http://chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-s...table_2014

It seems to me that there is a growing divide between students on heavy loans and the ADs/Presidents that are looking to keep up the pace in the athletics race. The amount of money required to get ahead of other programs keeps increasing, and with the disappearance of buy games there may come a time where certain programs have to give up.

I don't like seeing this, as a few of the G5 stalwarts have been at the top level for a LONG time. Football is tradition at these places, and seeing financial difficulties take away their history is going to be a net negative to the cities that these campuses inhabit.

Private schools are insulated from this, but they are not impervious. I'm not sure what happens to the G5 private schools in the next 10 years as they tend to follow their own path.

Holding the line on coaches pay is huge. Coaches take an inordinate amount of 5he budget. Most facilities are paid for by donations. Large school like UCF have an advantage by spreading out athletic fees over a huge base

Smaller publics are the most at risk.

I guess I don't see why not being able to pay a head coach an extraordinary salary is a significant hurdle.

It just means you have more turn over. Because you're always hunting for that diamond in the rough or the fired up young guy, and paying him a lower amount until he's picked off by a bigger program.

Nothing wrong with that. Certainly doesn't mean you should close up shop.


And by the way, just because you can pay big time for a coach doesn't guarantee you'll win. Look at Michigan. The guys they hired before Harbaugh certainly made a pile of dough and didn't win a bunch.

I have said this in the past and I still hold it to be true:

The Power/non-Power divide is this:
On the "Power" side of the divide is life in the "big-time" athletics.

On the "non-power" side is non-viability.

The economics are just too big. Power conferences are getting between $18-30 Million/school/year. The non-power conferences top out at $4 Million/school/year.

You are talking TWO DIFFERENT levels of the game here. They may both (at the moment) be called "Division 1 FBS" but the two are not in the same ballpark.

(11-16-2015 12:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess I don't see why not being able to pay a head coach an extraordinary salary is a significant hurdle.

It just means you have more turn over. Because you're always hunting for that diamond in the rough or the fired up young guy, and paying him a lower amount until he's picked off by a bigger program.

Nothing wrong with that. Certainly doesn't mean you should close up shop.


And by the way, just because you can pay big time for a coach doesn't guarantee you'll win. Look at Michigan. The guys they hired before Harbaugh certainly made a pile of dough and didn't win a bunch.

A good coach will move to a P5 program when offered the choice. Tacking on 40% to the budget only to have him leave never makes sense.

(11-16-2015 12:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I have said this in the past and I still hold it to be true:

The Power/non-Power divide is this:
On the "Power" side of the divide is life in the "big-time" athletics.

On the "non-power" side is non-viability.

The economics are just too big. Power conferences are getting between $18-30 Million/school/year. The non-power conferences top out at $4 Million/school/year.

You are talking TWO DIFFERENT levels of the game here. They may both (at the moment) be called "Division 1 FBS" but the two are not in the same ballpark.

That's not any different than how it has been for decades. Ohio St, Texas, etc. made lots of money, while Central Michigan didn't.

So?

That doesn't justify splitting the sub-division.

(11-16-2015 12:54 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess I don't see why not being able to pay a head coach an extraordinary salary is a significant hurdle.

It just means you have more turn over. Because you're always hunting for that diamond in the rough or the fired up young guy, and paying him a lower amount until he's picked off by a bigger program.

Nothing wrong with that. Certainly doesn't mean you should close up shop.


And by the way, just because you can pay big time for a coach doesn't guarantee you'll win. Look at Michigan. The guys they hired before Harbaugh certainly made a pile of dough and didn't win a bunch.

A good coach will move to a P5 program when offered the choice. Tacking on 40% to the budget only to have him leave never makes sense.

No coaches, even at the very wealthiest programs, stay for very long these days.

So what? Why does that mean that smaller programs should close down football?

(11-16-2015 01:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I have said this in the past and I still hold it to be true:

The Power/non-Power divide is this:
On the "Power" side of the divide is life in the "big-time" athletics.

On the "non-power" side is non-viability.

The economics are just too big. Power conferences are getting between $18-30 Million/school/year. The non-power conferences top out at $4 Million/school/year.

You are talking TWO DIFFERENT levels of the game here. They may both (at the moment) be called "Division 1 FBS" but the two are not in the same ballpark.

That's not any different than how it has been for decades. Ohio St, Texas, etc. made lots of money, while Central Michigan didn't.

So?

That doesn't justify splitting the sub-division.

The split is already there. Economics will simply reinforce it as attrition begins to whittle down the number of schools.

(11-16-2015 02:08 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I have said this in the past and I still hold it to be true:

The Power/non-Power divide is this:
On the "Power" side of the divide is life in the "big-time" athletics.

On the "non-power" side is non-viability.

The economics are just too big. Power conferences are getting between $18-30 Million/school/year. The non-power conferences top out at $4 Million/school/year.

You are talking TWO DIFFERENT levels of the game here. They may both (at the moment) be called "Division 1 FBS" but the two are not in the same ballpark.

That's not any different than how it has been for decades. Ohio St, Texas, etc. made lots of money, while Central Michigan didn't.

So?

That doesn't justify splitting the sub-division.

The split is already there. Economics will simply reinforce it as attrition begins to whittle down the number of schools.

The "split" has been there, since the start.

How many FBS schools have shut down football since the late 70's? Maybe a few have, but I don't think any have lately.


I guess my point is: the lower level FBS schools (heck, even the lower level P5 schools) have already accepted (since some time ago) that they can only bring in a fraction of the revenue as the top schools in the sub-division, and so they must exist with an operating budget that is also a fraction of the top schools. But that doesn't mean that they've dropped the sport.

And so, I see no reason why the "split" would be formalized imminently if these things haven't already happened.

I'll say this...I watched a little of games at Iowa State, Indiana and Miss State this past weekend. That P5 money is certainly building facilities...even if the stands aren't always full.

But you see a full house at Houston versus Memphis in a brand new stadium...

To me, that monetary divide is there to prop up the smaller programs in the P5, but that doesn't mean that G5 programs can't compete...it just means Houston isn't going to have a 55K stadium when they do. P5 schools are building facilities even if they don't have to...because they have the cash from the TV contracts.

So the disparity is there, but as long as scholarship limits remain in place, there are plenty of good football players to go around and play good football. THE KEY TO G5 IS KEEPING THE SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS. There is already banter about increasing them because of injuries...that's not why the P5 wants to increase them. P5 schools want those good players to be sitting on their benches...increasing scholarship limits doesn't help the players (as P5 will want you to believe with their stipends), it only helps the biggest schools.

(11-16-2015 12:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  It seems to me that there is a growing divide between students on heavy loans and the ADs/Presidents that are looking to keep up the pace in the athletics race.

That's the theme of the article that accompanies the table you linked to, read it here:

The $10-Billion Sports Tab: How College Students Are Funding the Athletics Arms Race

Quote:In the past five years, public universities pumped more than $10.3 billion in mandatory student fees and other subsidies into their sports programs, according to an examination by The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Huffington Post. The review included an inflation-adjusted analysis of financial reports provided to the NCAA by 201 public universities competing in Division I, information that was obtained through public-records requests.

Quote:The Chronicle/HuffPost analysis found that subsidy rates tend to be highest at colleges where ticket sales and other revenue are the lowest — meaning that students who have the least interest in their college’s sports teams are often required to pay the most to support them.

Many colleges that heavily subsidize their athletic departments also serve poorer populations than colleges that can depend more on outside revenue for sports. The 50 institutions with the highest athletic subsidies averaged 44 percent more Pell Grant recipients than the 50 institutions with the lowest subsidies during 2012-13, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

(11-16-2015 03:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  It seems to me that there is a growing divide between students on heavy loans and the ADs/Presidents that are looking to keep up the pace in the athletics race.

That's the theme of the article that accompanies the table you linked to, read it here:

The $10-Billion Sports Tab: How College Students Are Funding the Athletics Arms Race

Quote:In the past five years, public universities pumped more than $10.3 billion in mandatory student fees and other subsidies into their sports programs, according to an examination by The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Huffington Post. The review included an inflation-adjusted analysis of financial reports provided to the NCAA by 201 public universities competing in Division I, information that was obtained through public-records requests.

Quote:The Chronicle/HuffPost analysis found that subsidy rates tend to be highest at colleges where ticket sales and other revenue are the lowest — meaning that students who have the least interest in their college’s sports teams are often required to pay the most to support them.

Many colleges that heavily subsidize their athletic departments also serve poorer populations than colleges that can depend more on outside revenue for sports. The 50 institutions with the highest athletic subsidies averaged 44 percent more Pell Grant recipients than the 50 institutions with the lowest subsidies during 2012-13, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

All that can be concluded is thus:

prospective students must have thought the fees were acceptable and were desiring of a varsity athletics program.

Otherwise, they wouldn't have matriculated and paid those fees.


That's it.

(11-16-2015 03:15 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I'll say this...I watched a little of games at Iowa State, Indiana and Miss State this past weekend. That P5 money is certainly building facilities...even if the stands aren't always full.

But you see a full house at Houston versus Memphis in a brand new stadium...

To me, that monetary divide is there to prop up the smaller programs in the P5, but that doesn't mean that G5 programs can't compete...it just means Houston isn't going to have a 55K stadium when they do. P5 schools are building facilities even if they don't have to...because they have the cash from the TV contracts.

So the disparity is there, but as long as scholarship limits remain in place, there are plenty of good football players to go around and play good football. THE KEY TO G5 IS KEEPING THE SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS. There is already banter about increasing them because of injuries...that's not why the P5 wants to increase them. P5 schools want those good players to be sitting on their benches...increasing scholarship limits doesn't help the players (as P5 will want you to believe with their stipends), it only helps the biggest schools.

I really don't think the scholarships are the key, because the smaller P5 schools don't want it either. Schools like the WSU or Vandy's know that they would lose better players to the USC's or Alabama's that they get now due to the limit.

The real key that has already passed and what was fought against is the autonomous benefits. The COA and other benefits was the key for quite a few G5 school to compete against the P5. But since that has passed, it will be only a matter of time before quite a few G5 schools decide they can't keep offering COA, food, training tables, insurance..etc and entertain the move to FCS or dropping football altogether.

(11-16-2015 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  It seems to me that there is a growing divide between students on heavy loans and the ADs/Presidents that are looking to keep up the pace in the athletics race.

That's the theme of the article that accompanies the table you linked to, read it here:

The $10-Billion Sports Tab: How College Students Are Funding the Athletics Arms Race

Quote:In the past five years, public universities pumped more than $10.3 billion in mandatory student fees and other subsidies into their sports programs, according to an examination by The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Huffington Post. The review included an inflation-adjusted analysis of financial reports provided to the NCAA by 201 public universities competing in Division I, information that was obtained through public-records requests.

Quote:The Chronicle/HuffPost analysis found that subsidy rates tend to be highest at colleges where ticket sales and other revenue are the lowest — meaning that students who have the least interest in their college’s sports teams are often required to pay the most to support them.

Many colleges that heavily subsidize their athletic departments also serve poorer populations than colleges that can depend more on outside revenue for sports. The 50 institutions with the highest athletic subsidies averaged 44 percent more Pell Grant recipients than the 50 institutions with the lowest subsidies during 2012-13, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

All that can be concluded is thus:

prospective students must have thought the fees were acceptable and were desiring of a varsity athletics program.

Otherwise, they wouldn't have matriculated and paid those fees.


That's it.

Students matriculate at a university because of the education that they will be receiving - not to watch a football team. This is the case even at the P5 schools.

At best, the sports programs act as a tiebreaker of sorts between two academically comparable schools. They are nothing more than that.

(11-16-2015 03:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:15 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I'll say this...I watched a little of games at Iowa State, Indiana and Miss State this past weekend. That P5 money is certainly building facilities...even if the stands aren't always full.

But you see a full house at Houston versus Memphis in a brand new stadium...

To me, that monetary divide is there to prop up the smaller programs in the P5, but that doesn't mean that G5 programs can't compete...it just means Houston isn't going to have a 55K stadium when they do. P5 schools are building facilities even if they don't have to...because they have the cash from the TV contracts.

So the disparity is there, but as long as scholarship limits remain in place, there are plenty of good football players to go around and play good football. THE KEY TO G5 IS KEEPING THE SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS. There is already banter about increasing them because of injuries...that's not why the P5 wants to increase them. P5 schools want those good players to be sitting on their benches...increasing scholarship limits doesn't help the players (as P5 will want you to believe with their stipends), it only helps the biggest schools.

I really don't think the scholarships are the key, because the smaller P5 schools don't want it either. Schools like the WSU or Vandy's know that they would lose better players to the USC's or Alabama's that they get now due to the limit.

The real key that has already passed and what was fought against is the autonomous benefits. The COA and other benefits was the key for quite a few G5 school to compete against the P5. But since that has passed, it will be only a matter of time before quite a few G5 schools decide they can't keep offering COA, food, training tables, insurance..etc and entertain the move to FCS or dropping football altogether.

None of the things you just listed are requirements for being in FBS. They're optional, including FCOA.

(11-16-2015 04:11 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  It seems to me that there is a growing divide between students on heavy loans and the ADs/Presidents that are looking to keep up the pace in the athletics race.

That's the theme of the article that accompanies the table you linked to, read it here:

The $10-Billion Sports Tab: How College Students Are Funding the Athletics Arms Race

Quote:In the past five years, public universities pumped more than $10.3 billion in mandatory student fees and other subsidies into their sports programs, according to an examination by The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Huffington Post. The review included an inflation-adjusted analysis of financial reports provided to the NCAA by 201 public universities competing in Division I, information that was obtained through public-records requests.

Quote:The Chronicle/HuffPost analysis found that subsidy rates tend to be highest at colleges where ticket sales and other revenue are the lowest — meaning that students who have the least interest in their college’s sports teams are often required to pay the most to support them.

Many colleges that heavily subsidize their athletic departments also serve poorer populations than colleges that can depend more on outside revenue for sports. The 50 institutions with the highest athletic subsidies averaged 44 percent more Pell Grant recipients than the 50 institutions with the lowest subsidies during 2012-13, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

All that can be concluded is thus:

prospective students must have thought the fees were acceptable and were desiring of a varsity athletics program.

Otherwise, they wouldn't have matriculated and paid those fees.


That's it.

Students matriculate at a university because of the education that they will be receiving - not to watch a football team. This is the case even at the P5 schools.

At best, the sports programs act as a tiebreaker of sorts between two academically comparable schools. They are nothing more than that.

You're right, of course.

My point is that athletics fees don't seem to be stopping many students from enrolling at a particular school.

(11-16-2015 04:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:15 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I'll say this...I watched a little of games at Iowa State, Indiana and Miss State this past weekend. That P5 money is certainly building facilities...even if the stands aren't always full.

But you see a full house at Houston versus Memphis in a brand new stadium...

To me, that monetary divide is there to prop up the smaller programs in the P5, but that doesn't mean that G5 programs can't compete...it just means Houston isn't going to have a 55K stadium when they do. P5 schools are building facilities even if they don't have to...because they have the cash from the TV contracts.

So the disparity is there, but as long as scholarship limits remain in place, there are plenty of good football players to go around and play good football. THE KEY TO G5 IS KEEPING THE SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS. There is already banter about increasing them because of injuries...that's not why the P5 wants to increase them. P5 schools want those good players to be sitting on their benches...increasing scholarship limits doesn't help the players (as P5 will want you to believe with their stipends), it only helps the biggest schools.

I really don't think the scholarships are the key, because the smaller P5 schools don't want it either. Schools like the WSU or Vandy's know that they would lose better players to the USC's or Alabama's that they get now due to the limit.

The real key that has already passed and what was fought against is the autonomous benefits. The COA and other benefits was the key for quite a few G5 school to compete against the P5. But since that has passed, it will be only a matter of time before quite a few G5 schools decide they can't keep offering COA, food, training tables, insurance..etc and entertain the move to FCS or dropping football altogether.

None of the things you just listed are requirements for being in FBS. They're optional, including FCOA.

No they are not requirements, but they are 'unofficially' a requirement if you want to keep on pace on being in FBS or at least hope to be competitive....even within the G5.

Mid-majors schools stay alive because of basketball: it's fairly low cost with big financial reward due to equal distribution. Football is good for the top 80-100 schools in Division 1, but the rest of the non-revenue sports that aren't consistent winners at most of the smaller schools need to go. Basketball is subsidizing cross country, eg., when the former could actually be making a small profit for the school if it was the only sport.

(11-16-2015 05:19 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 04:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:15 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I'll say this...I watched a little of games at Iowa State, Indiana and Miss State this past weekend. That P5 money is certainly building facilities...even if the stands aren't always full.

But you see a full house at Houston versus Memphis in a brand new stadium...

To me, that monetary divide is there to prop up the smaller programs in the P5, but that doesn't mean that G5 programs can't compete...it just means Houston isn't going to have a 55K stadium when they do. P5 schools are building facilities even if they don't have to...because they have the cash from the TV contracts.

So the disparity is there, but as long as scholarship limits remain in place, there are plenty of good football players to go around and play good football. THE KEY TO G5 IS KEEPING THE SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS. There is already banter about increasing them because of injuries...that's not why the P5 wants to increase them. P5 schools want those good players to be sitting on their benches...increasing scholarship limits doesn't help the players (as P5 will want you to believe with their stipends), it only helps the biggest schools.

I really don't think the scholarships are the key, because the smaller P5 schools don't want it either. Schools like the WSU or Vandy's know that they would lose better players to the USC's or Alabama's that they get now due to the limit.

The real key that has already passed and what was fought against is the autonomous benefits. The COA and other benefits was the key for quite a few G5 school to compete against the P5. But since that has passed, it will be only a matter of time before quite a few G5 schools decide they can't keep offering COA, food, training tables, insurance..etc and entertain the move to FCS or dropping football altogether.

None of the things you just listed are requirements for being in FBS. They're optional, including FCOA.

No they are not requirements, but they are 'unofficially' a requirement if you want to keep on pace on being in FBS or at least hope to be competitive....even within the G5.

So long as they aren't requirements, a FBS conference can choose its own level of budgetary existence within the subdivision.

That doesn't sound like "dropping football imminently" or "sub-division splitting imminently", to me.

(11-16-2015 02:08 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I have said this in the past and I still hold it to be true:

The Power/non-Power divide is this:
On the "Power" side of the divide is life in the "big-time" athletics.

On the "non-power" side is non-viability.

The economics are just too big. Power conferences are getting between $18-30 Million/school/year. The non-power conferences top out at $4 Million/school/year.

You are talking TWO DIFFERENT levels of the game here. They may both (at the moment) be called "Division 1 FBS" but the two are not in the same ballpark.

That's not any different than how it has been for decades. Ohio St, Texas, etc. made lots of money, while Central Michigan didn't.

So?

That doesn't justify splitting the sub-division.

The split is already there. Economics will simply reinforce it as attrition begins to whittle down the number of schools.

The problem is you can't split the schools up anymore. Before the 1980s, there were really no such things as a power conference Vs non-power conference. You have many schools called power schools back then that are now part of the G5, FCS, D2 and D3. Many of the G5 can still keep up with the P5. There are still too many schools in the G5 that are not FBS type of schools. There are FCS schools that are FBS type. There are D2 schools that could also keep up as well for their type of programs.

What you do not know this is that there are several schools in the P5 that are struggling to pay bills as well. PAC 12, SEC, Big 12, Big 10 and ACC does have a couple of teams that would be better to step aside to let schools in the G5 to have their spots.

All we have to do is blame ESPN that is killing schools spirit, and corrupting the P5.

PS. The Title 9 also have a huge impact on the athletic departments. Many of the women sports are mostly money drainers. It is not the football that is the caused of the money being spent on sports. The women programs and some men's programs do not bring in enough money to even pay the bills. Most of the fees from the students are helping to keep those sports alive, while the money that the football being made is also being dumped into those other sports. The money from football could have been spent to upgrade football stadiums and all that to be attractive for P5 conferences.