(02-02-2019 09:09 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:49 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 08:43 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  You mean, 'which teams shouldn't be G5'.

Anybody who wants to put the resources into G5 should be able to play G5.

Many schools used to have teams but had to cut them due to Title IX. No doubt, were it not for Title IX, many of those schools would probably be competing at G5 level

Also, FCS and Division II have their own perks. Many schools are convinced FCS and DII are better for them. If a school weighs their options, - Division II, FCS, or G5 - and they decide G5 is best, then that's their decision. G5 does come with its downfalls: no national championship, if you're brand new you have to find a conference, pricier then FCS and DII.

Lastly, it's not just a matter of 'is your football program good?' Many of the G5 schools that don't have good football programs, are great in other sports.

Many? In the last forty years? UTA and Pacific dropped the sport. Idaho dropped down. Who else?

There are no perks in FCS or Div II that are greater than that 30 second halftime commercial on Saturday.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Since 1979, quite a few schools have either dropped to I-AA/FCS or dropped football entirely. Most of them were during the Great Reclassification of 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC...r_programs

And SINCE the reclassification?!??

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-02-2019 07:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 06:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 05:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 04:09 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

They would also have lost $450,000 per year from their multimedia rights guarantee with Learfield sports by dropping to FCS. They estimated a loss of almost $400,000 from ticket sales, primarily due to the loss of their annual home game with either New Mexico or UTEP. FBS Independents also get a little over $300,000 from CFP revenue.

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

If the writer of the article just did a little research he would have found that the information is out there on each school. It might not tell you that they looked at dropping down to FCS, but it will certainly tell you why they would not drop down.

It also tells us why so many FCS schools have chosen to move up to FBS. The only surprise is why Idaho dropped down. It not only doesn't cost anything to move up, it does cost a school which elects to stay in FCS.

Now, if every FCS school were to decide to move up (an option which isn't currently available) then the economics would change. The CFP money currently available to G5 schools is a fixed pool. It won't grow if the number of schools grows. And if there were a virtually infinite pool of teams the P5 could play a buy game against to qualify for a bowl, the price for those games would plummet.

Unless the cost of belonging to the FBS were to increase dramatically (and I don't mean optional costs like full cost of attendance or any other tweaks to the amounts players can be paid to play) we will continue to increase the competitive imbalance we have now.

22 extra men's scholarships. An equivalent number of women's scholarships, probably requiring at least one new women's sport. 16 total sports instead of 14. Significantly increased head coach and assistant coach salaries. Significant upgrade for training facilities and stadium.

Doesn't cost anything?

And if you are successful in FCS and struggle in FBS, attendance can go down. I suspect Montana and Montana St. would lose significantly if they moved up.

Or they could be winners like Troy, Boise State, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Marshall and Western Kentucky.
Only Charlotte and Georgia State are the weakest ones that moved up. We know Montana and Montana State both are better than those 2 and maybe Liberty and South Alabama.

Sit down Sir

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-03-2019 05:02 AM)panama Wrote:  Sit down Sir

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

David thinks it's okay for every school to move up, unless they are startups like Georgia State or Charlotte. He doesn't like Coastal for having a relatively new program either.

(02-03-2019 12:53 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, in many cases, these panels and committees are put together by elites that want to see a particular answer - stay in FBS. That can color the kinds of assumptions that go into these analyses.

IIRC, NMSU elites made a 2013 "commitment" to FBS before it did any studies, so it's not surprising that a 2015 panel would come back with a pro-FBS result. E.g., in the study you quote, i think the panel assumed that as an FCS they would get no money from "money games", even though FCS teams can play money games too.

That's before we even consider that playing money games is a pretty sad-sack reason for being FBS: "Hey, why do we have an FBS football team? So we can make a million bucks to get beat up at Texas!"

It's really not a surprise that elite administrators almost always favor having big bloated athletic programs. It's in their personal interest to do so even if it is at odds with the school they currently work for.

E.g. if you are the President or AD at a school like NMSU or EMU, do you want them to drop down to FCS on your watch? Even if that is actually great for EMU, it is likely to look terrible on your resume, because for an admin at EMU, a move up means a move to a P5 school, and a P5 school is going to hate seeing that.

IIRC, about 5 years ago when EMU was really struggling and the HBO report on their athletic finances came out, EMU had a brand-new AD, and she vigorously defended keeping EMU football FBS and in the MAC. In 2017, she left EMU to take the the AD job at Pittsburgh. That had to be a banner day for her, a move from a struggling directional MAC school to a venerable ACC member. I bet her salary went up hugely and her career is now made.

Now, even if cutting EMU football entirely or dropping to FCS was best for EMU (less than a year after she left for Pitt, EMU announced it was cutting 4 other sports to help the budget), do you think there's any chance at all she gets the Pitt job if EMU had cut football or dropped to FCS on her watch? Not a chance, because schools like Pitt are always looking to expand athletics, not cut them.

So the pro-FBS position of G5 admins has to be viewed with skepticism.

The Athletic Review Committee made the decision based on the numbers and their geography. It was unanimous, 18-0. The AD can only present the facts. He cannot convince every member to vote his way. Your assertion of pro-FBS bias of G5 admins is not based on anything other than speculation and the evidence is the committee made their decision based on the numbers.

In 2013, both Idaho and NMSU were invited to join the Sun Belt in March of 2013, five months before the 2013 season started:

https://sunbeltsports.org/news/2013/3/27...th=general

There was $6 million in BCS money that was distributed to the WAC that was available to the teams that stayed in the WAC for the 2013-2014 season. Idaho and NMSU stayed in the WAC and split the money. It also made sense for both to go independent for at least one season to see if an opening came up and it did.

The money games are a big reason to move up to FBS. I actually think it is great. EMU got paid $860,000 to beat Rutgers in 2017. They got paid $550,000 to beat Purdue in 2018, the same Purdue team that crushed Ohio State. It is not hard to figure out why they would not want to move down to FCS.

The NMSU study mentioned that less money was given to FCS schools and that some conferences were considering cutting out games with FCS schools. As an example of the money, Western Carolina will play Alabama in 2019 and get $525,000. NMSU will play Alabama and get $1.7 million. NMSU will get $1.9 million for their game against Alabama in 2021. The numbers don't lie.

I will give you this. No FBS Athletic Director wants to lead his school from the FBS to the FCS. It will not exactly enhance your career. That is the reason the decision is not the Athletic Director's alone. At NMSU, it was believed that the Chancellor was open to dropping down to FCS. That is why an Athletic Review Committee was required to get to the best decision for their school.

I don't think it's just the AD who has that bias, it's inherent in all top administrators at G5 schools unless they see themselves as occupying purely academic positions in their careers. Moving down to FCS or cutting football is going to look bad whether you are an AD, a provost, vice-provost, president, etc. because chances are you are going to be looking to move up to a school that has those things.

It would be interesting to see who was on the ARC at NM State. Yes, FCS schools get less money for 'money games' than do FBS schools, but they do get money, and those games have by no means disappeared, so to me, the assumption of no money games in the report is hard to justify. It would be interesting to see who appointed the committee at NMST and who it was composed of.

As for whether existing to play money games is good or not in a values-sense, we just have to disagree about that.

(02-02-2019 07:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 06:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 05:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 04:09 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

They would also have lost $450,000 per year from their multimedia rights guarantee with Learfield sports by dropping to FCS. They estimated a loss of almost $400,000 from ticket sales, primarily due to the loss of their annual home game with either New Mexico or UTEP. FBS Independents also get a little over $300,000 from CFP revenue.

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

If the writer of the article just did a little research he would have found that the information is out there on each school. It might not tell you that they looked at dropping down to FCS, but it will certainly tell you why they would not drop down.

It also tells us why so many FCS schools have chosen to move up to FBS. The only surprise is why Idaho dropped down. It not only doesn't cost anything to move up, it does cost a school which elects to stay in FCS.

Now, if every FCS school were to decide to move up (an option which isn't currently available) then the economics would change. The CFP money currently available to G5 schools is a fixed pool. It won't grow if the number of schools grows. And if there were a virtually infinite pool of teams the P5 could play a buy game against to qualify for a bowl, the price for those games would plummet.

Unless the cost of belonging to the FBS were to increase dramatically (and I don't mean optional costs like full cost of attendance or any other tweaks to the amounts players can be paid to play) we will continue to increase the competitive imbalance we have now.

22 extra men's scholarships. An equivalent number of women's scholarships, probably requiring at least one new women's sport. 16 total sports instead of 14. Significantly increased head coach and assistant coach salaries. Significant upgrade for training facilities and stadium.

Doesn't cost anything?

And if you are successful in FCS and struggle in FBS, attendance can go down. I suspect Montana and Montana St. would lose significantly if they moved up.

Or they could be winners like Troy, Boise State, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Marshall and Western Kentucky.
Only Charlotte and Georgia State are the weakest ones that moved up. We know Montana and Montana State both are better than those 2 and maybe Liberty and South Alabama.

Troy, Georgia Southern and WKU are very debatable. Appalachian remains to be seen. They haven't been up long enough. ULM looked good the first couple of years, beating an SEC school.

Boise and Marshall were in good size cities and the #2 or largest school in their states. They had a lot more of a base for success. Idaho had a better program than Boise when they first moved up. We know what happened to Idaho.

(02-03-2019 05:00 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 09:09 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:49 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 08:43 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  You mean, 'which teams shouldn't be G5'.

Anybody who wants to put the resources into G5 should be able to play G5.

Many schools used to have teams but had to cut them due to Title IX. No doubt, were it not for Title IX, many of those schools would probably be competing at G5 level

Also, FCS and Division II have their own perks. Many schools are convinced FCS and DII are better for them. If a school weighs their options, - Division II, FCS, or G5 - and they decide G5 is best, then that's their decision. G5 does come with its downfalls: no national championship, if you're brand new you have to find a conference, pricier then FCS and DII.

Lastly, it's not just a matter of 'is your football program good?' Many of the G5 schools that don't have good football programs, are great in other sports.

Many? In the last forty years? UTA and Pacific dropped the sport. Idaho dropped down. Who else?

There are no perks in FCS or Div II that are greater than that 30 second halftime commercial on Saturday.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Since 1979, quite a few schools have either dropped to I-AA/FCS or dropped football entirely. Most of them were during the Great Reclassification of 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC...r_programs

And SINCE the reclassification?!??

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Its in the list.

(02-03-2019 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:53 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, in many cases, these panels and committees are put together by elites that want to see a particular answer - stay in FBS. That can color the kinds of assumptions that go into these analyses.

IIRC, NMSU elites made a 2013 "commitment" to FBS before it did any studies, so it's not surprising that a 2015 panel would come back with a pro-FBS result. E.g., in the study you quote, i think the panel assumed that as an FCS they would get no money from "money games", even though FCS teams can play money games too.

That's before we even consider that playing money games is a pretty sad-sack reason for being FBS: "Hey, why do we have an FBS football team? So we can make a million bucks to get beat up at Texas!"

It's really not a surprise that elite administrators almost always favor having big bloated athletic programs. It's in their personal interest to do so even if it is at odds with the school they currently work for.

E.g. if you are the President or AD at a school like NMSU or EMU, do you want them to drop down to FCS on your watch? Even if that is actually great for EMU, it is likely to look terrible on your resume, because for an admin at EMU, a move up means a move to a P5 school, and a P5 school is going to hate seeing that.

IIRC, about 5 years ago when EMU was really struggling and the HBO report on their athletic finances came out, EMU had a brand-new AD, and she vigorously defended keeping EMU football FBS and in the MAC. In 2017, she left EMU to take the the AD job at Pittsburgh. That had to be a banner day for her, a move from a struggling directional MAC school to a venerable ACC member. I bet her salary went up hugely and her career is now made.

Now, even if cutting EMU football entirely or dropping to FCS was best for EMU (less than a year after she left for Pitt, EMU announced it was cutting 4 other sports to help the budget), do you think there's any chance at all she gets the Pitt job if EMU had cut football or dropped to FCS on her watch? Not a chance, because schools like Pitt are always looking to expand athletics, not cut them.

So the pro-FBS position of G5 admins has to be viewed with skepticism.

The Athletic Review Committee made the decision based on the numbers and their geography. It was unanimous, 18-0. The AD can only present the facts. He cannot convince every member to vote his way. Your assertion of pro-FBS bias of G5 admins is not based on anything other than speculation and the evidence is the committee made their decision based on the numbers.

In 2013, both Idaho and NMSU were invited to join the Sun Belt in March of 2013, five months before the 2013 season started:

https://sunbeltsports.org/news/2013/3/27...th=general

There was $6 million in BCS money that was distributed to the WAC that was available to the teams that stayed in the WAC for the 2013-2014 season. Idaho and NMSU stayed in the WAC and split the money. It also made sense for both to go independent for at least one season to see if an opening came up and it did.

The money games are a big reason to move up to FBS. I actually think it is great. EMU got paid $860,000 to beat Rutgers in 2017. They got paid $550,000 to beat Purdue in 2018, the same Purdue team that crushed Ohio State. It is not hard to figure out why they would not want to move down to FCS.

The NMSU study mentioned that less money was given to FCS schools and that some conferences were considering cutting out games with FCS schools. As an example of the money, Western Carolina will play Alabama in 2019 and get $525,000. NMSU will play Alabama and get $1.7 million. NMSU will get $1.9 million for their game against Alabama in 2021. The numbers don't lie.

I will give you this. No FBS Athletic Director wants to lead his school from the FBS to the FCS. It will not exactly enhance your career. That is the reason the decision is not the Athletic Director's alone. At NMSU, it was believed that the Chancellor was open to dropping down to FCS. That is why an Athletic Review Committee was required to get to the best decision for their school.

I don't think it's just the AD who has that bias, it's inherent in all top administrators at G5 schools unless they see themselves as occupying purely academic positions in their careers. Moving down to FCS or cutting football is going to look bad whether you are an AD, a provost, vice-provost, president, etc. because chances are you are going to be looking to move up to a school that has those things.

It would be interesting to see who was on the ARC at NM State. Yes, FCS schools get less money for 'money games' than do FBS schools, but they do get money, and those games have by no means disappeared, so to me, the assumption of no money games in the report is hard to justify. It would be interesting to see who appointed the committee at NMST and who it was composed of.

As for whether existing to play money games is good or not in a values-sense, we just have to disagree about that.

Well said about NMSU.

Now that doesn't mean their study wasn't good. But what applies to a school like NMSU who is one of the flagships and rivals with UNM and UTEP in FBS and in an area where there are few conference choices can be very different than what is relevant to an Eastern Michigan, ULM or San Jose.

(02-03-2019 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='SoCalBobcat78' pid='15880030' dateline='1549173184']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15878948' dateline='1549153776']



As for whether existing to play money games is good or not in a values-sense, we just have to disagree about that.

Those FCS schools that are playing 2 money games against FBS should be questioning why they are even playing football IMO. Its not fair to the players and indicates that the program can't sustain itself. I don't remember who, but there were at least a couple of schools that did that this year, maybe more.

The bottom tier FBS playing 2 or more money games against P5 (although for independents scrambling to fill a schedule it may be for reasons other than money) have to ask the same question.

NMSU is so different than Idahos situation.

The 33,000 seater and BB tradition.

NMSU is probably one realignment move affecting SBC, CUSA or MWC from getting into those conferences.

Even though UTEP does not want to be in a conference with NMSU (they'd lose a OOC game in every sport) the rest of the basketball hungry CUSA would want NMSU so they could use them as a travel package with UTEP.

[/quote]
Well said about NMSU.

Now that doesn't mean their study wasn't good. But what applies to a school like NMSU who is one of the flagships and rivals with UNM and UTEP in FBS and in an area where there are few conference choices can be very different than what is relevant to an Eastern Michigan, ULM or San Jose.
[/quote]

Exactly. For NMSU, it’s not just money games but continuing rivalries with UTEP and UNM that go back decades. NMSU is not a Div I-AA move up from the 90s so their situation is entirely different from a school like Idaho. Unlike most schools mentioned, NMSU has a basketball program with tradition that’s well supported in Las Cruces and Southern New Mexico. Even if they drop to FCS, the travel won’t be any better in the Big Sky and they’ll never see UTEP and UNM ever again in Las Cruces.

They faced the same dilemma in basketball when they became the only FBS school in the WAC. Going to the Big West or Missouri Valley was not going to save them any money compared to the WAC. They decided to be a big fish in a very small pond.

(02-03-2019 03:18 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  Even though UTEP does not want to be in a conference with NMSU (they'd lose a OOC game in every sport) the rest of the basketball hungry CUSA would want NMSU so they could use them as a travel package with UTEP.

When former WAC commissioner Joseph Kearney was asked why NMSU was not in the WAC even though they applied since the 1960s, his reply was more or less like “we already have UTEP and UNM in the conference and that’s all we need.” Like the WAC back then, C-USA and the MWC already got the schools they want in the region. NMSU filled a niche in a third Western conference like the Big West and WAC or in the Western wing of the Sun Belt. The first two no longer sponsor football and the latter one focused on expanding in Eastern Time programs like Georgia State, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern and Coastal Carolina. MMSU no longer fit that profile the Sun Belt wanted. It sucks for NMSU the conference consolidation in the West left them without a home.

UTEP and UNM could sponsor NMSU in their respective conferences but they wouldn’t gather much support as NMSU really doesn’t deliver a new market.

(02-03-2019 08:39 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 05:02 AM)panama Wrote:  Sit down Sir

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

David thinks it's okay for every school to move up, unless they are startups like Georgia State or Charlotte. He doesn't like Coastal for having a relatively new program either.

Been two bowls

Spending $400m on athletics facilities and neighborhood

Should not be here

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-03-2019 11:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  Troy, Georgia Southern and WKU are very debatable. Appalachian remains to be seen. They haven't been up long enough. ULM looked good the first couple of years, beating an SEC school.

App has been FBS for 5 years. During that span they have won at least a share of the conference championship 3 times and have made (and won) bowl games each year that they have been eligible. ULM has only had 1 winning season since moving up, and it was in 2010.

Let's take a moment and dispel the notion that UNCConcord is equal to GaSt. GaSt has been to two bowls and won one. UNCC hasn't had a winning season yet. Also, GaSt > UNCC basketball as of the last 10 years.

(02-03-2019 04:43 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 11:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  Troy, Georgia Southern and WKU are very debatable. Appalachian remains to be seen. They haven't been up long enough. ULM looked good the first couple of years, beating an SEC school.

App has been FBS for 5 years. During that span they have won at least a share of the conference championship 3 times and have made (and won) bowl games each year that they have been eligible. ULM has only had 1 winning season since moving up, and it was in 2010.

Appalachian State were an Independent at the FBS level until 1982. They finally got back up as an FBS team. This is their second stint at FBS.

(02-03-2019 06:53 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 04:43 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 11:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  Troy, Georgia Southern and WKU are very debatable. Appalachian remains to be seen. They haven't been up long enough. ULM looked good the first couple of years, beating an SEC school.

App has been FBS for 5 years. During that span they have won at least a share of the conference championship 3 times and have made (and won) bowl games each year that they have been eligible. ULM has only had 1 winning season since moving up, and it was in 2010.

Appalachian State were an Independent at the FBS level until 1982. They finally got back up as an FBS team. This is their second stint at FBS.

Were we, now? Please tell me more inaccuracies.

No one should be forced out but I wonder what a poll here would say are schools most people would believe should be FCS instead

(02-03-2019 03:18 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  Even though UTEP does not want to be in a conference with NMSU (they'd lose a OOC game in every sport) the rest of the basketball hungry CUSA would want NMSU so they could use them as a travel package with UTEP.

No. C-USA has two too many teams already. I've seen no interest in NMSU from people in C-USA.

I think NMSU was wise to stay in FBS because I think they are one major realignment move from getting back into a G5 league and they just need to hold out a little longer.

A SBC/C-USA reshuffle could land them in the club or if the MWC sees a defection an opportunity will arise. (The AAC reviving the coast-to-coast best-of-the rest concept could make that happen.)

Right now they have other independents like UMass, Liberty, and BYU along with rivalry games with UNM and UTEP that keep the football calendar filled and the WAC is no longer in eminent danger of disbanding.