(06-09-2017 02:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 02:49 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Guarantee games in FBS bring 2-3 million a year. In FCS, that'd be 250-750 thousand. That alone precludes a drop down. SLC travel savings would 500,000 at best.

Not that I think they will drop, but the counter is if you have to sell yourself for 2 body bag games a year (and most likely losses) and the only home games you can get are FCS teams, what are you doing in FBS?

May not make as much money in FCS, but they could be competitive.

ULM has USM -FBS this year and Memphis 18 or 19 at home. We had Baylor in 2012 and Wake Forest 2014 at home. Other teams in our conference play two money games a year. Please get your info correct before making comments.

(06-09-2017 12:57 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 12:45 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The sheer cost of dropping down is enough to keep them in the FBS.

Dropping to the FCS level comes with a sharp decline in revenue with negligible difference in cost. The only way that it would be cost effective would be if playing in the FCS decreased your travel costs and other costs to match your new revenue such as in Idaho's case.

The truth is there's really no real reason to drop. Even if your athletics is less competitive in the FBS and might be more competitive in the FCS, it still doesn't justify the drop because you're still making money even if you don't win.

They're making nothing at ULM. They can't sell tickets to anything.

They're fans don't care and they've got one of the largest contingents of move down fans I've ever seen.

5 years they'll be FCS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When Brian Wickstrom left UCR to be the AD at ULM, he said he left for the opportunity to be an AD at an FBS school. I don't think he is leading them to the FCS.

ULM has an athletic budget of $13 million. From the 2016 football season, they collected over $4 million in revenue from a combination of playoff money ($1.5 million) and $1.2 million from a game at OU, $1.2 million from a game at Auburn and $400,000 from a game at New Mexico. So where do they go to replace that revenue?

(06-09-2017 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The program probably would be among the top tier of FCS with respect to facilities and budget at the FCS level---so it likely would be more successful.

Per USA Today, Monroe has a $12.8M budget which is behind Stephen F. Austin, Sam Houston State and Lamar. Their budget is a few hundred thousand ahead of Central Arkansas and Southeastern Louisiana - within about $400k.

Without the FBS "body bag" games and a likely loss of revenue, ULM's budget would slip below the aforementioned five schools and behind non-football Texas A&M-Corpus Christi.

So as far as budget, ULM is average at best in the Southland. I dare say a few Southland schools if competing in the Sun Belt would perform higher than ULM in the Bubas Cup if given a chance to.

(06-09-2017 03:33 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 12:57 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 12:45 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The sheer cost of dropping down is enough to keep them in the FBS.

Dropping to the FCS level comes with a sharp decline in revenue with negligible difference in cost. The only way that it would be cost effective would be if playing in the FCS decreased your travel costs and other costs to match your new revenue such as in Idaho's case.

The truth is there's really no real reason to drop. Even if your athletics is less competitive in the FBS and might be more competitive in the FCS, it still doesn't justify the drop because you're still making money even if you don't win.

They're making nothing at ULM. They can't sell tickets to anything.

They're fans don't care and they've got one of the largest contingents of move down fans I've ever seen.

5 years they'll be FCS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When Brian Wickstrom left UCR to be the AD at ULM, he said he left for the opportunity to be an AD at an FBS school. I don't think he is leading them to the FCS.

ULM has an athletic budget of $13 million. From the 2016 football season, they collected over $4 million in revenue from a combination of playoff money ($1.5 million) and $1.2 million from a game at OU, $1.2 million from a game at Auburn and $400,000 from a game at New Mexico. So where do they go to replace that revenue?

They don't need $13 million to operate at the FCS level. That's the point.

Fewer scholarships required, probably drop a sport or two, join the Southland and play half their schedule against bus trip teams.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're not dropping down.

From 2014
http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/sports/.../20222149/

(06-09-2017 03:37 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 03:33 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 12:57 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 12:45 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The sheer cost of dropping down is enough to keep them in the FBS.

Dropping to the FCS level comes with a sharp decline in revenue with negligible difference in cost. The only way that it would be cost effective would be if playing in the FCS decreased your travel costs and other costs to match your new revenue such as in Idaho's case.

The truth is there's really no real reason to drop. Even if your athletics is less competitive in the FBS and might be more competitive in the FCS, it still doesn't justify the drop because you're still making money even if you don't win.

They're making nothing at ULM. They can't sell tickets to anything.

They're fans don't care and they've got one of the largest contingents of move down fans I've ever seen.

5 years they'll be FCS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When Brian Wickstrom left UCR to be the AD at ULM, he said he left for the opportunity to be an AD at an FBS school. I don't think he is leading them to the FCS.

ULM has an athletic budget of $13 million. From the 2016 football season, they collected over $4 million in revenue from a combination of playoff money ($1.5 million) and $1.2 million from a game at OU, $1.2 million from a game at Auburn and $400,000 from a game at New Mexico. So where do they go to replace that revenue?

They don't need $13 million to operate at the FCS level. That's the point.

Fewer scholarships required, probably drop a sport or two, join the Southland and play half their schedule against bus trip teams.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here could be another point.
ULM is 64% female. The puts pressure on the men's sports. ULM can't cut any men's sports because 6 is require for FBS football and D1.
Title IX may be rearing its head as they might have to either:
1. Add another women's sport at an additional cost.
2. Cut the football schollies to FCS level so as not to add another women's sport. Or
3. Drop football and add men's soccer to keep the 6 team minimum requirement. Since the Sunbelt is open to non-football teams, they could stay in league.

#1 is hard to do when you only have a $13 million dollar budget.

All of your cost savings mentioned will not cover the drop in revenue. The loss in CFP, guarantee, conference payout, etc will be greater. They will be in the same boat in FCS budget-wise. They are stretched thin now, definitely. They be stretched thin in FCS too.

(06-09-2017 03:54 PM)Golota Wrote:  From 2014
http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/sports/.../20222149/

3 years is a long time ago and things have changed even more since then.

(06-09-2017 02:46 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 12:45 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The sheer cost of dropping down is enough to keep them in the FBS.

Dropping to the FCS level comes with a sharp decline in revenue with negligible difference in cost. The only way that it would be cost effective would be if playing in the FCS decreased your travel costs and other costs to match your new revenue such as in Idaho's case.

The truth is there's really no real reason to drop. Even if your athletics is less competitive in the FBS and might be more competitive in the FCS, it still doesn't justify the drop because you're still making money even if you don't win.

No reason to drop in the Southeast. ULM has a conference, and plenty of OOC FBS schools nearby. Idaho had no conference, and no FBS schools nearby, especially ones that would travel to Moscow (looking at you, Washington State and Boise State).

Exactly

(06-09-2017 04:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 03:54 PM)Golota Wrote:  From 2014
http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/sports/.../20222149/

3 years is a long time ago and things have changed even more since then.

So you think we're cutting football or possibly moving down?

(06-09-2017 04:21 PM)Golota Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 04:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 03:54 PM)Golota Wrote:  From 2014
http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/sports/.../20222149/

3 years is a long time ago and things have changed even more since then.

So you think we're cutting football or possibly moving down?

If there is no upcoming football games announced for 2020 then I see a move down to FCS.
However, if my alternate theory has any merit (Title IX issue with ULM having 65% female student population), then FCS could be given a try before dropping it completely.

I've notice that UTA and UALR who don't sponsor football have females at the 60% majority on campus. That definitely plays are role of them not starting up football.

Two things to remember here. They've won a couple of those "bodybag" FBS games (Arkansas, Alabama) which is more than the rest of us can say. Also, aren't they looking for a new AD right now? That could have an impact on scheduling.....last guy may not have done much toward that for a number of reasons.

I have no reason to believe ULM isn't a full equity member of the Sun Belt. If someone has an actual clickable link indicating otherwise I'd certainly like to see it because that's entirely new to me.

I'd come closer to believing the league has adopted some sort of membership standard that ULM isn't in compliance with and is under deadline to meet than believe they are not a full equity member.

What amazes me about this conversation is the Fallacy ULM has not FBS home games. With the 10 team conference and championship game, SBC has to move to a nine game conference schedule. ULM has a guaranteed 4 home games one year and 5 the following year. They will only need to get a qualifying FCS opponent during the four home game years to qualify for the 5 game home rule. The 5 home game year should now be 6 home games by getting an local FCS opponent to visit. The 9 game model is what ends up helping ULM stay at FBS.

ULM should be trying to do the following:
4 Conference Home Game Year
Local FCS Home game, FBS home game (MAC or Indy), FBS body bag game.

5 Conference Home year
Local FCS Home Game, Away (MAC or Indy), FBS Body bag game

The idea of dropping to FCS will lose more money than it will save by going to FCS.

(06-09-2017 05:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What amazes me about this conversation is the Fallacy ULM has not FBS home games. With the 10 team conference and championship game, SBC has to move to a nine game conference schedule. ULM has a guaranteed 4 home games one year and 5 the following year. They will only need to get a qualifying FCS opponent during the four home game years to qualify for the 5 game home rule. The 5 home game year should now be 6 home games by getting an local FCS opponent to visit. The 9 game model is what ends up helping ULM stay at FBS.

ULM should be trying to do the following:
4 Conference Home Game Year
Local FCS Home game, FBS home game (MAC or Indy), FBS body bag game.

5 Conference Home year
Local FCS Home Game, Away (MAC or Indy), FBS Body bag game

The idea of dropping to FCS will lose more money than it will save by going to FCS.

We aren't going to a 9 game conference schedule and it's idiotic to even consider it.

Some of us actually have decent schedules because we have hired competent people that do their jobs well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-09-2017 05:58 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 05:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What amazes me about this conversation is the Fallacy ULM has not FBS home games. With the 10 team conference and championship game, SBC has to move to a nine game conference schedule. ULM has a guaranteed 4 home games one year and 5 the following year. They will only need to get a qualifying FCS opponent during the four home game years to qualify for the 5 game home rule. The 5 home game year should now be 6 home games by getting an local FCS opponent to visit. The 9 game model is what ends up helping ULM stay at FBS.

ULM should be trying to do the following:
4 Conference Home Game Year
Local FCS Home game, FBS home game (MAC or Indy), FBS body bag game that scheduling two body bag games.

5 Conference Home year
Local FCS Home Game, Away (MAC or Indy), FBS Body bag game

The idea of dropping to FCS will lose more money than it will save by going to FCS.

We aren't going to a 9 game conference schedule and it's idiotic to even consider it.

Some of us actually have decent schedules because we have hired competent people that do their jobs well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I stand corrected, I misread the round-robin rule. Still, I think 9 games would still be the best option for the SB to get more bowl teams eligible.

(06-09-2017 04:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 04:21 PM)Golota Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 04:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 03:54 PM)Golota Wrote:  From 2014
http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/sports/.../20222149/

3 years is a long time ago and things have changed even more since then.

So you think we're cutting football or possibly moving down?

If there is no upcoming football games announced for 2020 then I see a move down to FCS.
However, if my alternate theory has any merit (Title IX issue with ULM having 65% female student population), then FCS could be given a try before dropping it completely.

I've notice that UTA and UALR who don't sponsor football have females at the 60% majority on campus. That definitely plays are role of them not starting up football.

I know more about What's going on at ULM vs people speculating here.
Our AD was lame duck.
I have been assured we are scheduling games and are not moving down.
Your Title 9 thing? Come on conspiracy guy.
It's been spelled out by others on here above. Dropping to FCS simply doesn't make financial sense. Saving 22 scholarships on football vs FBS money game pay out, CFB play off money, TV money. It's not even close on saving on 22 scholarships. Don't know how anyone can't understand that.

As for Idaho they had games scheduled and had to remove or renegotiate deals. So us having none should be that concerning.

You'll see games announced once we get new AD. I have been told of a couple money games that should happen but not finalized yet.

WE'RE NOT MOVING DOWN OR CUTTING FOOTBALL.

I wonder if the "under contract" language is a reporter somehow confusing the TV contract the league has with ESPN?

Never heard or seen anything about the SBC contract ending. Seems like mostly Louisiana Tech people spreading that rumor and some you biting on that. Why?