The App and Georgia Southern experience is very unusual for newcomers at the gate and financially.
http://arkansasstate.scout.com/story/154...-new?s=334

interesting read, thank you for sharing

I'm so happy F_U is out of the Sun Belt.

Shows you can't just up and create tradition...or passion.

Butt marketz!

~85% subsidy huh?

It would be interesting to see what each schools athletic budget is as well. Those with a higher overall budget may have a higher subsidy to offset that increase. TXST likes to show they have a strong budget but they also have a high (70%) subsidy.

Also schools like UAB, UTSA, GSU, USA, and USF are interesting because they don't have football stadiums they had to build or expand for FBS football. If they had these high costs that other had then I'm sure subsidies would go up as well.

From that perspective, congrats to App St who have done very well while facing those challenges.

(05-12-2015 10:42 AM)slycat Wrote:  It would be interesting to see what each schools athletic budget is as well. Those with a higher overall budget may have a higher subsidy to offset that increase. TXST likes to show they have a strong budget but they also have a high (70%) subsidy.

Also schools like UAB, UTSA, GSU, USA, and USF are interesting because they don't have football stadiums they had to build or expand for FBS football. If they had these high costs that other had then I'm sure subsidies would go up as well.

From that perspective, congrats to App St who have done very well while facing those challenges.

The article has a lot of good information.

Using Texas State as an example debt service may be temporarily skewing the numbers for some of the programs. A lot of the current Texas State subsidy is probably associated with debt service. As part of The Drive, there was a large capital improvement program. Based on the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics database, Texas State's debt service went from around $1.054 million per year in 2008 to $4.6 million per year in 2013 (the most recent review year). My understanding is that the student body agreed to an increase in student fees to help with paying off the debt. (Personally, I think student fees should be in a category separate from the subsidy category, particularly if the fees also include or allow reduced access cost to athletic events.)

Taking it a little further, it would be interesting to review the percentage of debt service to the overall athletic budget for the established programs moving up vs the start up programs.

http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission.org/

Debt Service can be found by drilling down on the "Other" category in the database.

(05-12-2015 10:42 AM)slycat Wrote:  It would be interesting to see what each schools athletic budget is as well. Those with a higher overall budget may have a higher subsidy to offset that increase. TXST likes to show they have a strong budget but they also have a high (70%) subsidy.

Also schools like UAB, UTSA, GSU, USA, and USF are interesting because they don't have football stadiums they had to build or expand for FBS football. If they had these high costs that other had then I'm sure subsidies would go up as well.

From that perspective, congrats to App St who have done very well while facing those challenges.

USA probably wouldn't have a team if they didn't have that tired old stadium to play in. We don't like Ladd-Peebles but we're grateful it was already there. It made the jump possible.

But it can be a double edged sword. Neither Ga State nor USA have a 'right sized' on-campus stadium. It creates other issues. USA cannot raise money from box seat sales and has more difficulty with student attendance as a result.

Having a right sized OCS is expensive, but can create other revenue streams as well. Having a rich donor build USA a stadium with lots of box seats would probably help the 'bottom line'.

But understand that there's a difference between a FCS to FBS move up and a NEW program, such as USA, UTSA, Charlotte, or Georgia State. We don't have any football history with the alumni or the town.

People chase markets they get locations, people chase winning traditions they get winners.

All FAU brought to CUSA was one hot cheerleader.

(05-12-2015 01:28 PM)PirateJim Wrote:  All FAU brought to CUSA was one hot cheerleader.

pics or it didn't happen

I don't think anyone is surprised by anything here, but it is nice to see the numbers laid out like that. One thing missing from the discussion is a comparison of timelines so that we can see if a school like UAB manages better if they extend their stay in FCS. Or, as it applies to GSU, if there really is a danger of "burnout" by getting too big too fast. There might be indications out there, but the failing of UAB is hardly an indication that that's where we're all headed.

In other words, do I wish we could achieve our athletic budget with a lower subsidy? Of course.

Would it have been nice to enter FBS with decades of tradition? Also, of course (although watching something as it's built is fun, too).

In the time it takes to build that tradition, would I rather be FBS or FCS? For me, that'd be FBS, and we're managing.

Is there evidence that we'll be worse off in 25 years for having made that jump? This one still needs some data.

(05-12-2015 11:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 10:42 AM)slycat Wrote:  It would be interesting to see what each schools athletic budget is as well. Those with a higher overall budget may have a higher subsidy to offset that increase. TXST likes to show they have a strong budget but they also have a high (70%) subsidy.

Also schools like UAB, UTSA, GSU, USA, and USF are interesting because they don't have football stadiums they had to build or expand for FBS football. If they had these high costs that other had then I'm sure subsidies would go up as well.

From that perspective, congrats to App St who have done very well while facing those challenges.

USA probably wouldn't have a team if they didn't have that tired old stadium to play in. We don't like Ladd-Peebles but we're grateful it was already there. It made the jump possible.

But it can be a double edged sword. Neither Ga State nor USA have a 'right sized' on-campus stadium. It creates other issues. USA cannot raise money from box seat sales and has more difficulty with student attendance as a result.

Having a right sized OCS is expensive, but can create other revenue streams as well. Having a rich donor build USA a stadium with lots of box seats would probably help the 'bottom line'.

But understand that there's a difference between a FCS to FBS move up and a NEW program, such as USA, UTSA, Charlotte, or Georgia State. We don't have any football history with the alumni or the town.

I agree that programs starting from scratch and going to FBS quick is very difficult. Lots of hurdles. USA and UTSA did good along with UCF and USF.

(05-12-2015 01:32 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 01:28 PM)PirateJim Wrote:  All FAU brought to CUSA was one hot cheerleader.

pics or it didn't happen

I don't have the pics but they did show her on the ECU jumbo tron near the end of the game. Sorry.

:sigh: you're killin me smalls

(05-12-2015 03:46 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 11:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 10:42 AM)slycat Wrote:  It would be interesting to see what each schools athletic budget is as well. Those with a higher overall budget may have a higher subsidy to offset that increase. TXST likes to show they have a strong budget but they also have a high (70%) subsidy.

Also schools like UAB, UTSA, GSU, USA, and USF are interesting because they don't have football stadiums they had to build or expand for FBS football. If they had these high costs that other had then I'm sure subsidies would go up as well.

From that perspective, congrats to App St who have done very well while facing those challenges.

USA probably wouldn't have a team if they didn't have that tired old stadium to play in. We don't like Ladd-Peebles but we're grateful it was already there. It made the jump possible.

But it can be a double edged sword. Neither Ga State nor USA have a 'right sized' on-campus stadium. It creates other issues. USA cannot raise money from box seat sales and has more difficulty with student attendance as a result.

Having a right sized OCS is expensive, but can create other revenue streams as well. Having a rich donor build USA a stadium with lots of box seats would probably help the 'bottom line'.

But understand that there's a difference between a FCS to FBS move up and a NEW program, such as USA, UTSA, Charlotte, or Georgia State. We don't have any football history with the alumni or the town.

I agree that programs starting from scratch and going to FBS quick is very difficult. Lots of hurdles. USA and UTSA did good along with UCF and USF.

I think that there are a few ways to do this correctly and ways to not do it correctly. The following schools have started 'greenfield' FBS programs in the last 15 years. USA, FIU, FAU, UTSA, ODU, Charlotte, and Georgia State.

First, USA and UTSA worked hard on scheduling. USA offers a home slate that includes(d) Mississippi State, Navy, Oklahoma State, SD State, NC State...Georgia State offeres(d) Air Force and not much else. If I see another post on here by a Sun Belt fan posting the 'great news' that their team got another payday game with some G5 school...I'm gonna spit up.

Here's the deal for the newbies. If you don't or can't get well known teams to come to your place....You better be winning 9 games a year.

UTSA, ODU, and USA have something in common. No competition at either the FBS or NFL level and all have over a million people within 60 miles of the school. All three have compelling OOC home series'. Only one of those teams has a P5 school anywhere near them.

Georgia State and Charlotte have the people, but they're both in NFL cities. And Georgia State has 2 P5 programs within an hour of the school. UNCC has 2 P5 schools within 100 miles. FIU and FAU both have a P5 school sitting right next to them and they're both in a NFL town.

By the way, USA's attendance is nothing to write home about (yea, I know that USA probably undercounts, but its still not huge). But it is at least credible.

(05-12-2015 10:42 AM)slycat Wrote:  It would be interesting to see what each schools athletic budget is as well. Those with a higher overall budget may have a higher subsidy to offset that increase. TXST likes to show they have a strong budget but they also have a high (70%) subsidy.

Also schools like UAB, UTSA, GSU, USA, and USF are interesting because they don't have football stadiums they had to build or expand for FBS football. If they had these high costs that other had then I'm sure subsidies would go up as well.

From that perspective, congrats to App St who have done very well while facing those challenges.

Our administration made a point when we announced the move up was that it would not be a burden on the students. So far we have kept to that. Having good fan support and fund raising in place as an FCS makes a huge difference.

(05-12-2015 01:28 PM)PirateJim Wrote:  All FAU brought to CUSA was one hot cheerleader.

Here she is....

(05-12-2015 05:04 PM)ManOnABuffalo Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 01:28 PM)PirateJim Wrote:  All FAU brought to CUSA was one hot cheerleader.

Here she is....

I think that was a recap of what most teams do to FAU in football