FBS that transfer $24.8 million or more, four are AAC.
If that investment doesn't result in higher revenue and the political environment for higher ed doesn't start improving, things could get really sticky.
Sorry old friend but you've been pushing that tired message for nigh on 20 years. Perhaps it's time to shelve that idea and get on with the program; we sure aint wait'n around for you. Might be why the AAC and C-USA are chock full of large metro-area schools.
Oh please don't be a drama queen.
I only picked this mantle up after the housing bust. Because anyone with half a brain can look around the country and see that states aren't pouring new money into higher ed. Many large universities are rapidly increasing enrollment to make up the shortfalls (Arkansas and Alabama have started admitting more out of state than in-state students to bolster enrollment), there is a looming debt crisis in student debt. Schools are borrowing too much as well (UNT got down graded in its debt rating when they had to cut their budget from an enrollment dip).
I follow a program that tore down the old press box and built a new with loge boxes, suites and club seats, built an indoor practice facility, and as I write is doing the earth work for a new end zone facility and cashing $10 million in checks written yesterday. I understand investing but I also understand there are a lot of schools who have debt payments extending past the life of their fat TV contracts too.
Investment without return will sink you. The Big 10 tried to raid the ACC and got turned down by UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Virginia. The one who took the bait was the Maryland program that was getting some nasty inquiries from the state government about the fact that they were not only in the red but they were close exhausting their reserve funds. They joined Big Ten because Big 10 offered to pre-pay them $30 million.
Cal-Berkley is considering layoffs and dropping a number of sports because they can no longer sustain a deficit in excess of $20 million.
In CUSA WKU has dropped sports and the reduction in state higher ed funding was cited as a reason.
Arkansas-Little Rock has dropped from 15 sports to 14 because of declining enrollment.
Pepperdine has cut men's track and women's swimming and diving.
Live in fantasy land thinking everything is OK. The history of intercollegiate athletics in the US is littered with busts and booms. AAC's newest member was the last casualty of the round of schools dropping football in the 80's during a bust period.
Eight states have increased higher ed funding over the past five years by an average of 1.5% per year or less. Seven states have cut their funding over five years and one is unchanged. West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana are all states that are down over the past five years.
(12-12-2017 03:56 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]AAC has three schools (essentially four) that are using $25 million or more in university fund and/or student fees to supplement their athletic department and that is without having access to data from SMU, Tulsa, Temple, Tulane or Navy to see how they are funding.
Among publics there are 10 FBS that transfer $24.8 million or more, four are AAC.
If that investment doesn't result in higher revenue and the political environment for higher ed doesn't start improving, things could get really sticky.
Sorry old friend but you've been pushing that tired message for nigh on 20 years. Perhaps it's time to shelve that idea and get on with the program; we sure aint wait'n around for you. Might be why the AAC and C-USA are chock full of large metro-area schools.
I wouldn't say chock full. Marshall, Tech, Southern Miss, Western Kentucky and MSTU all come from non large Metro Areas. Arkansas St. isn't any different from the schools mentioned above and I would much rather play them than any of the schools along the East Coast.
(12-08-2017 03:38 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 02:51 PM)va-eagle Wrote: [ -> ]At one time, someone on this forum posted some school's travel expense costs. If I recall, they were lower than what everyone would have guessed (in the $300k range). Then the discussion was that regional alignment really wouldn't move the travel cost savings needle enough to care. I don't think there is any realignment scenario with the SBC that is going to energize the USM fan base to the point where attendance is impacted (and probably same for many other schools) enough to justify a change.
Out of all the SBC and CUSA teams, Marshall is highest on my list for a home game in H'burg. Appalachian St would be second. If I only had $s to go to 2 games, those would be them. Neither of those schools would be grouped with USM in a regional divide.
Nothing should change, but maybe some teams dropping to FCS so CUSA can get to 12 or less teams. If there was a SBC or CUSA realignment, we still wouldn't be happy because attendance would still suck and the travel savings wouldn't be enough to matter.
Lol may I say that I detect a hint of superiority from USM...but I don't know your school's history. Do other schools share the same thoughts as USM? If CUSA schools are okay with the status quo, then I suppose this is a non-topic.
pick a thread, any thread
(12-12-2017 04:58 PM)pilot172000 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 03:56 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]AAC has three schools (essentially four) that are using $25 million or more in university fund and/or student fees to supplement their athletic department and that is without having access to data from SMU, Tulsa, Temple, Tulane or Navy to see how they are funding.
Among publics there are 10 FBS that transfer $24.8 million or more, four are AAC.
If that investment doesn't result in higher revenue and the political environment for higher ed doesn't start improving, things could get really sticky.
Sorry old friend but you've been pushing that tired message for nigh on 20 years. Perhaps it's time to shelve that idea and get on with the program; we sure aint wait'n around for you. Might be why the AAC and C-USA are chock full of large metro-area schools.
I wouldn't say chock full. Marshall, Tech, Southern Miss, Western Kentucky and MSTU all come from non large Metro Areas. Arkansas St. isn't any different from the schools mentioned above and I would much rather play them than any of the schools along the East Coast.
We are in the lower third of the pack. Charlotte, ODU, FAU, FIU, UAB, UTSA, Rice, UNT come to mind with bigger metro areas. Our metro area is 363,325...
(12-12-2017 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 03:56 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]AAC has three schools (essentially four) that are using $25 million or more in university fund and/or student fees to supplement their athletic department and that is without having access to data from SMU, Tulsa, Temple, Tulane or Navy to see how they are funding.
Among publics there are 10 FBS that transfer $24.8 million or more, four are AAC.
If that investment doesn't result in higher revenue and the political environment for higher ed doesn't start improving, things could get really sticky.
Sorry old friend but you've been pushing that tired message for nigh on 20 years. Perhaps it's time to shelve that idea and get on with the program; we sure aint wait'n around for you. Might be why the AAC and C-USA are chock full of large metro-area schools.
Oh please don't be a drama queen.
I only picked this mantle up after the housing bust. Because anyone with half a brain can look around the country and see that states aren't pouring new money into higher ed. Many large universities are rapidly increasing enrollment to make up the shortfalls (Arkansas and Alabama have started admitting more out of state than in-state students to bolster enrollment), there is a looming debt crisis in student debt. Schools are borrowing too much as well (UNT got down graded in its debt rating when they had to cut their budget from an enrollment dip).
I follow a program that tore down the old press box and built a new with loge boxes, suites and club seats, built an indoor practice facility, and as I write is doing the earth work for a new end zone facility and cashing $10 million in checks written yesterday. I understand investing but I also understand there are a lot of schools who have debt payments extending past the life of their fat TV contracts too.
Investment without return will sink you. The Big 10 tried to raid the ACC and got turned down by UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Virginia. The one who took the bait was the Maryland program that was getting some nasty inquiries from the state government about the fact that they were not only in the red but they were close exhausting their reserve funds. They joined Big Ten because Big 10 offered to pre-pay them $30 million.
Cal-Berkley is considering layoffs and dropping a number of sports because they can no longer sustain a deficit in excess of $20 million.
In CUSA WKU has dropped sports and the reduction in state higher ed funding was cited as a reason.
Arkansas-Little Rock has dropped from 15 sports to 14 because of declining enrollment.
Pepperdine has cut men's track and women's swimming and diving.
Live in fantasy land thinking everything is OK. The history of intercollegiate athletics in the US is littered with busts and booms. AAC's newest member was the last casualty of the round of schools dropping football in the 80's during a bust period.
Eight states have increased higher ed funding over the past five years by an average of 1.5% per year or less. Seven states have cut their funding over five years and one is unchanged. West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana are all states that are down over the past five years.
How many states have allowed for large increases in tuition costs and student fees? Probably all of them yet student enrollment, for the most part continues to grow unabated. So when you say they are cutting funding, I'm sure they're making it up in these other areas (and more). Sure it's a dynamic system, marketplace and country and adjustments are consistently being made. What's funny is out of one side of your mouth you appear to be complaining about the lack of funding yet out of the other you boast of your schools multi-pronged expansion program. You say the collegiate landscape is 'littered with busts and booms', however, from where I stand, the booms far outweigh the busts at least over the last 40 years or more.
But hey, maybe the sky truly is falling; I'm just not seeing it.
(12-12-2017 05:41 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 04:58 PM)pilot172000 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 03:56 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]AAC has three schools (essentially four) that are using $25 million or more in university fund and/or student fees to supplement their athletic department and that is without having access to data from SMU, Tulsa, Temple, Tulane or Navy to see how they are funding.
Among publics there are 10 FBS that transfer $24.8 million or more, four are AAC.
If that investment doesn't result in higher revenue and the political environment for higher ed doesn't start improving, things could get really sticky.
Sorry old friend but you've been pushing that tired message for nigh on 20 years. Perhaps it's time to shelve that idea and get on with the program; we sure aint wait'n around for you. Might be why the AAC and C-USA are chock full of large metro-area schools.
I wouldn't say chock full. Marshall, Tech, Southern Miss, Western Kentucky and MSTU all come from non large Metro Areas. Arkansas St. isn't any different from the schools mentioned above and I would much rather play them than any of the schools along the East Coast.
We are in the lower third of the pack. Charlotte, ODU, FAU, FIU, UAB, UTSA, Rice, UNT come to mind with bigger metro areas. Our metro area is 363,325...
But were are the good football programs? I know FAU won the Conference this season but what about the whole of of CUSA 3.0 since 2013? Who has been bringing in the wins?
(12-12-2017 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 03:56 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2017 02:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]AAC has three schools (essentially four) that are using $25 million or more in university fund and/or student fees to supplement their athletic department and that is without having access to data from SMU, Tulsa, Temple, Tulane or Navy to see how they are funding.
Among publics there are 10 FBS that transfer $24.8 million or more, four are AAC.
If that investment doesn't result in higher revenue and the political environment for higher ed doesn't start improving, things could get really sticky.
Sorry old friend but you've been pushing that tired message for nigh on 20 years. Perhaps it's time to shelve that idea and get on with the program; we sure aint wait'n around for you. Might be why the AAC and C-USA are chock full of large metro-area schools.
Oh please don't be a drama queen.
I only picked this mantle up after the housing bust. Because anyone with half a brain can look around the country and see that states aren't pouring new money into higher ed. Many large universities are rapidly increasing enrollment to make up the shortfalls (Arkansas and Alabama have started admitting more out of state than in-state students to bolster enrollment), there is a looming debt crisis in student debt. Schools are borrowing too much as well (UNT got down graded in its debt rating when they had to cut their budget from an enrollment dip).
I follow a program that tore down the old press box and built a new with loge boxes, suites and club seats, built an indoor practice facility, and as I write is doing the earth work for a new end zone facility and cashing $10 million in checks written yesterday. I understand investing but I also understand there are a lot of schools who have debt payments extending past the life of their fat TV contracts too.
Investment without return will sink you. The Big 10 tried to raid the ACC and got turned down by UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Virginia. The one who took the bait was the Maryland program that was getting some nasty inquiries from the state government about the fact that they were not only in the red but they were close exhausting their reserve funds. They joined Big Ten because Big 10 offered to pre-pay them $30 million.
Cal-Berkley is considering layoffs and dropping a number of sports because they can no longer sustain a deficit in excess of $20 million.
In CUSA WKU has dropped sports and the reduction in state higher ed funding was cited as a reason.
Arkansas-Little Rock has dropped from 15 sports to 14 because of declining enrollment.
Pepperdine has cut men's track and women's swimming and diving.
Live in fantasy land thinking everything is OK. The history of intercollegiate athletics in the US is littered with busts and booms. AAC's newest member was the last casualty of the round of schools dropping football in the 80's during a bust period.
Eight states have increased higher ed funding over the past five years by an average of 1.5% per year or less. Seven states have cut their funding over five years and one is unchanged. West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana are all states that are down over the past five years.
Correct.
There will be a point where schools can not afford to put the money (what we are seeing today) into sports. Enrollment is dropping for a lot of us and that is dollars most of our schools can't make up.
As I pointed out a number of times just because a school is not putting as many dollars into sport in fees and other related cost. Does not mean they are in better shape than some of those that are putting 3 or 4 million more into sports.
A better judge is cost per enrollment. That's why schools like Western, Marshall, Ark St, Middle, just to name a few are a bubble pop from being in deep trouble.
While schools that are spending more (larger part/% of the budget than a Marshall or S. Miss or Tech) have more room to actually grow. They have 10 to 20 to 30 thousand more student to hit up and can afford to raise student fees because most are at a lower %.
Realignment season doesn't start for a few weeks.
We'll have months to beat that dead horse, so everyone, be patient.
Also, mods, we need a dead horse emoji...