(05-16-2020 07:00 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 04:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The chart from the NCAA link below shows that the average G5 school had athletics operating income loss of $22 million. The average FCS school had an operating loss of $13 million. But probably the best comparison is with Division I Subdivision schools, meaning schools that are D1 but do not have football. Their average operating loss was also ... $13 million.

But there could still be a selection bias, in that the schools that gain the most drop in net subsidy in being in the non-FB or FCS divisions may tend to be the ones that are IN the non-FB or FCS divisions.

If Akron dropped Football and it's net subsidy dropped by $4m, it becomes a lot more likely that it is losing a marketing benefit bigger than it's net cost, than if it drops football and it's net subsidy drops by $10m.

Quote: Now, you can argue that Akron isn't an "average" G5, that it is maybe better than that. But no, the data show that Akron is just about perfectly average - in 2018 it needed a $22 million subsidy to balance its books, putting it right at the G5 average.

The question would rather be whether Akron would be an above-average non-FBS school in terms of subsidy, with higher than average non-FBS traveling costs and lower than average sports program revenues, as it's program is overshadowed by now higher profile FBS schools in its vicinity.

Quote: So the data suggests that, despite all those MAC and NCAA and ESPN and CFP and buy game revenue streams that allegedly pour in to Akron thanks to having football, it loses a whole lot of money - about $9m more - than if it didn't have football or went down to FCS.

The thing is, if it's a marketing spend, the question is the bang for the buck, and any perspective any of us have on the question is going to be anecdote rather than data. If it's an effective marketing spend, then cutting it is part of an ongoing downward spiral for Akron, as it cuts budgets, which makes it less attractive, which cuts enrollments, which leads to budget cuts, etc.

OTOH, if it's not a good bang for the buck value, maybe they should cut the Football program free and focus on building up their soccer program to "counter program".

I'm not sure I follow the first section. Why would a marketing benefit have much of an impact on the size of the subsidy? I can see some, but not much. E.g., total ticket sales at Akron in 2018 was around $1.2m. If they drop football, and football in reality brought a marketing benefit that caused more students to be on campus, and thus attend more of the other sports as well, then the loss of football could be reflected in lower ticket sales to other sports. But, $1.2m isn't much, and I daresay that the bulk of that was probably football sales to begin with, which we already know will go down to zero if we cut football. So we are talking marginal dollars in terms of impact on other sports.

Anyway, I think this is addressed in the next two sections regardless:

As for section two, yes, it's possible that if Akron dropped football, it could become an above-average subsidy school at the FCS or D1Sub level. It could also become a below-average one. The hard data tells us what the average is, which is probably the most likely outcome. FWIW, i looked up Youngstown State, an FCS school in Ohio, it has a subsidy of $10 million. Cleveland State and Wright State, two Division 1 schools without football, have subsidies of $11m and $8m respectively. All three are below the $13m average, so there's precedent for being below average at the FCS/Sub level in Ohio despite the presence of a lot of FBS programs in the general area.

As for three, yes, i mean, it's possible that the only reason Akron has any enrollment at all is because of Zips football. Take that away and maybe enrollment falls from 25,000 to 10,000 and the university loses $30 million, revealing the apparent $9m loss associated with football to have been a tremendous bargain all around. Then again, that was also possible with respect to the three sports Akron did just drop, and Akron didn't let that possibility (and the absence of hard data showing one way or the other) stop them from dropping them. So football should be handled no differently. Absent data, there shouldn't be an assumption that dire things are likely to happen if football is dropped, any moreso than if women's soccer is dropped. But that seems to be the tack that football-hugging admins seem to take.