(04-29-2016 09:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 08:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 12:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 10:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  FBS requires more sports than merely being in Division I. They can get to the minimum and focus more on basketball and the remaining sports.

That's the point. Look at the difference between EMU's current athletic budget and the athletic budgets of nearby D-I schools without football, like Horizon League schools.

EMU's athletic budget is about $34 million/year per the USA Today database. The median Horizon member's athletic budget is about $14 million/year. The difference between EMU being an FBS program with an essentially invisible football team and being a D-I program with no football team is $20 million/year. They're spending $20 million/year of their students' money just to call themselves "FBS" instead of "Division I".

Most of the math used to justify FBS is shakey.

That's because football at EMU is surely a money drain, and also because keeping football isn't about the cold hard math, it's about intangibles, like boosters and administrators ego, wanting to front that the school is "big time" because it has a football team, no matter how lousy.

But you can't just come out and say that, so ... faulty math is concocted.

If you draw 29k over the course of the season you may want to look at whether the booster/fan ego is relevant.

EMU is reporting 4897 per game in football and 858 per game in men's basketball - so last in FBS football, and not even in the top 300 in D-I men's basketball.

If they are going to stay in the MAC, they ought to make a large investment in finding some way to get more people to attend those games.

(04-28-2016 11:49 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Why the obsession with judging programs based on their attendance? I get that it's a metric for popularity and to a degree program health, and for realignment purposes I can see conferences being skittish about inviting a program that isn't consistently successful on *and* off the field, but at the same time, there's no such thing as a College Attendance Playoff. If Eastern Michigan thinks it can maintain an FBS program while drawing four digits, then what harm is it to anyone else? If a school wins a national title, does it come with an asterisk because their attendance was outside the top 25?

Attendance is just one issue that people have with EMU.

If no one is attending the games (and if you subtract out family members of the players and the opposing fans, you're looking at an average attendance at EMU of 1,000 - 2,000 per game over the last 5 years), then it begs the question...why even have a team?

The other issue is how are the maintaining the program. If the students are paying over a thousand dollars a year in fees to subsidize the football team, the lack of student support for the team is an issue. Sure, if the school is private or has alumni writing checks, great. But if you're charging each student thousands of dollars for a product they obviously don't care enough about to show up even sporadically to see, then it points to an issue.

So yes, attendance matters.

(04-29-2016 11:09 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 11:49 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Why the obsession with judging programs based on their attendance? I get that it's a metric for popularity and to a degree program health, and for realignment purposes I can see conferences being skittish about inviting a program that isn't consistently successful on *and* off the field, but at the same time, there's no such thing as a College Attendance Playoff. If Eastern Michigan thinks it can maintain an FBS program while drawing four digits, then what harm is it to anyone else? If a school wins a national title, does it come with an asterisk because their attendance was outside the top 25?

Attendance is just one issue that people have with EMU.

If no one is attending the games (and if you subtract out family members of the players and the opposing fans, you're looking at an average attendance at EMU of 1,000 - 2,000 per game over the last 5 years), then it begs the question...why even have a team?

The other issue is how are the maintaining the program. If the students are paying over a thousand dollars a year in fees to subsidize the football team, the lack of student support for the team is an issue. Sure, if the school is private or has alumni writing checks, great. But if you're charging each student thousands of dollars for a product they obviously don't care enough about to show up even sporadically to see, then it points to an issue.

So yes, attendance matters.

The thousand dollars doesn't just include the football team. It isn't even limited to athletics. There are a bunch of other items included in that.

(04-29-2016 11:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  EMU is reporting 4897 per game in football and 858 per game in men's basketball - so last in FBS football, and not even in the top 300 in D-I men's basketball.

If they are going to stay in the MAC, they ought to make a large investment in finding some way to get more people to attend those games.

The problem is that Ypsilanti is University of Michigan's front yard. If someone in the area, including EMU students, is a fan of college football or college basketball, they follow Michigan.

(04-29-2016 11:19 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 11:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  EMU is reporting 4897 per game in football and 858 per game in men's basketball - so last in FBS football, and not even in the top 300 in D-I men's basketball.

If they are going to stay in the MAC, they ought to make a large investment in finding some way to get more people to attend those games.

The problem is that Ypsilanti is University of Michigan's front yard. If someone in the area, including EMU students, is a fan of college football or college basketball, they follow Michigan.

With such anemic fan support, it's difficult to justify a $34 million/year athletic budget financed mostly by taxing EMU's own students. There are many FCS schools that spend half as much or less on athletics and draw more fans for both football and men's hoops. If EMU had its own T. Boone Pickens to lavishly fund everything regardless of whether anyone goes to the games, that would be a different story.

(04-29-2016 11:09 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 11:49 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Why the obsession with judging programs based on their attendance? I get that it's a metric for popularity and to a degree program health, and for realignment purposes I can see conferences being skittish about inviting a program that isn't consistently successful on *and* off the field, but at the same time, there's no such thing as a College Attendance Playoff. If Eastern Michigan thinks it can maintain an FBS program while drawing four digits, then what harm is it to anyone else? If a school wins a national title, does it come with an asterisk because their attendance was outside the top 25?

Attendance is just one issue that people have with EMU.

If no one is attending the games (and if you subtract out family members of the players and the opposing fans, you're looking at an average attendance at EMU of 1,000 - 2,000 per game over the last 5 years), then it begs the question...why even have a team?

The other issue is how are the maintaining the program. If the students are paying over a thousand dollars a year in fees to subsidize the football team, the lack of student support for the team is an issue. Sure, if the school is private or has alumni writing checks, great. But if you're charging each student thousands of dollars for a product they obviously don't care enough about to show up even sporadically to see, then it points to an issue.

So yes, attendance matters.

But it is only an issue if students choose to not come to EMU (doesn't seem to be the case they seem to be growing) or those students begin raising a ruckus about subsidizing 19 sports that they don't care about.

(04-29-2016 09:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 08:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 12:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 10:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  FBS requires more sports than merely being in Division I. They can get to the minimum and focus more on basketball and the remaining sports.

That's the point. Look at the difference between EMU's current athletic budget and the athletic budgets of nearby D-I schools without football, like Horizon League schools.

EMU's athletic budget is about $34 million/year per the USA Today database. The median Horizon member's athletic budget is about $14 million/year. The difference between EMU being an FBS program with an essentially invisible football team and being a D-I program with no football team is $20 million/year. They're spending $20 million/year of their students' money just to call themselves "FBS" instead of "Division I".

Most of the math used to justify FBS is shakey.

That's because football at EMU is surely a money drain, and also because keeping football isn't about the cold hard math, it's about intangibles, like boosters and administrators ego, wanting to front that the school is "big time" because it has a football team, no matter how lousy.

But you can't just come out and say that, so ... faulty math is concocted.

If you draw 29k over the course of the season you may want to look at whether the booster/fan ego is relevant.

My point was that one often hears from defenders of money-bleeding football programs that the intangible costs of dropping football would be greater than the actual costs of keeping it - i.e., stuff like lost prestige, lost booster ego pride, lower public profile, public perception that the school is diminishing, etc.

EMU should go and dropped down to FCS. Akron sounds like they are losing money as well and dropping sports. MAC needs new blood. They should grab Milwaukee. I know they don't have football, but they would bring in a new market, a better exposure for the school, and they could get more money so that they could add football in the future.
MAC should go after several of the MVFC schools to help bring new blood. Plus go get James Madison, Stony Brook and Liberty to the east.

(04-30-2016 12:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  EMU should go and dropped down to FCS. Akron sounds like they are losing money as well and dropping sports. MAC needs new blood. They should grab Milwaukee. I know they don't have football, but they would bring in a new market, a better exposure for the school, and they could get more money so that they could add football in the future.
MAC should go after several of the MVFC schools to help bring new blood. Plus go get James Madison, Stony Brook and Liberty to the east.

You are absolutely clueless. 12 teams max..... No need to spread the money around when you don't have to.

(04-29-2016 06:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  My point was that one often hears from defenders of money-bleeding football programs that the intangible costs of dropping football would be greater than the actual costs of keeping it - i.e., stuff like lost prestige, lost booster ego pride, lower public profile, public perception that the school is diminishing, etc.

A principle intangible cost being whether they are seen as a peer of CMU and WMU or seen as a lesser school.

Which is why the discussion of which BBall conference EMU might join if they dropped out of the MAC is so relevant to whether EMU would voluntarily drop out of the MAC. Dropping out of the MAC to play in the Horizon League would be a clear and obvious drop in status.

(04-30-2016 12:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  EMU should go and dropped down to FCS. Akron sounds like they are losing money as well and dropping sports. MAC needs new blood. They should grab Milwaukee. I know they don't have football, but they would bring in a new market, a better exposure for the school, and they could get more money so that they could add football in the future.
MAC should go after several of the MVFC schools to help bring new blood. Plus go get James Madison, Stony Brook and Liberty to the east.

The only Sport Akron Dropped was Baseball

(04-29-2016 06:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 09:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 08:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 12:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  That's the point. Look at the difference between EMU's current athletic budget and the athletic budgets of nearby D-I schools without football, like Horizon League schools.

EMU's athletic budget is about $34 million/year per the USA Today database. The median Horizon member's athletic budget is about $14 million/year. The difference between EMU being an FBS program with an essentially invisible football team and being a D-I program with no football team is $20 million/year. They're spending $20 million/year of their students' money just to call themselves "FBS" instead of "Division I".

Most of the math used to justify FBS is shakey.

That's because football at EMU is surely a money drain, and also because keeping football isn't about the cold hard math, it's about intangibles, like boosters and administrators ego, wanting to front that the school is "big time" because it has a football team, no matter how lousy.

But you can't just come out and say that, so ... faulty math is concocted.

If you draw 29k over the course of the season you may want to look at whether the booster/fan ego is relevant.

My point was that one often hears from defenders of money-bleeding football programs that the intangible costs of dropping football would be greater than the actual costs of keeping it - i.e., stuff like lost prestige, lost booster ego pride, lower public profile, public perception that the school is diminishing, etc.

And with their results and fan support, it could be argued that keeping the program loses prestige, lowers booster pride, creates an embarrassing public profile and gives the impression that the school is diminishing.

(04-30-2016 12:55 AM)utpotts Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 12:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  EMU should go and dropped down to FCS. Akron sounds like they are losing money as well and dropping sports. MAC needs new blood. They should grab Milwaukee. I know they don't have football, but they would bring in a new market, a better exposure for the school, and they could get more money so that they could add football in the future.
MAC should go after several of the MVFC schools to help bring new blood. Plus go get James Madison, Stony Brook and Liberty to the east.

You are absolutely clueless. 12 teams max..... No need to spread the money around when you don't have to.

And the big decline in the MAC was when they expanded from 6 to 10 teams with 4 new members in the same footprint during the mid-70s. Maybe Illinois St. or Missouri St. could work if they were interested and able to move up to FBS, but not the rest of the MVC.

(04-30-2016 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  And the big decline in the MAC was when they expanded from 6 to 10 teams with 4 new members in the same footprint during the mid-70s. Maybe Illinois St. or Missouri St. could work if they were interested and able to move up to FBS, but not the rest of the MVC.

Neither Ball State nor Northern Illinois were within the MAC's footprint. Both grew the footprint, and both were good additions. (Ball State is not a major football power, but they have had their moments, and they have a good basketball following.)

Central Michigan was also a good addition. The Chippewas won several football championships soon after joining the conference, and they have remained competitive.

(04-30-2016 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 06:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 09:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 08:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Most of the math used to justify FBS is shakey.

That's because football at EMU is surely a money drain, and also because keeping football isn't about the cold hard math, it's about intangibles, like boosters and administrators ego, wanting to front that the school is "big time" because it has a football team, no matter how lousy.

But you can't just come out and say that, so ... faulty math is concocted.

If you draw 29k over the course of the season you may want to look at whether the booster/fan ego is relevant.

My point was that one often hears from defenders of money-bleeding football programs that the intangible costs of dropping football would be greater than the actual costs of keeping it - i.e., stuff like lost prestige, lost booster ego pride, lower public profile, public perception that the school is diminishing, etc.

And with their results and fan support, it could be argued that keeping the program loses prestige, lowers booster pride, creates an embarrassing public profile and gives the impression that the school is diminishing.

Have to admit, my perception of EMU given the impact of the recession on Michigan and the vacant stands was the school is shrinking. Then I looked it up and they seem to be growing.

(04-30-2016 02:07 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  And the big decline in the MAC was when they expanded from 6 to 10 teams with 4 new members in the same footprint during the mid-70s. Maybe Illinois St. or Missouri St. could work if they were interested and able to move up to FBS, but not the rest of the MVC.

Neither Ball State nor Northern Illinois were within the MAC's footprint. Both grew the footprint, and both were good additions. (Ball State is not a major football power, but they have had their moments, and they have a good basketball following.)

Central Michigan was also a good addition. The Chippewas won several football championships soon after joining the conference, and they have remained competitive.

They all recruit the same territory and were moved up from Division II.

The MAC was regularly ranked until expansion-Ohio #20 '68, Toledo 12-'70 and 14-'71, Miami 15-'73, 10-'74 and 12-'75. Then they went 20 years before they were ranked again.

(04-30-2016 05:53 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Which is why the discussion of which BBall conference EMU might join if they dropped out of the MAC is so relevant to whether EMU would voluntarily drop out of the MAC. Dropping out of the MAC to play in the Horizon League would be a clear and obvious drop in status.

Granted, it's not that big of a leap, but, "...a clear and obvious drop in status" it is not. Over the last eight years (these past two included), the HL averaged an RPI ranking of 14 compared to the MAC's average ranking of 15. The HL had a horrendous last two years, which brought the average down from 12, while the MAC had its best two years, which brought its average up to 15. Take both sets of years away and the HL has a wider margin, 12-16. So, I don't think "dropping" down to the Horizon League would be that bad of a fall. "Clear and Obvious...that one cracks me up!

(04-30-2016 11:53 PM)Chuck_A Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 05:53 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Which is why the discussion of which BBall conference EMU might join if they dropped out of the MAC is so relevant to whether EMU would voluntarily drop out of the MAC. Dropping out of the MAC to play in the Horizon League would be a clear and obvious drop in status.

Granted, it's not that big of a leap, but, "...a clear and obvious drop in status" it is not. Over the last eight years (these past two included), the HL averaged an RPI ranking of 14 compared to the MAC's average ranking of 15.

At one time it wouldn't have been. But there has been conference realignment with the HL as well.

Quote: The HL had a horrendous last two years, which brought the average down from 12, ...

... also known as "suffered from the effects of conference realignment ...

Quote: while the MAC had its best two years, which brought its average up to 15.

... while the MAC basically stood still while conferences previously sitting ahead of it were hurt by conference realignment.

Quote: Take both sets of years away ...

... IOW, ignore the current results under the current alignments ...

Quote: and the HL has a wider margin, 12-16.

But that is not the Horizon League that people are discussing EMU joining. EMU does not get to jump in a time machine and join the HL circa 2008.

Quote: So, I don't think "dropping" down to the Horizon League would be that bad of a fall. "Clear and Obvious...that one cracks me up!

Don't inhale any sand while laughing.

(05-01-2016 04:09 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 11:53 PM)Chuck_A Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 05:53 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Which is why the discussion of which BBall conference EMU might join if they dropped out of the MAC is so relevant to whether EMU would voluntarily drop out of the MAC. Dropping out of the MAC to play in the Horizon League would be a clear and obvious drop in status.

Granted, it's not that big of a leap, but, "...a clear and obvious drop in status" it is not. Over the last eight years (these past two included), the HL averaged an RPI ranking of 14 compared to the MAC's average ranking of 15.

At one time it wouldn't have been. But there has been conference realignment with the HL as well.

Quote: The HL had a horrendous last two years, which brought the average down from 12, ...

... also known as "suffered from the effects of conference realignment ...

Quote: while the MAC had its best two years, which brought its average up to 15.

... while the MAC basically stood still while conferences previously sitting ahead of it were hurt by conference realignment.

Quote: Take both sets of years away ...

... IOW, ignore the current results under the current alignments ...

Quote: and the HL has a wider margin, 12-16.

But that is not the Horizon League that people are discussing EMU joining. EMU does not get to jump in a time machine and join the HL circa 2008.

Quote: So, I don't think "dropping" down to the Horizon League would be that bad of a fall. "Clear and Obvious...that one cracks me up!

Don't inhale any sand while laughing.

Break it down anyway you choose to. Even with the two bad years included, the Horizon is still ahead of the MAC and usually is so. So again, a clear and obvious drop it is not. Not to mention the fact that the Horizon League has more exposure on ESPN (the "Family") than does the MAC. Where's the drop there? Look what the exposure did for Oakland after they joined the League!

(04-30-2016 11:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 02:07 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  And the big decline in the MAC was when they expanded from 6 to 10 teams with 4 new members in the same footprint during the mid-70s. Maybe Illinois St. or Missouri St. could work if they were interested and able to move up to FBS, but not the rest of the MVC.

Neither Ball State nor Northern Illinois were within the MAC's footprint. Both grew the footprint, and both were good additions. (Ball State is not a major football power, but they have had their moments, and they have a good basketball following.)

Central Michigan was also a good addition. The Chippewas won several football championships soon after joining the conference, and they have remained competitive.

They all recruit the same territory and were moved up from Division II.

The MAC was regularly ranked until expansion-Ohio #20 '68, Toledo 12-'70 and 14-'71, Miami 15-'73, 10-'74 and 12-'75. Then they went 20 years before they were ranked again.

You have made a very good point here that I have never before taken into consideration. For years the MAC has prided itself on the fact that it is compact with cheap and easy travel between schools. This seamed to make a lot of sense economically, but in hind sight the economics would have been better had they not expanded at all. When expansion became necessary then they should have done so only into other states that they were not already representing and with already established div 1 schools.

To add to your point, not only did the conference go from being commonly ranked to a 25 year hiatus from the top 25, but in the 60's and early 70's some of the teams were on the short list for moving up to being in a major conference. Ohio U was in the works with several other schools to form a new major eastern conference, but the head coach of the main school of that new conference derailed the whole project - I am not going to say who that coach was, but here is a clue. Penn St. was one of the leading schools for this project.

There had also been talks of the Big 10 expanding 40 years ago and Miami U was on the short list. Miami has the academics and the time, they were a football powerhouse.

Fast forward to the start of the power conferences expansions and you would have to believe that had the MAC not expanded in the mid 70's that they would have continued to have had success and that many of their schools would have been the first to move up instead of being completely ignored.