UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

Southern anchor of the Great Northern Conference?

(07-24-2018 11:37 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  Southern anchor of the Great Northern Conference?

Given that they have to double their athletic budget to play football, I'm thinking no.

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

Sun Belt and MVC need to do a swap of members - Little Rock for Missouri State.

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

I don't know about that. $5 million difference is pretty significant for a small budget program. The bigger difference would be the availability of a regional conference for a move down to FCS.

(07-24-2018 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

I don't know about that. $5 million difference is pretty significant for a small budget program. The bigger difference would be the availability of a regional conference for a move down to FCS.

Just how well would a decent program there draw?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-24-2018 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

I don't know about that. $5 million difference is pretty significant for a small budget program. The bigger difference would be the availability of a regional conference for a move down to FCS.

Well between CFP distribution & TV Contracts you're looking around at least 1.5 million and you'll get at least 1 million more for money games so there's half the revenue needed right there. You'd still need the support of fans and community to make it work but in the grand scheme it's not that great of chasm to overcome.

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

Gee, that's nothing, according to all those who think that just having an FBS football team means that you get a handful of magic beans from which you will quickly grow a stack of revenue so high that it will reach a castle in the clouds.

(07-24-2018 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

I don't know about that. $5 million difference is pretty significant for a small budget program. The bigger difference would be the availability of a regional conference for a move down to FCS.

Yes--but it takes EIGHT million to get to FCS and you get almost nothing for the nearly 8 million you invest to get there. Most people dont know the difference between FCS and D2. That extra 4.8 million to go FBS is money well spent. A trip to a bowl (even a crappy one) is a fantastic marketing opportunity for a school. Plus its far easier to get to a bowl than getting to the FCS playoff--yet it pays off in much greater exposure. The more figures I see the less and less FCS makes sense to me. Drop football or play D2 (or D3)---if your worried about the budget. But, to me at least, it just seems like it doesn't make much sense to move up to FCS unless you have a solid viable plan to get to FBS. FCS doesnt seem like a good long term investment at this point in time.

FCS football doesn't take 8 millions to run a program. The top dog NDSU is around 4.7. Most in the MVFC are around 3 to 4 million per year.

(07-24-2018 02:52 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  FCS football doesn't take 8 millions to run a program. The top dog NDSU is around 4.7. Most in the MVFC are around 3 to 4 million per year.

Building from scratch, UA-LR would have to add 63 women's scholarships and several sports.

(07-24-2018 02:52 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  FCS football doesn't take 8 millions to run a program. The top dog NDSU is around 4.7. Most in the MVFC are around 3 to 4 million per year.

UALR only awards the maximum allowed aid in men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball and baseball.

They have Title IX concerns that aren't going to get any better since they dropped women's tennis a few years ago and plan to add wrestling.

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

I don't know about that.

Central Arkansas doesn't have the resources to go FBS but I suspect if you gave students, alumni, and donors the choice of dropping football or saving football going Division II they'd overwhelmingly tell you to save football. It really is an established part of the school culture and identity.

I don't think there are many FBS schools that can benefit much reclassifying FCS. Idaho being so isolated as a football independent and the lost marketing value of having the hoops schedule look like the football schedule, that would work. New Mexico State, losing New Mexico and UTEP home/home and then traveling just as much in FCS? That doesn't make any sense. If you are NMSU being FBS or not playing football are your viable options.

If you are Texas State or ULM or UMass, FCS could viable if you are experiencing more financial issues than you can deal with. If you are Eastern Michigan and someone turns the screws financially, you can't go FCS without spending more in travel.

When your savings likely net out at about $1 million the turmoil just generally isn't going to be worthwhile.

So the more likely scenario is you just keep kicking the can down the road until you no longer can and you end football.

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

But .... FBS football doesn't make much financial sense for the majority of schools that play it either. It's a huge money suck, unless (a) you are in a league that is cashing those $30m a year media checks, or (b) you are in D2 or D3 and thus not investing much money in it to lose.

PS - I could be wrong, but I think Hokie was being facetious. For a school like UALR, $4.6m for athletics is not chump change.

(07-24-2018 03:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

I don't know about that.

Central Arkansas doesn't have the resources to go FBS but I suspect if you gave students, alumni, and donors the choice of dropping football or saving football going Division II they'd overwhelmingly tell you to save football. It really is an established part of the school culture and identity.

I don't think there are many FBS schools that can benefit much reclassifying FCS. Idaho being so isolated as a football independent and the lost marketing value of having the hoops schedule look like the football schedule, that would work. New Mexico State, losing New Mexico and UTEP home/home and then traveling just as much in FCS? That doesn't make any sense. If you are NMSU being FBS or not playing football are your viable options.

If you are Texas State or ULM or UMass, FCS could viable if you are experiencing more financial issues than you can deal with. If you are Eastern Michigan and someone turns the screws financially, you can't go FCS without spending more in travel.

When your savings likely net out at about $1 million the turmoil just generally isn't going to be worthwhile.

So the more likely scenario is you just keep kicking the can down the road until you no longer can and you end football.

Good analysis. Unless the A5 decide raise requirements to remain in FBS as a way to winnow out the chaff (increase minimum sports to 18 or 20, increase minimum scholarships to 225, etc) those basic economics won't change.

Idaho has so many different variables that other struggling FBS programs don't have you can't compare their decision to any other school.

It's actually kind of surprising that the SBC hasn't mandated football as a term for continued membership for UTA and UALR. If these programs aren't willing to pony up the cash to support the conference's cash sport then they don't deserve to wear the conference logo.

They need the SBC more than the SBC needs them.

(07-24-2018 02:52 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  FCS football doesn't take 8 millions to run a program. The top dog NDSU is around 4.7. Most in the MVFC are around 3 to 4 million per year.

Had a few minutes to read more of the study. The study presumes that if UALR were to add football regardless whether it were Sun Belt, Southland, or Ohio Valley (all specifically mentioned) that the school would pay the coaching staffs of all sports at the median level of their conference and would add two women's sports to address Title IX.

So yeah, UALR could play FCS for less but they are generally toward the bottom of the Sun Belt in pay.

(07-24-2018 03:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

I don't know about that.

Central Arkansas doesn't have the resources to go FBS but I suspect if you gave students, alumni, and donors the choice of dropping football or saving football going Division II they'd overwhelmingly tell you to save football. It really is an established part of the school culture and identity.

I don't think there are many FBS schools that can benefit much reclassifying FCS. Idaho being so isolated as a football independent and the lost marketing value of having the hoops schedule look like the football schedule, that would work. New Mexico State, losing New Mexico and UTEP home/home and then traveling just as much in FCS? That doesn't make any sense. If you are NMSU being FBS or not playing football are your viable options.

If you are Texas State or ULM or UMass, FCS could viable if you are experiencing more financial issues than you can deal with. If you are Eastern Michigan and someone turns the screws financially, you can't go FCS without spending more in travel.

When your savings likely net out at about $1 million the turmoil just generally isn't going to be worthwhile.

So the more likely scenario is you just keep kicking the can down the road until you no longer can and you end football.

I wasn't aware we had any financial issues.... could you tell me more about that?