Bronco85
2nd String
Posts: 271
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 49
I Root For: COI, BSU
Location: Parts Unknown
|
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 06:43 PM)LatahCounty Wrote: (02-17-2017 06:09 PM)Bronco85 Wrote: What is interesting to me after watching the UI plea to the ISBOE for $4 million, was how the current deficit in the UI AD could be so easily used as an extremely good basis for a well grounded and fiscally sound argument to remain FBS and independent (much as NMSU did). While the Finance Officer was quick to lead with the lie that the drop to FCS had no impact on the deficit, the only hard numbers he presented made it clear that donations were down significantly due to the drop and future away game guarantees would also be significantly down. Remaining FBS cures both these problems. Liberty suddenly becoming available as a legitimate scheduling opportunity would also seem a plus. The argument could be made that while an FBS conference invitation for UI is not on the horizon, an expanded pool of FBS independents might be a possibility which could extend the life of viability as an independent. UI has a defacto bowl bid (which would likely be formalized if they stay FBS) that minimizes expenses and keeps costs less than the FCS playoffs. UI has been directed by the ISBOE to come up with a specific fiscal recovery plan for the Athletic Department and this may be part of a truly workable plan. However, I have a nagging fear the poor presentation by UI may well have been done to get the result that happened (or else the stupidity was extraordinary). When one of the board members told the UI representative that it would be irresponsible to bail out UI for four years and the board sent UI back to make a specific deficit recovery plan, it may have provided the justification for the excuse to drop a women's sport or two ("we didn't want to, the ISBOE made us") or maintain a 4 -5 home game schedule to maximize revenue games.
I think you're likely right. While we can never completely rule out rank stupidity when considering the actions of Idaho administrators, I doubt they're actually THIS stupid. This is the first step in the dance of dropping sports.
The booster who started the Idaho FBS petition says he now has $1.8 million in pledges contingent on remaining FBS, which would more than wipe out the deficit on its own without even considering the additional revenue from FBS. There's a very public case to make that Idaho could easily grow rather than shrink its athletic department without taking an extra dime from the taxpayers, but I don't know if it will be allowed to be made.
What is truly sad is that the UI will not even try to support the athletic department. The history of UI shows that if they start a massive capitol campaign, their alumni and partners are extremely generous. They nearly always exceed goals in shorter than expected time frames. UI has never, to my knowledge, initiated a full out capitol campaign for any athletic endeavor (i.e. utilizing the same process as academic campaigns, e.g. massive phone and social media blitz). They even created rules which did not allow athletics to use foundation donor roles. I know there is a fear of "tapping out" the donor base by the academics (particularly faculty have this fear) but I believe it is unfounded (it has no empirical validation to my knowledge). If they made the effort, UI could raise tens of millions in a few months. They have done it many times before. It appears the current administration via its misinformation campaign is hell bent on making sure no one ever tries
|
|
02-17-2017 08:32 PM |
|