(08-11-2014 03:55 PM)DfromCT Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 01:11 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 01:04 PM)DrBox Wrote:  this is what makes it so difficult, at least for message board posters. You don't know which of those schools has real strength. The only ones I trust are SDSU and Boise, and the AAC is not exactly happy with Boise's conduct.

If there ever is western expansion by the AAC, I think it'll be BYU and 2 or 3 other schools chosen mainly on the basis of "who-does-BYU-want." For now I would guess San Diego State and UNLV will be two of them, and that Boise State will be excluded.

But anyway, that's a few years away, if it ever happens at all.

I find it funny that a Tulane fan thinks he can take shots at Boise. Boise has had a football stadium (38,000) and a nice big basketball arena for awhile now and success in both sports--tremendous success in football BTW. They have near sell outs in both sports and have had a bowl game that's attracted ACC and Big 12 teams to it. They play on ESPN almost every game. They are now light years ahead of you. You guys had your first winning record in football in almost 20 years last year, built a cheap 22,000 stadium and have a 3,000 average attendance in basketball and suddenly you think your hot sh!t.

Gee BillyBobby, what the F are you saying?

First of all, he didn't take a shot a Boise St. He simply stated a well known fact that the AAC Commissioners office and admin is not happy with how Boise St. tried to hold the AAC hostage and backed away from a previously accepted offer to join the Big East. They then held the MWC hostage and re-joined it but kept their own television rights.

I'm so glad that the Boise St folks have someone like you, BillyBobby to police boards like this for them. Great job. Probably more exciting than watching fish eat flies.

Besides that where did any of that get Boise? In the exact same spot as us, we are on the exact same level as Boise with all their accolades. The attacks on Tulane will stop, like it or not we are here for a little while until the P5 comes calling and before you whine about that statement do not act like your not thinking the same thing. We bring more to the table then Boise anyways, people need to understand winning means nothing in realignment. Just ask Rutgers and Maryland. Our records mean nothing anymore, all it did was get us to the exact same conference as Cincy, ECU, C. Florida and so on. It does not matter how we got here, we got here so either live with it or get out of our way.

(08-11-2014 04:25 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:22 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:46 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  I don't know anything, but ......

I suspect that after a few years of being non-competitive because of the difference in signable recruits, and the corresponding drop in paid attendance, there will be a good many programs that call it quits.

Some programs are living on state tax payers and students now and with potential reduced interest/revenue I would think that university administrators could see a time when governing boards force programs to disband.

If indeed the P5 adopt a "no scheduling other conferences" policy, the end could be quicker for some programs.

Call it quits to do what though? Will they being going FCS? Or will they be closing up shop all together and then just rooting for "x" big state school U?

I think giving up all together. FCS is a money drain with virtual no revenue stream for almost all the schools. You could name the exceptions on one hand, and have fingers left over.




Fire June


.

That definition is important, because giving up altogether would seem to mean that a school's conference revenue is to small to continue; and that school can no longer get body bag games to make money. It goes without saying that those same teams probably are not getting enough fans in the stand to offset their losses.

I don't see the MAC schools going anywhere, because they are already use to not having fans and television/conference revenue. I can't see the B10 giving up on playing MAC teams either, because the MAC teams are the only chance that some B10 teams have of getting victories. So MAC teams are kind of protected or insulated by this P5 autonomy/don't play G5 stuff.

Some CUSA and some Sun Belt schools need body bag games, so quite a few of them might end up biting the bullet if the P5 schools in their geographic areas (B12/SEC/ACC) end up dropping them. The CUSA/Sun Belt crowd might end up fighting with the MAC to be the B10's patsies.

SEC wont drop playing CUSA or SBC schools either truthfully. They need the cash for the home games. Nick Saban talks a lot about playing only P5 teams, but one look at Bama's schedule says that's not going to happen any time soon.

As far as needing P5 games. I know that AState, ULL, and Ga Southern all currently operate their athletic programs within the black...with room to spare. ULM, NMSU, and Idaho appear to have the biggest money issues, but honestly, ULM probably would lose more money financially by dropping than they would biting the bullet and figuring out how to make Autonomy work. Idaho and NMSU are football only, so whatever they do is really inconsequential.

(08-11-2014 11:42 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  If UAB never gets an on-campus football stadium and continues to exist under the heel of the UA BOT, then I wonder if they don't kill football entirely and petition the Missouri Valley and Atlantic 10 for admission.

The BOT itself would never kill UAB Football. They would prefer for UAB just to give up on football without making them (BOT) look like the bad guys.

But it isn't just the BOT that has kept UAB Football down, UAB leadership also has something to do with it as well. The time UAB should have been pushing an on campus stadium was during the Roddy White years. Whether or not that happened is anyone guess. That said, UAB will get an on-campus stadium and probably before the decade ends.

Personally, I would have preferred UAB to remain a basketball school. You will have those that would argue that if not for CUSA, UAB would still be in the Sun Belt Conference and irrelevent. Go figure right? Fact is, UAB Basketball greatest success came while they were in the Sun Belt Conference. I would jump for joy today if UAB Basketball was in the MVC or A-10 conference.

(08-11-2014 11:08 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Idaho, NMSU, UMass, UAB are my front runners.

I honestly feel for UAB. Is there any other institution whose Board of Trustees consciously intends to undermine the institution's chances for future success?

UALR in the Sun Belt has similar issues. University of Arkansas runs their board, and pretty much has control of what happens. There's been talk that UALR signed a 100 year long promise to never start a football program, as part of the allowances for them to move up to D1. They're operating at the NCAA minimum's for everything. If UAF was to make any more major cuts, they would have a hard time staying D1.

(08-11-2014 12:02 PM)YNot Wrote:  until they had horrible attendance in 2013, less than 20K per game (but still more than SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Temple).

Our attendance last year was 22,473 with an awful, awful team. CSU's attendance was 18,600.

(08-11-2014 04:52 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:33 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:04 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:36 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  What do you mean by give up? Do you mean accept mediocrity, or drop down to FCS, or just stop supporting athletics all together? There are already a lot of FBS schools who either can't or won't do what it takes to compete at a high level, so in that sense schools like FAU, ULM, and Idaho have already given up.

I don't think anyone is going to voluntarily demote themselves or end their athletics program though. They'll play their G5 schedule and some bodybag games and hope for a December Bowl and for a small slice of the CFB Playoff paycheck.

FAU's new stadium ($70m is pretty nice), and they fought hard to go 6-6 last year despite losing their coach. I wouldn't group them in with Idaho at all. FAU is trying.

The schools that fit the description you've described (e.g., have had no success, have no plan, are not investing, have no idea what it means to be a 1-A program, etc.) are:

Idaho
Eastern Michigan
UMass
UAB
New Mexico State
Georgia State (What's the plan here, honestly?)
FIU

Almost everyone else is doing something to try and spark growth, through investment in facilities, coaching salaries, expanding budgets, etc.

If I'm being honest, I would have put Tulane on this list 3 years ago. Say whatever you want about our administration but they're definitely *moving*. Whether or not its in the right direction (I think it is) is a different story.

See ya and raise ya...

http://www.carterusa.com/app-latest-news...00-million

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/b...er-/ngSs2/

New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

...oh and then there is MBB

If you haven't noticed, sticking tax payers with $100M tabs for sports projects isn't exactly popular these days.

Good luck....

No taxpayer money. $300M investment.

"Investment"

Taken from first linked article.
"GSU is a public university. Becker says it is possible tax dollars could help pay GSU’s share of the redevelopment costs, but funding plans are still in the early stages."

Taken from 2nd.
"...a portion of which Georgia State would be responsible for."

FWIW, I wouldn't be shocked it the price tag jumps 25% to 30% by the time construction starts. That's just the nature of these large public projects.

(08-11-2014 03:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Depends on what your definition of "give up" is. If you mean which schools will choose to not increase spending to stay at the top level of football here's my list:
Idaho
NM St
San Jose St
Utah St
UTEP
Hawaii
Tulsa
S. Miss
UMASS
Florida International
A few more schools in the MAC and Sun Belt
UAB--actually, UAB will be forced into this because the Alabama school system will never allow them to keep up. It's a terrible thing and I can't believe they've been able to keep UAB from building a stadium etc.

Uh it's pretty clear that there's one school that sticks out like a sore thumb in the group you've chosen... Tulsa is not anything like the others you've listed.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-11-2014 05:29 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:52 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:33 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:04 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  FAU's new stadium ($70m is pretty nice), and they fought hard to go 6-6 last year despite losing their coach. I wouldn't group them in with Idaho at all. FAU is trying.

The schools that fit the description you've described (e.g., have had no success, have no plan, are not investing, have no idea what it means to be a 1-A program, etc.) are:

Idaho
Eastern Michigan
UMass
UAB
New Mexico State
Georgia State (What's the plan here, honestly?)
FIU

Almost everyone else is doing something to try and spark growth, through investment in facilities, coaching salaries, expanding budgets, etc.

If I'm being honest, I would have put Tulane on this list 3 years ago. Say whatever you want about our administration but they're definitely *moving*. Whether or not its in the right direction (I think it is) is a different story.

See ya and raise ya...

http://www.carterusa.com/app-latest-news...00-million

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/b...er-/ngSs2/

New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

...oh and then there is MBB

If you haven't noticed, sticking tax payers with $100M tabs for sports projects isn't exactly popular these days.

Good luck....

No taxpayer money. $300M investment.

"Investment"

Taken from first linked article.
"GSU is a public university. Becker says it is possible tax dollars could help pay GSU’s share of the redevelopment costs, but funding plans are still in the early stages."

Taken from 2nd.
"...a portion of which Georgia State would be responsible for."

FWIW, I wouldn't be shocked it the price tag jumps 25% to 30% by the time construction starts. That's just the nature of these large public projects.

We have money. We own $7B in downtown real estate and have $1.5B in real current building projects underway. Becker is leaving options open (if you want to give me free stuff , sure I will take free stuff) to whatever happens. There is nothing insurmountable here. The stadium and land costs are less than what we're paying to build our new law school. The student residential would be private as would the retail. This is really a no brainer as it allows us to get an OCS and bring Olympic sports on campus. The main thing to our advantage is that President Becker and Mayor Reed are simultaneously thinking of their legacies.

(08-11-2014 05:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:08 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Idaho, NMSU, UMass, UAB are my front runners.

I honestly feel for UAB. Is there any other institution whose Board of Trustees consciously intends to undermine the institution's chances for future success?

UALR in the Sun Belt has similar issues. University of Arkansas runs their board, and pretty much has control of what happens. There's been talk that UALR signed a 100 year long promise to never start a football program, as part of the allowances for them to move up to D1. They're operating at the NCAA minimum's for everything. If UAF was to make any more major cuts, they would have a hard time staying D1.

Nobody has it as bad as UAB. They literally have Emperor Palpatine stopping their every move.

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

I thought Parthasarathy was just named A.D. on a permanent (non-interim) basis. Not true?

I think USF should quit now.

Lets go Pro and beat the Pompous five to it.

We'll call ourselves the "South Florida Bulls" and play in the NFL!!!


Yeah!!!! No more Classes, no more books, no more Teachers dirty looks!!!

(08-11-2014 10:24 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  In the coming years there will be some schools that just throw in the towel and concede that they can't keep up. Who are they? What happens then? Do conferences shed them? What does the reshuffle look like?

Here is my thoughts....

First comes to mind for me is

Who is D1?
Can you be D1 in other sports and not D1 in football?
Do you have to have football at all to be called a D1 school?
What metrics will be used for a cut off point?

I think some guidelines have to be set on those points before a discussion can move forward.

Financially speaking I think it will depend on each universities administration of the universities that are already in D1. Are you committed to putting the money behind the facilities, the scholarships, and the commitment to winning to move forward. IMO, this will be a real gut check by schools and conferences. And, in a way, the media rights deals paid to conferences/schools can determine how affordable this is. Then, If I were even more cynical, do they pull the student fees game to fund the athletic department.

(08-11-2014 03:18 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Depends on what your definition of "give up" is. If you mean which schools will choose to not increase spending to stay at the top level of football here's my list:
Idaho
NM St
San Jose St
Utah St
UTEP
Hawaii
Tulsa
S. Miss
UMASS
Florida International
A few more schools in the MAC and Sun Belt
UAB--actually, UAB will be forced into this because the Alabama school system will never allow them to keep up. It's a terrible thing and I can't believe they've been able to keep UAB from building a stadium etc.

I am getting my popcorn out. Tulsa has plenty of $ and have survived for years on CUSA paychecks, I don't see it.

Tulsa has a large endowment, but that means nothing for the athletic department. Tulsa athletics has always operated on a shoe string. However, the administration has somehow managed to maintain the program. And as you say ....survived on CUSA paychecks.

I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

(08-11-2014 12:02 PM)YNot Wrote:  Half of the MAC is already on life support, with EMU leading the way.

9 schools in the MAC have been in the MAC for 40+ years, 6 of them for 60+. Say what you will about the MAC but one thing it is not is unstable. Nobody is on life support, they'll be just fine.

As far as I'm concerned any FBS conference that goes 0-5 in bowl games is on life support.

(08-11-2014 10:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:18 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Depends on what your definition of "give up" is. If you mean which schools will choose to not increase spending to stay at the top level of football here's my list:
Idaho
NM St
San Jose St
Utah St
UTEP
Hawaii
Tulsa
S. Miss
UMASS
Florida International
A few more schools in the MAC and Sun Belt
UAB--actually, UAB will be forced into this because the Alabama school system will never allow them to keep up. It's a terrible thing and I can't believe they've been able to keep UAB from building a stadium etc.

I am getting my popcorn out. Tulsa has plenty of $ and have survived for years on CUSA paychecks, I don't see it.

Tulsa has a large endowment, but that means nothing for the athletic department. Tulsa athletics has always operated on a shoe string. However, the administration has somehow managed to maintain the program. And as you say ....survived on CUSA paychecks.

Scoff. U is crazy.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-11-2014 11:54 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  As far as I'm concerned any FBS conference that goes 0-5 in bowl games is on life support.

tough talk from a guy whose team had to come from behind in the 4th quarter to beat a very avg and very uninterested MAC team.

Glad you're not bitter about it or anything.

Also I don't think it would be unfair to describe every MAC program as uninterested, or uninteresting for that matter.