http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...s-foo.aspx

Quote:Last week, the UMass Faculty Senate was presented with a report from the Ad Hoc Committee on FBS Football that revealed football expenses continue to outpace projections, leaving the university on the hook for more than originally envisioned.

Quote:FY2012 - first year in FBS transition

•Projected expenses: $5,428,581
•Projected institutional support: $4,273,764
•Actual expenses: $5,983,990 (10% higher than projected)
•Actual institutional support: $4,967,638 (16% higher than projected)
FY2013

•Projected expenses: $6,468,373
•Projected institutional support: $4,178,794
•Actual expenses: $6,897,021 (7% higher than projected)
•Actual institutional support: $4,489,764 (7% higher than projected)Projections from the athletic department also predicted revenues would exceed expenses beginning with FY2013 and continuing through FY2020. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case.

•Actual revenue: $1,995,633 (primarily from two guarantees: Wisconsin -- $900,000, and Kansas State -- $750,000)

So UMass basically has 82% of their revenue coming from two AWAY games - games that they could still get as an FCS team, albeit with not as large a guarantee. Their home games earned them less than $350K. With $3.6M in stadium upgrades coming in, that makes for a long time without any positive revenue.

Quote:Based on those numbers, and what we've seen from the Minutemen on the field so far, it's tough to believe UMass will be getting a return on its investment any time soon.

The faculty almost pulled the trigger last year. UMass has a mutual option with the MAC to drop out after this year since Temple is no longer in the conference.

Could UMass drop out of FBS?

(12-16-2013 04:25 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...s-foo.aspx

Quote:Last week, the UMass Faculty Senate was presented with a report from the Ad Hoc Committee on FBS Football that revealed football expenses continue to outpace projections, leaving the university on the hook for more than originally envisioned.

Quote:FY2012 - first year in FBS transition

•Projected expenses: $5,428,581
•Projected institutional support: $4,273,764
•Actual expenses: $5,983,990 (10% higher than projected)
•Actual institutional support: $4,967,638 (16% higher than projected)
FY2013

•Projected expenses: $6,468,373
•Projected institutional support: $4,178,794
•Actual expenses: $6,897,021 (7% higher than projected)
•Actual institutional support: $4,489,764 (7% higher than projected)Projections from the athletic department also predicted revenues would exceed expenses beginning with FY2013 and continuing through FY2020. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case.

•Actual revenue: $1,995,633 (primarily from two guarantees: Wisconsin -- $900,000, and Kansas State -- $750,000)

So UMass basically has 82% of their revenue coming from two AWAY games - games that they could still get as an FCS team, albeit with not as large a guarantee. Their home games earned them less than $350K. With $3.6M in stadium upgrades coming in, that makes for a long time without any positive revenue.

Quote:Based on those numbers, and what we've seen from the Minutemen on the field so far, it's tough to believe UMass will be getting a return on its investment any time soon.

The faculty almost pulled the trigger last year. UMass has a mutual option with the MAC to drop out after this year since Temple is no longer in the conference.

Could UMass drop out of FBS?

Faculty never likes football.
Out of state tuition waivers is a pretty soft number for institutional support. Those students wouldn't be going otherwise. It would be interesting to see those numbers without that.

I wonder if this is why the MAC has not been anxious to replace Temple? If UMass does drop back, and I'm not convinced they will -- although the numbers are an argument for those arguing that position -- then it seems likely that the MAC will stay at 12 with no incentive to expand their footprint. Could be that the MAC has been the smart conference, all along, in just waiting things out.

From what UMass people on the MAC board have said, the only people suggesting that they drop down to FCS are some faculty and students who don't like it. The people in charge have given no sign that they want to do so.

However, it isn't impossible. Any day now the other 12 schools in the MAC can vote to give UMass an ultimatum: become a full member or get lost. In that case, it's possible that they can pull out and go back to FCS if they aren't willing to commit their basketball program and Olympic sports to the MAC.

I can see a few other programs dropping down if UMass makes the move.

They could drop back to FCS and make more money joining the Big East. Play FCS, play in a bigger profile conference in BBall and make more money.

I would hope the Big East would take UMass plus the three teams they are currently trying to narrow down to 2.

Add UMass, VCU, Saint Louis and Dayton. Nice serious 14 team BBall conference.

Faculty are notorious for hating anything that costs money.

(12-16-2013 04:25 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:•Actual revenue: $1,995,633 (primarily from two guarantees: Wisconsin -- $900,000, and Kansas State -- $750,000)

So UMass basically has 82% of their revenue coming from two AWAY games - games that they could still get as an FCS team, albeit with not as large a guarantee. Their home games earned them less than $350K. With $3.6M in stadium upgrades coming in, that makes for a long time without any positive revenue.

They knew they wouldn't have a large revenue stream until they moved their home games back to Amherst (and maybe even not then), right? So no surprise there.

The ringleader Max Paige has had his sights set on football for quite a while, nothing new here. UMass fans have told me people have offered him free tickets to games but he has no interest in the game and it's violent nature. Thankfully he and the FS can only push agendas, not decisions, in regards to athletics.

Not all faculty see athletics as a drain on their departments, but many aren't quite fans, and don't know how athletics operate. A few years ago at a UB FAculty Senate meeting a member conceded that UB's football MAC title/bowl in 2008 was worthwhile, but didn't understand why we were in the MAC/85 scholarships. He stated UB should instead work to join the IVY or Patroit league for football and leave other sports in the MAC. Clueless.

On UMass dropping down, here are the list of schools who have done so in the last 30 years:

(12-16-2013 06:18 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  The ringleader Max Paige has had his sights set on football for quite a while, nothing new here. UMass fans have told me people have offered him free tickets to games but he has no interest in the game and it's violent nature. Thankfully he and the FS can only push agendas, not decisions, in regards to athletics.

Not all faculty see athletics as a drain on their departments, but many aren't quite fans, and don't know how athletics operate. A few years ago at a UB FAculty Senate meeting a member conceded that UB's football MAC title/bowl in 2008 was worthwhile, but didn't understand why we were in the MAC/85 scholarships. He stated UB should instead work to join the IVY or Patroit league for football and leave other sports in the MAC. Clueless.

On UMass dropping down, here are the list of schools who have done so in the last 30 years:

Not saying they def will drop down, but just because someone hasn't done something it doesn't mean no one ever will. The thing is they actually can make MORE money by drooping down and joining the Big East who makes more in TV money than any of the G5 conferences. The P5 is trying to cut off the G5 from the real money anyway, so why not look into dropping down and focusing on high level BBall?

(12-16-2013 05:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can see a few other programs dropping down if UMass makes the move.

Any other programs that you would suggest?

(12-16-2013 06:22 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  [quote='RecoveringHillbilly' pid='10179480' dateline='1387235920']Not saying they def will drop down, but just because someone hasn't done something it doesn't mean no one ever will. The thing is they actually can make MORE money by drooping down and joining the Big East who makes more in TV money than any of the G5 conferences. The P5 is trying to cut off the G5 from the real money anyway, so why not look into dropping down and focusing on high level BBall?

Because teams make no money in FCS. That's why teams move up or, in the cases of teams looking to cut FBS costs, have just dropped football. With the investments UMAss in making, dropping football is no option either.

Besides, programs like Idaho and EMU would be more appropriate in dropping long before a school like UMass.

Nobody would be upset if they did.

I would assume they will see what happens to revenue after moving games back on campus before deciding anything that drastic.

(12-16-2013 06:31 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 06:22 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  [quote='RecoveringHillbilly' pid='10179480' dateline='1387235920']Not saying they def will drop down, but just because someone hasn't done something it doesn't mean no one ever will. The thing is they actually can make MORE money by drooping down and joining the Big East who makes more in TV money than any of the G5 conferences. The P5 is trying to cut off the G5 from the real money anyway, so why not look into dropping down and focusing on high level BBall?

Because teams make no money in FCS. That's why teams move up or, in the cases of teams looking to cut FBS costs, have just dropped football. With the investments UMAss in making, dropping football is no option either.

Besides, programs like Idaho and EMU would be more appropriate in dropping long before a school like UMass.

They aren't making any money in FBS right now, and they can be making around 4 mil a year in TV money in the Big East without the scholarship costs and the cost of playing at Gillette Stadium. The Big East without FB makes more TV money than any of the G5 conferences. They can make more money by dropping FB and joining the Big East. The other recent FBS move ups don't have that option and will stick out FBS to the bitter end. UMass has options.

(12-16-2013 04:57 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I wonder if this is why the MAC has not been anxious to replace Temple? If UMass does drop back, and I'm not convinced they will -- although the numbers are an argument for those arguing that position -- then it seems likely that the MAC will stay at 12 with no incentive to expand their footprint. Could be that the MAC has been the smart conference, all along, in just waiting things out.

The MAC is at a crossroads right now because to extend a TV deal with ESPN it needs to have a GOR signed and so far there is no agreement in place.

Due to this, a few MAC schools are exploring options with the AAC and CUSA as we speak. I would not be surprised if UMass of all places ended up in CUSA because not only are they incognito with the MAC, they also have to address the D4 issue and getting additional revenue in the coffers. CUSA's renegotiation is up in 2015, 1 year before the MAC's.

If UMass left the MAC, the odds of getting a GOR in place for the MAC are a lot higher because everyone is generally satisfied with the 12 all sport members, IMO.

(12-16-2013 05:11 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Faculty are notorious for hating anything that costs money, other than what they want money for.

FTFY

(12-16-2013 06:39 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  They aren't making any money in FBS right now, and they can be making around 4 mil a year in TV money in the Big East without the scholarship costs and the cost of playing at Gillette Stadium. The Big East without FB makes more TV money than any of the G5 conferences. They can make more money by dropping FB and joining the Big East. The other recent FBS move ups don't have that option and will stick out FBS to the bitter end. UMass has options.

But with their ongoing investments at their stadium, dropping football isn't among the options.

I understand where you are coming from since your own school never really bought into their decade of MAAC football, but major public flagships and football go together. Whether it's UMass now, or Temple a few years ago, or NMSU every year, some assume good basketball publics with poor football should just give up. But the exposure is worth it to those schools. Not every student and alumni wants to see homecoming at a men's soccer match instead of football game with a large draw.

Football is an investment, not an expense. People here about all of this money floating around college sports and they think that if their program isn't turning a profit then its of no value. Hoe many of you would have heard of an academically average school named Boise State if it wasn't for their athletic department?

You have to spend money to make money.

(12-16-2013 06:38 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  I would assume they will see what happens to revenue after moving games back on campus before deciding anything that drastic.

That's why UMass is not going to make any move right now ~ it ought to be well understood by any school moving up that there will be a transition period of at least six years, so if you aren't going to stick with it for at least six years, there's no reason to make the move in the first place. Plus in the specific case at hand, its obvious that UMass needs to finish their stadium upgrade before they will know whether they can make their long term projections or not.

Which is also "why now" from the opponent to UMass playing Go5 FBS football ... in another five years it will likely be too late.