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

(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The trim FBS people cannot articulate any real reason to trim it and no one who understands how the intercollegiate economy works would expect the P5 to harm themselves by trimming G5 away.

Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

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.