(07-24-2018 04:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It's actually kind of surprising that the SBC hasn't mandated football as a term for continued membership for UTA and UALR. If these programs aren't willing to pony up the cash to support the conference's cash sport then they don't deserve to wear the conference logo.

They need the SBC more than the SBC needs them.

When Appalachian State basketball makes the Arkansas road swing, they generally fly into either Memphis or Little Rock play either UALR or AState on Thursday and the other on Saturday then fly home. Campus to campus is just under 135 miles.
Likewise when they make the Texas swing, they can fly into DFW, or Love or San Antonio or even Austin and then it is roughly 230 miles arena to arena.

To amend the Sun Belt bylaws requires a 75% vote of the membership. Nine must say yes. If four say no, it dies.

Little Rock and Arlington aren't voting yes. That's two no votes.
Arkansas State absent something happening at UALR that gives them political cover, isn't voting no. That's three no votes and you only need one more.

Would Texas State vote yes or no? No idea what the politics would be in Texas in such a situation.

The school to consider though, is Louisiana Monroe. ULM operates on a tight budget. Arlington is a 300 mile trip. That's quite manageable to bus for volleyball, basketball, baseball. Monroe to Little Rock is only 180 miles. Very manageable.

So if you are basically anyone in Sun Belt East contemplating dumping the non-football schools, you do so knowing that the A-State/LR and UTA/TXST swings will become the A-State/TXST swing or becomes the AState/ULM and TXST/UL Lafayette swings.

There just isn't a lot of motivation for anyone to boot them.

(07-24-2018 02:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UALR would need to increase the annual athletic budget by $7.8 million annually to add FCS football and by $12.4 million to play FBS.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/u..._Final.pdf

So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

I don't know about that. $5 million difference is pretty significant for a small budget program. The bigger difference would be the availability of a regional conference for a move down to FCS.

Yes--but it takes EIGHT million to get to FCS and you get almost nothing for the nearly 8 million you invest to get there. Most people dont know the difference between FCS and D2. That extra 4.8 million to go FBS is money well spent. A trip to a bowl (even a crappy one) is a fantastic marketing opportunity for a school. Plus its far easier to get to a bowl than getting to the FCS playoff--yet it pays off in much greater exposure. The more figures I see the less and less FCS makes sense to me. Drop football or play D2 (or D3)---if your worried about the budget. But, to me at least, it just seems like it doesn't make much sense to move up to FCS unless you have a solid viable plan to get to FBS. FCS doesnt seem like a good long term investment at this point in time.

And it probably costs them a half mill to go to a bowl.

(07-24-2018 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 02:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  So FBS football only costs $4.6 million more than FCS? What a bargain!

Thats pretty much what Ive been saying. There really isnt much savings in dropping down from FBS to FCS---while there is a HUGE drop in exposure and marketing benefit. If you really want to save money--the answer is to become a non-football playing school or play football at a D2/D3 level. Frankly, I think FCS may eventually disappear. If you really did a deep dive, I suspect FCS football doesnt make much financial sense for the vast majority of the schools that play it.

I don't know about that. $5 million difference is pretty significant for a small budget program. The bigger difference would be the availability of a regional conference for a move down to FCS.

Yes--but it takes EIGHT million to get to FCS and you get almost nothing for the nearly 8 million you invest to get there. Most people dont know the difference between FCS and D2. That extra 4.8 million to go FBS is money well spent. A trip to a bowl (even a crappy one) is a fantastic marketing opportunity for a school. Plus its far easier to get to a bowl than getting to the FCS playoff--yet it pays off in much greater exposure. The more figures I see the less and less FCS makes sense to me. Drop football or play D2 (or D3)---if your worried about the budget. But, to me at least, it just seems like it doesn't make much sense to move up to FCS unless you have a solid viable plan to get to FBS. FCS doesnt seem like a good long term investment at this point in time.

And it probably costs them a half mill to go to a bowl.

Is it worth the exposure the school gets to pay that half million, if it's even that much? I dont know, but I'd say it probably is.

As a casual fan growing up I knew little about the landscape of CFB. But I remember having the impression that the schools I could play as on NCAA were big schools. Of course now I know see things differently now, but just being associated with p5s gives g5s a bump in perception to casuals.

Hasn’t UALR been losing enrollment to UCA and maybe Ark Tech? It seems that this report is a way to gain enrollment again and compete for students better, even against Ark St. Adding Fb would be expensive but maybe necessary.

But ULM does it for much less than the report specifies.

(07-24-2018 04:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 04:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It's actually kind of surprising that the SBC hasn't mandated football as a term for continued membership for UTA and UALR. If these programs aren't willing to pony up the cash to support the conference's cash sport then they don't deserve to wear the conference logo.

They need the SBC more than the SBC needs them.

When Appalachian State basketball makes the Arkansas road swing, they generally fly into either Memphis or Little Rock play either UALR or AState on Thursday and the other on Saturday then fly home. Campus to campus is just under 135 miles.
Likewise when they make the Texas swing, they can fly into DFW, or Love or San Antonio or even Austin and then it is roughly 230 miles arena to arena.

To amend the Sun Belt bylaws requires a 75% vote of the membership. Nine must say yes. If four say no, it dies.

Little Rock and Arlington aren't voting yes. That's two no votes.
Arkansas State absent something happening at UALR that gives them political cover, isn't voting no. That's three no votes and you only need one more.

Would Texas State vote yes or no? No idea what the politics would be in Texas in such a situation.

The school to consider though, is Louisiana Monroe. ULM operates on a tight budget. Arlington is a 300 mile trip. That's quite manageable to bus for volleyball, basketball, baseball. Monroe to Little Rock is only 180 miles. Very manageable.

So if you are basically anyone in Sun Belt East contemplating dumping the non-football schools, you do so knowing that the A-State/LR and UTA/TXST swings will become the A-State/TXST swing or becomes the AState/ULM and TXST/UL Lafayette swings.

There just isn't a lot of motivation for anyone to boot them.

Agreed. I don't think ALR and UTA get a cut of the football money, so it's not exactly like they're mooching off the rest of the conference anyway. And ULM of all schools is not going to want to set a precedent for voting schools out of the conference.

(07-25-2018 04:59 AM)NoDak Wrote:  Hasn’t UALR been losing enrollment to UCA and maybe Ark Tech? It seems that this report is a way to gain enrollment again and compete for students better, even against Ark St. Adding Fb would be expensive but maybe necessary.

But ULM does it for much less than the report specifies.

How do you propose they pay for it?
They already have the highest athletic fee in the state, it is the same size as the fee UTSA adopted to add football but unlike UTSA, it isn't capped at 15 hours.