(05-01-2016 09:46 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 02:54 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  The Schwarz report on UAB showed pretty clearly that there is very little savings and in a lot of cases it is more expensive to play FCS. The only reason Idaho is dropping down is that they don't have a conference and thus can't make a schedule. The only other school in that situation is NMSU. These other schools listed may drop football but there is no reasonable explanation for a school with a conference to drop down in class.

That was a factor in WKU moving up to D1A (yeah, I still use the old school term). WKU actually lost money when we won the D1AA national championship in 2002.

Well nobody makes money in FBS at G5 level either. Teams lose money going to bowl games and now with autonomy benefits it is a bigger money loser for G5 schools. And that will only grow over the years at a higher rate of inflation.
FCS may be a money loser, but you spend less actual $$$. Over the next few years, universities are going to have to examine if they want to spend $20 million or more $$ for less than 15k in attendance even when winning or spend $10 million for the same results.

(04-28-2016 07:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 05:32 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 04:57 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see several FBS programs drop down to FCS or discontinue football entirely in the near future. The P5 hoards all of the money and smallest guys will be squeezed out. It's probably for the best. The G5 is diluted by the weaklings. Many of them need to go, so the rest of us have a reasonable chance of surviving and elevating ourselves. The weakest programs are a strain on the rest of us. I have a bad feeling that schools like Troy, ULM, EMU, NMSU, Hawaii, and six or seven others are in real trouble.

For the "best"? Who's?

Certainly not for students, alumni and fans of those schools.

Let's just shut 'em all down and let the P5 play each other and see how much they like 4 game seasons.

It sucks for the schools' fans, but it's life. Teams that aren't supported and who are a drag on the rest of us will slowly disappear. They screw up our RPI, devalue TV contracts, and hurt the image of our conferences.

The only "us" is cartel schools and the "they" is everybody else, including your school and mine.

(04-28-2016 05:46 PM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  Could a few (a very select few) FBS schools go independent? The service academies could, BYU has done it (huge, loyal fan base), Notre Dame (the last 800 lb gorilla of the past).

I think the Southern California Trojans and the Stanford Cardinal could pull it off as FBS independents, because everyone wants to recruit northern and Southern California and these two schools already recruit nationally. I also think that Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, Tennessee could probably do it too.

(05-01-2016 03:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 09:46 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 02:54 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  The Schwarz report on UAB showed pretty clearly that there is very little savings and in a lot of cases it is more expensive to play FCS. The only reason Idaho is dropping down is that they don't have a conference and thus can't make a schedule. The only other school in that situation is NMSU. These other schools listed may drop football but there is no reasonable explanation for a school with a conference to drop down in class.

That was a factor in WKU moving up to D1A (yeah, I still use the old school term). WKU actually lost money when we won the D1AA national championship in 2002.

Well nobody makes money in FBS at G5 level either. Teams lose money going to bowl games and now with autonomy benefits it is a bigger money loser for G5 schools. And that will only grow over the years at a higher rate of inflation.
FCS may be a money loser, but you spend less actual $$$. Over the next few years, universities are going to have to examine if they want to spend $20 million or more $$ for less than 15k in attendance even when winning or spend $10 million for the same results.

To my knowledge, Marshall hasn't lost money on a bowl game since joining CUSA.

(05-02-2016 09:21 AM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 03:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 09:46 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 02:54 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  The Schwarz report on UAB showed pretty clearly that there is very little savings and in a lot of cases it is more expensive to play FCS. The only reason Idaho is dropping down is that they don't have a conference and thus can't make a schedule. The only other school in that situation is NMSU. These other schools listed may drop football but there is no reasonable explanation for a school with a conference to drop down in class.

That was a factor in WKU moving up to D1A (yeah, I still use the old school term). WKU actually lost money when we won the D1AA national championship in 2002.

Well nobody makes money in FBS at G5 level either. Teams lose money going to bowl games and now with autonomy benefits it is a bigger money loser for G5 schools. And that will only grow over the years at a higher rate of inflation.
FCS may be a money loser, but you spend less actual $$$. Over the next few years, universities are going to have to examine if they want to spend $20 million or more $$ for less than 15k in attendance even when winning or spend $10 million for the same results.

To my knowledge, Marshall hasn't lost money on a bowl game since joining CUSA.

Maybe in the 2014 Boca Raton Bowl since the payout was only $400 k. Last year at the St. Petersburg Bowl could be no loss since that payout was $500k.
All the other years before you went have a bowl payout of $750 to $1 million. So you could be right.

(05-02-2016 10:24 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:21 AM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 03:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 09:46 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 02:54 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  The Schwarz report on UAB showed pretty clearly that there is very little savings and in a lot of cases it is more expensive to play FCS. The only reason Idaho is dropping down is that they don't have a conference and thus can't make a schedule. The only other school in that situation is NMSU. These other schools listed may drop football but there is no reasonable explanation for a school with a conference to drop down in class.

That was a factor in WKU moving up to D1A (yeah, I still use the old school term). WKU actually lost money when we won the D1AA national championship in 2002.

Well nobody makes money in FBS at G5 level either. Teams lose money going to bowl games and now with autonomy benefits it is a bigger money loser for G5 schools. And that will only grow over the years at a higher rate of inflation.
FCS may be a money loser, but you spend less actual $$$. Over the next few years, universities are going to have to examine if they want to spend $20 million or more $$ for less than 15k in attendance even when winning or spend $10 million for the same results.

To my knowledge, Marshall hasn't lost money on a bowl game since joining CUSA.

Maybe in the 2014 Boca Raton Bowl since the payout was only $400 k. Last year at the St. Petersburg Bowl could be no loss since that payout was $500k.
All the other years before you went have a bowl payout of $750 to $1 million. So you could be right.

The difference is that in the MAC, the conference really didn't help the school, so we lost tons on travel costs alone. I think the MAC has changed since, but that's the way it was when we were there.

The bowl payouts are not guaranteed...the money the schools receive is based on tickets sales to their own fan base and whatever subsidy CUSA pays.

(05-02-2016 12:37 PM)blueraidermike Wrote:  The bowl payouts are not guaranteed...the money the schools receive is based on tickets sales to their own fan base and whatever subsidy CUSA pays.

And that is why we haven't lost money... First, we won the bowls, but we did in the MAC too (mostly). And when we were in the MAC, the schools were on their own when it came to bowls. The MAC didn't pay a subsidy at the time.

I think every school that is an independent with no natural games that get regularly scheduled and is remote from other conferences is in dire danger of doing what Idaho did.

NMSU is a different critter. UTEP and New Mexico play them regularly and that makes sense because it's hard finding FBS schools to come to your place on a home and home deal out west. Everyone is either in your conference or in a conference that won't often go home/home with a G5. NMSU can't enjoy any real travel savings in FCS, going to California and Washington in the Big Sky, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana in the Southland, or all across the Midwest in the MVFC. Toughing it out in FBS makes about as much sense maybe more than being FCS for them.

After that, I think the schools at risk are the ones where two things align:
1. Decrease in state funding for higher ed, that means money diverted to help athletics is now needed for academic side operating expenses.
2. Declining enrollment at a place that relies heavily on student fees and/or transfers from the school.

EMU has a robust $33 million budget but $27 million comes from the school or fees. Upside for them, state funding in Michigan seems to have stabilized and they've been experiencing some enrollment growth.

As for ULM, they are walking the razor's edge. Enrollment numbers have been sidewayish for some time (no big gains no big drops) state funding obviously has been an issue. Their budget is so small there just is little room for error despite not being in awful shape in the amount of funding dependent on the school.