(02-27-2017 11:56 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:34 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:27 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:20 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:02 AM)p23570 Wrote:  Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

Thanks esayem, completely agree we have a winning problem and for P23570 let me give you a basketabll example from last night. The team has been playing poorly in A10 play and in the 84-71 win over LaSalle, there were 2811 tickets sold.

http://www.umassathletics.com/news/2017/...ath=mbball

Three years earlier when the team was good in A10 play, The Mullins was sold out, 9483, for our 80-75 win over VCU. So P23570, feel free to crunch those number 9483 - 2811 = 6672 and then multiply that by the number of our home games and average ticket price of $20. Then tell me the Football revenue is flat because the numbers.

Quote:When Smart sat down for his postgame press conference following the Massachusetts men's basketball team's 80-75 win over his Rams, though, the first thing he addressed wasn't about his own team's struggles. It wasn't about the heroics of Chaz Williams and the Minutemen either. It was about the Mullins Center crowd.

"First of all, terrific crowd," Smart said. "I thought the fans and the folks that organized them and ran the game -- it's a first-class basketball environment. I think it says a lot of about the job that coach [Derek] Kellogg and his staff and his players have done to build this program. Obviously, it's the type of environment that you love to play in as a college basketball player and it's a challenge to go on the road to places like this because the crowd creates a tremendous energy for the home team."

http://www.masslive.com/umassbasketball/...cart_river

Uh, this is about Football. But thanks for proving my point for me. Basketball attendance would likely drop if the move was made to the MAC from the A-10. Yet another reason to keep all sports in the A-10 and find a FCS FB home somewhere closeby.

Why don't the Sooners move down. Likely would result in less crime in the community.

This has nothing to do with OU. YOu are just mad becasue you have been proven wrong and are now trolling.

So predictable, like talking about endowment during conversations about an AD.

Do you think there would be a drop in BB interest playing in the MAC versus the a-10?

actually....and this is amazing, but you have not disproven anything that anyone has posted here. You have shown what UMass subsidizes for athletics (although there is still a question as to whether you understand where that subsidy comes from), but you have not shown that UMass should not be spending that money to subsidize athletics. Much like a dog with a bone, in this case UMass AD financials, you can't quite see the big picture. You have answered exactly zero questions that you have been asked starting with why do YOU care? What's worse is that you have poisoned a cool thread many of us visited occasionally to read about how UMass' foray into independence was going. So congrats friend. You have won the Biggest Tool competition.

LOL. that is hilarious. I"M the only one who has used any real numbers in my argument. I showed you where the UMass AD money was coming from when it was clear you had never even looked at the AD finances. Anyone can read he posts and see you had no idea. I showed you that there was really not an increase in donations, ticket sales, etc... from being in FBS even though you claimed so.

And now when faced with the reality of the MAC being the goal and that not being good for BB you circle back to the beginning.

I have schooled you here son. Ain't no other way to look at it. Thanks for the entertainment, its' been fun embarrassing you.

Just becasue someone used fact in their argument does not' mean they are a troll. If anyone here is trolling it's you. I've Made a logical argument using the financial data from the AD, as well as attendance for FB.

Do you think there woudl be a drop in BB support playing the MAC instead of a-10?

(02-27-2017 09:55 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  A few things I want to add to this discussion.

1. University support for the football program by percentage has actually decreased since the FCS days. Yes, University support (real dollars) of FBS has increased but so have the revenue sources. The revenue has increased from basically "0" to about $14 million (This does not count donations, gifts, or corporate support -- only tickets and guarantees).
(EDIT: Correcting my number to include 2015 & 2016. Left that out by accident. Should have said roughly $14 Million since moving to FBS).

Still waiting on that link. LOL

I'd love to see how ticket sales went up 14 million as they ahve been stagnant in teh AD for a decade and anyone can see that by looking at the finances.

You are just making numbers up. 10k people at games down not come out to 14 million in tickets.

The reality is UMAss sells less then 2 million in tickets per season and much of that is for Hockey.

(02-27-2017 12:17 PM)p23570 Wrote:  LOL. that is hilarious. I"M the only one who has used any real numbers in my argument. I showed you where the UMass AD money was coming from when it was clear you had never even looked at the AD finances. Anyone can read he posts and see you had no idea. I showed you that there was really not an increase in donations, ticket sales, etc... from being in FBS even though you claimed so.

And now when faced with the reality of the MAC being the goal and that not being good for BB you circle back to the beginning.

I have schooled you here son. Ain't no other way to look at it. Thanks for the entertainment, its' been fun embarrassing you.

Just becasue someone used fact in their argument does not' mean they are a troll. If anyone here is trolling it's you. I've Made a logical argument using the financial data from the AD, as well as attendance for FB.

Do you think there woudl be a drop in BB support playing the MAC instead of a-10?

actually....and this is amazing, but you have not disproven anything that anyone has posted here. You have shown what UMass subsidizes for athletics (although there is still a question as to whether you understand where that subsidy comes from), but you have not shown that UMass should not be spending that money to subsidize athletics. Much like a dog with a bone, in this case UMass AD financials, you can't quite see the big picture. You have answered exactly zero questions that you have been asked starting with why do YOU care? What's worse is that you have poisoned a cool thread many of us visited occasionally to read about how UMass' foray into independence was going. So congrats friend. You have won the Biggest Tool competition.

(02-27-2017 12:50 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:17 PM)p23570 Wrote:  LOL. that is hilarious. I"M the only one who has used any real numbers in my argument. I showed you where the UMass AD money was coming from when it was clear you had never even looked at the AD finances. Anyone can read he posts and see you had no idea. I showed you that there was really not an increase in donations, ticket sales, etc... from being in FBS even though you claimed so.

And now when faced with the reality of the MAC being the goal and that not being good for BB you circle back to the beginning.

I have schooled you here son. Ain't no other way to look at it. Thanks for the entertainment, its' been fun embarrassing you.

Just becasue someone used fact in their argument does not' mean they are a troll. If anyone here is trolling it's you. I've Made a logical argument using the financial data from the AD, as well as attendance for FB.

Do you think there woudl be a drop in BB support playing the MAC instead of a-10?

actually....and this is amazing, but you have not disproven anything that anyone has posted here. You have shown what UMass subsidizes for athletics (although there is still a question as to whether you understand where that subsidy comes from), but you have not shown that UMass should not be spending that money to subsidize athletics. Much like a dog with a bone, in this case UMass AD financials, you can't quite see the big picture. You have answered exactly zero questions that you have been asked starting with why do YOU care? What's worse is that you have poisoned a cool thread many of us visited occasionally to read about how UMass' foray into independence was going. So congrats friend. You have won the Biggest Tool competition.

IF that's how you want to play then so be it. I will simply include the financial data in every post.

Massachusetts
CONFERENCE: A-10

YEAR TICKET SALES CONTRIBUTIONS RIGHTS / LICENSING STUDENT FEES SCHOOL FUNDS OTHER TOTAL REVENUES
2015 $1,643,397 $1,371,144 $2,566,830 $8,151,071 $20,530,698 $2,249,297 $36,512,437
2014 $1,695,134 $1,579,380 $1,711,809 $8,081,072 $18,344,057 $2,464,466 $33,875,918
2013 $1,413,936 $841,873 $1,729,462 $8,004,252 $16,350,175 $1,720,937 $30,060,635
2012 $1,160,807 $1,174,767 $1,787,962 $7,986,581 $16,389,092 $1,263,008 $29,762,217
2011 $1,290,143 $656,374 $2,071,154 $7,858,242 $14,185,734 $1,186,630 $27,248,277
2010 $1,246,446 $615,212 $2,028,721 $7,655,562 $12,519,657 $1,092,374 $25,157,972
2009 $1,543,216 $728,547 $1,958,969 $7,523,706 $12,458,449 $1,035,586 $25,248,473
2008 $1,477,290 $917,399 $2,067,241 $7,247,226 $12,407,669 $1,103,813 $25,220,638
2007 $1,400,854 $1,030,645 $2,051,253 $7,110,508 $8,798,995 $761,606 $21,153,861
2006 $1,084,246 $719,429 $1,973,277 $6,910,727 $8,448,848 $745,163 $19,881,690
2005 $1,032,637 $705,500 $1,625,442 $6,844,792 $8,391,074 $745,146 $19,344,591




IF the goal is the MAC do you think there will be a drop in BB interest moving from the a-10 schedule?

I don't think the MAC would be that much different. You are talking about 9 home games a year. So UMass loses Dayton and VCU every other year and RIU every year. With a softer conference schedule they can utilize the Calipari (UMass/Memphis), Mark Few, Tarkanian method and schedule tougher games outside the league. UMass has consistently scheduled home and homes with power conference teams so I don't see a problem there. The A10 is far from a regional conference, might I add.

I watch a lot of ESPN 3 via the app and MAC games dwarf the A10. UMass may end up in a better position. Broader exposure via ESPN and a national OOC schedule (like Calipari had because the A10 was just UMass, Temple, and GW then), a home for football, and probably more tourney bids. The MAC would go for it because their basketball needs some help and it would give them some east coast exposure. I wonder who the conference would pursue for a 14th member in that situation?

(02-27-2017 01:00 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:50 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:17 PM)p23570 Wrote:  LOL. that is hilarious. I"M the only one who has used any real numbers in my argument. I showed you where the UMass AD money was coming from when it was clear you had never even looked at the AD finances. Anyone can read he posts and see you had no idea. I showed you that there was really not an increase in donations, ticket sales, etc... from being in FBS even though you claimed so.

And now when faced with the reality of the MAC being the goal and that not being good for BB you circle back to the beginning.

I have schooled you here son. Ain't no other way to look at it. Thanks for the entertainment, its' been fun embarrassing you.

Just becasue someone used fact in their argument does not' mean they are a troll. If anyone here is trolling it's you. I've Made a logical argument using the financial data from the AD, as well as attendance for FB.

Do you think there woudl be a drop in BB support playing the MAC instead of a-10?

actually....and this is amazing, but you have not disproven anything that anyone has posted here. You have shown what UMass subsidizes for athletics (although there is still a question as to whether you understand where that subsidy comes from), but you have not shown that UMass should not be spending that money to subsidize athletics. Much like a dog with a bone, in this case UMass AD financials, you can't quite see the big picture. You have answered exactly zero questions that you have been asked starting with why do YOU care? What's worse is that you have poisoned a cool thread many of us visited occasionally to read about how UMass' foray into independence was going. So congrats friend. You have won the Biggest Tool competition.

IF that's how you want to play then so be it. I will simply include the financial data in every post.

Massachusetts
CONFERENCE: A-10

YEAR TICKET SALES CONTRIBUTIONS RIGHTS / LICENSING STUDENT FEES SCHOOL FUNDS OTHER TOTAL REVENUES
2015 $1,643,397 $1,371,144 $2,566,830 $8,151,071 $20,530,698 $2,249,297 $36,512,437
2014 $1,695,134 $1,579,380 $1,711,809 $8,081,072 $18,344,057 $2,464,466 $33,875,918
2013 $1,413,936 $841,873 $1,729,462 $8,004,252 $16,350,175 $1,720,937 $30,060,635
2012 $1,160,807 $1,174,767 $1,787,962 $7,986,581 $16,389,092 $1,263,008 $29,762,217
2011 $1,290,143 $656,374 $2,071,154 $7,858,242 $14,185,734 $1,186,630 $27,248,277
2010 $1,246,446 $615,212 $2,028,721 $7,655,562 $12,519,657 $1,092,374 $25,157,972
2009 $1,543,216 $728,547 $1,958,969 $7,523,706 $12,458,449 $1,035,586 $25,248,473
2008 $1,477,290 $917,399 $2,067,241 $7,247,226 $12,407,669 $1,103,813 $25,220,638
2007 $1,400,854 $1,030,645 $2,051,253 $7,110,508 $8,798,995 $761,606 $21,153,861
2006 $1,084,246 $719,429 $1,973,277 $6,910,727 $8,448,848 $745,163 $19,881,690
2005 $1,032,637 $705,500 $1,625,442 $6,844,792 $8,391,074 $745,146 $19,344,591




IF the goal is the MAC do you think there will be a drop in BB interest moving from the a-10 schedule?

What has been pretty clear and goes unsaid is that UMass' goal is the AAC down the road.

(02-27-2017 12:22 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 09:55 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  A few things I want to add to this discussion.

1. University support for the football program by percentage has actually decreased since the FCS days. Yes, University support (real dollars) of FBS has increased but so have the revenue sources. The revenue has increased from basically "0" to about $14 million (This does not count donations, gifts, or corporate support -- only tickets and guarantees).
(EDIT: Correcting my number to include 2015 & 2016. Left that out by accident. Should have said roughly $14 Million since moving to FBS).

Still waiting on that link. LOL

I'd love to see how ticket sales went up 14 million as they ahve been stagnant in teh AD for a decade and anyone can see that by looking at the finances.

You are just making numbers up. 10k people at games down not come out to 14 million in tickets.

The reality is UMAss sells less then 2 million in tickets per season and much of that is for Hockey.

The number is the rough revenue total since moving up to FBS. Not just ticket sales, includes guarantee games.

Sometimes there aren't links to things. Other ways of obtaining information than just the internet. Sorry.

(02-27-2017 12:22 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Still waiting on that link. LOL

I'd love to see how ticket sales went up 14 million as they ahve been stagnant in teh AD for a decade and anyone can see that by looking at the finances.

You are just making numbers up. 10k people at games down not come out to 14 million in tickets.

The reality is UMAss sells less then 2 million in tickets per season and much of that is for Hockey.

Why exactly do you care about this? Don't you have your own players with "issues" right now to worry about? You have no skin in this from what I can see unless Umass is stealing some of your recruits - so why?

I guess the best answer to you is piss off.... UMass is giving this a go and there is nothing you can do about it. They have their reasons and I am pretty sure they are not consulting you on it.

(02-27-2017 08:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 08:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:30 PM)panama Wrote:  That did not answer mturn's question...

Yeah, completely missed the point. Nobody would argue that ECU isn't well supported by their fans but they do receive support from the academic side. And the 4.5 million is just what makes it on the AD books. There's probably much more ancillary functions costed out to academics. Virginia requires probably the strictest (that I know of) reporting of all these costs so that we have to use student fees 100% and nothing can come from the general budget. That's not the case for most schools so what billybobby was saying earlier isn't correct.

What I'm saying is correct. Most schools do not take money out of there general funds to pay for their athletics....maybe some start ups from SB/CUSA/Liberty.
If sports are paid by the schools general budgets, then why do they even have such a thing as an Athletic Department???

Cheers!

Then how do you explain the 4.5 million ECU donated to their athletic budget?

You took the cheese. I was waiting for that! Schools pay for deficits some times. UNLV had to fire a coach, play off his contract etc. and had a deficit and got bailed out. ECU and many other schools have had a deficit every now and again for reasons like that and had to be helped out with a couple million. But thats not what you are arguing here though. You arent arguing about a once in a lifetime deficit. You are saying that it's normal for schools to pay for athletics through their general funds. It's not.
Cheers!

(02-27-2017 11:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  What else is there to compete with in Wyoming? For UMass, I remember their 9k basketball arena being sold out throughout the 90's and they probably could have brought in more. Their football team won a title too, I can't find the info anywhere, but wouldn't you assume they had fans showing up?

Also, Wyoming has been 1-A/FBS since 1940! Think that has something to do with it?

Wyoming has been FBS/1-A since the 1892.

Cheers!

(02-27-2017 10:57 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:32 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 09:50 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 08:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 08:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  What I'm saying is correct. Most schools do not take money out of there general funds to pay for their athletics....maybe some start ups from SB/CUSA/Liberty.
If sports are paid by the schools general budgets, then why do they even have such a thing as an Athletic Department???

Cheers!

Then how do you explain the 4.5 million ECU donated to their athletic budget?

I thought we had already identified where that 4.5 million came from looking at the budgets.

UMAss is just an extreme case as far as budgets and receiving money from the school, but they have no choice as the fans are simply not providing much income to the AD.

Looking at the budgets UMAss is right there with the most subsidized AD's in FBS.

I think Panama's claims that it was no big deal to just take a little more from the academic side or from students becasue the budget is so big that it won't matter is the thought that is absolutely incorrect. There is a reason that other FBS flagships in the country do not do this. Most have large budgets and could simply move over 100m from academics and put it in the AD, but they don't, becasue that' not how FBS schools fund thier AD's.

That's where this got off track when Panama decided that a 3.2 billion $ budget was big enough to throw millions at the AD each year to increase the AD budget to compete at the FBS level becasue the fans aren't doing so.

That is absolutely wrong. It's a predictable fallback for people when faced with athletic issues to to refer to things like overall budget or endowment.

AT the end of the day it's about the fans. If the fans will support it them by all means move forward. Unfortunately UMAss has fan support issues and likely belongs with the other heavily subsidized New England flagship AD's in FCS. I see no benefit to UMAss and like I said earlier if you asked a random person in most of the country what level of football UMass plays they wouldn't know. Donations have not increased, ticket sales have not increased. I just dont' see the benefit.

You get that the Operating Budget for a university is not just "the academic side", right? Its everything! Its sweeping the floors and cafeteria lunches and the fees for the school paper. Someone on here has already mentioned that in recent years UMass has spent $2B on new academic buildings i.e., they are not exactly hurting the academic side by having FBS football. You armed with your numbers have decided that UMass should not have FBS football when that decision resides with the president and trustees. You say there is no benefit as if you're embedded in Lowell and know all the particulars of their situation.

How many schools have started football in the last 25 years and/or moved up to FBS? How many have moved down? That in itself might indicate that there is a value beyond your balance sheet.


Also its pretty disingenuous for a P5 fan to be combing through the balance sheets of a mid major when for decades before the TV Revenue era power conference schools were gorging themselves on state money to go from 15k stadiums to 75k and 80k seat stadiums.

So now we are back to talking about academics and academic building construction.

Pretty safe to say you have not presented much of a case for UMAss in FBS. All you do is talk overall school budget and academics when faced with actual numbers. But at least you aren't' just making them up like Zack is. He thinks FBS football made 7.5 million for the AD when they took in less than that for ticket sales, licensing, and donations for the entire AD so there is literally no way that the FB is worth 7.5 million. More bogus claims.

For one reason or another you guys just struggle with numbers it seems.

Why does a case need to be presented?

(02-27-2017 02:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  What else is there to compete with in Wyoming? For UMass, I remember their 9k basketball arena being sold out throughout the 90's and they probably could have brought in more. Their football team won a title too, I can't find the info anywhere, but wouldn't you assume they had fans showing up?

Also, Wyoming has been 1-A/FBS since 1940! Think that has something to do with it?

Wyoming has been FBS/1-A since the 1892.

Cheers!

Division l was created in 1973. Division l-A in 1978.

(02-27-2017 02:21 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 08:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 08:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:30 PM)panama Wrote:  That did not answer mturn's question...

Yeah, completely missed the point. Nobody would argue that ECU isn't well supported by their fans but they do receive support from the academic side. And the 4.5 million is just what makes it on the AD books. There's probably much more ancillary functions costed out to academics. Virginia requires probably the strictest (that I know of) reporting of all these costs so that we have to use student fees 100% and nothing can come from the general budget. That's not the case for most schools so what billybobby was saying earlier isn't correct.

What I'm saying is correct. Most schools do not take money out of there general funds to pay for their athletics....maybe some start ups from SB/CUSA/Liberty.
If sports are paid by the schools general budgets, then why do they even have such a thing as an Athletic Department???

Cheers!

Then how do you explain the 4.5 million ECU donated to their athletic budget?

You took the cheese. I was waiting for that! Schools pay for deficits some times. UNLV had to fire a coach, play off his contract etc. and had a deficit and got bailed out. ECU and many other schools have had a deficit every now and again for reasons like that and had to be helped out with a couple million. But thats not what you are arguing here though. You arent arguing about a once in a lifetime deficit. You are saying that it's normal for schools to pay for athletics through their general funds. It's not.
Cheers!

Well what about the 2+ million ECU has had for the last decade? Once in a lifetime?

It really depends on the state. Like I said VA doesn't allow any general funds transferred so all subsidies come from specific fees. In Louisiana it's the opposite, they can't assess an athletic fee but are restricted to the amount transferred to athletics based I believe on the size of their budget. Either way it's subsidy.

(02-27-2017 11:02 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

You do realize that this is a message board and your ramblings are non binding.

In 1940 Wyoming moved from the College Division to the University Division (precursor to 1-A). More or less showing the distinction between the two programs.

(02-27-2017 02:45 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:02 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

You do realize that this is a message board and your ramblings are non binding.

Never said they were. Did you want to discuss UMass football or me? Seems like the latter.

I Was just looking at Arkansas St football data. IF UMass could get up to the level of Arkansas St football I would say they could make a great case for FBS. Arkansas's little brother has a pretty impressive program. More so than BC's little brother.

(02-27-2017 02:41 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:57 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:32 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 09:50 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 08:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Then how do you explain the 4.5 million ECU donated to their athletic budget?

I thought we had already identified where that 4.5 million came from looking at the budgets.

UMAss is just an extreme case as far as budgets and receiving money from the school, but they have no choice as the fans are simply not providing much income to the AD.

Looking at the budgets UMAss is right there with the most subsidized AD's in FBS.

I think Panama's claims that it was no big deal to just take a little more from the academic side or from students becasue the budget is so big that it won't matter is the thought that is absolutely incorrect. There is a reason that other FBS flagships in the country do not do this. Most have large budgets and could simply move over 100m from academics and put it in the AD, but they don't, becasue that' not how FBS schools fund thier AD's.

That's where this got off track when Panama decided that a 3.2 billion $ budget was big enough to throw millions at the AD each year to increase the AD budget to compete at the FBS level becasue the fans aren't doing so.

That is absolutely wrong. It's a predictable fallback for people when faced with athletic issues to to refer to things like overall budget or endowment.

AT the end of the day it's about the fans. If the fans will support it them by all means move forward. Unfortunately UMAss has fan support issues and likely belongs with the other heavily subsidized New England flagship AD's in FCS. I see no benefit to UMAss and like I said earlier if you asked a random person in most of the country what level of football UMass plays they wouldn't know. Donations have not increased, ticket sales have not increased. I just dont' see the benefit.

You get that the Operating Budget for a university is not just "the academic side", right? Its everything! Its sweeping the floors and cafeteria lunches and the fees for the school paper. Someone on here has already mentioned that in recent years UMass has spent $2B on new academic buildings i.e., they are not exactly hurting the academic side by having FBS football. You armed with your numbers have decided that UMass should not have FBS football when that decision resides with the president and trustees. You say there is no benefit as if you're embedded in Lowell and know all the particulars of their situation.

How many schools have started football in the last 25 years and/or moved up to FBS? How many have moved down? That in itself might indicate that there is a value beyond your balance sheet.


Also its pretty disingenuous for a P5 fan to be combing through the balance sheets of a mid major when for decades before the TV Revenue era power conference schools were gorging themselves on state money to go from 15k stadiums to 75k and 80k seat stadiums.

So now we are back to talking about academics and academic building construction.

Pretty safe to say you have not presented much of a case for UMAss in FBS. All you do is talk overall school budget and academics when faced with actual numbers. But at least you aren't' just making them up like Zack is. He thinks FBS football made 7.5 million for the AD when they took in less than that for ticket sales, licensing, and donations for the entire AD so there is literally no way that the FB is worth 7.5 million. More bogus claims.

For one reason or another you guys just struggle with numbers it seems.

Why does a case need to be presented?

Because this is a discussion about UMAss choosing FBS or FCS and you haven't made much of a case for FBS at this point. REally all you have done is said the $ for FBS football will come from the schools budget and that its' no big deal to rely that heavily on subsidy to operate an AD.

And even if you had made a case for FBS(which you failed miserably at) I think the school would need to look at the loss of a-10 athletics on the AD, especially BB. I suspect there is quite a bit of history with those schools and playing MAC schools might not have the same interest or be the same level of competition.

The reasons were outline in the move to FBS, many years ago. This is from the MAC and note all three major players, chancellor, AD, and football HC coach are gone. The former AD really did a terrible job with scheduling and former HC in running the football program. The Chancellor outlines the reason early on, however because of the mistakes it will take a bit longer than 5 years.

(02-27-2017 02:58 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 02:45 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:02 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

You do realize that this is a message board and your ramblings are non binding.

Never said they were. Did you want to discuss UMass football or me? Seems like the latter.

I Was just looking at Arkansas St football data. IF UMass could get up to the level of Arkansas St football I would say they could make a great case for FBS. Arkansas's little brother has a pretty impressive program. More so than BC's little brother.

I think the case is made in that they are FBS