Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Which teams should leave FBS?
Author Message
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 2,047
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 89
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #61
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-01-2019 09:49 PM)panama Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 08:43 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  You mean, 'which teams shouldn't be G5'.

Anybody who wants to put the resources into G5 should be able to play G5.

Many schools used to have teams but had to cut them due to Title IX. No doubt, were it not for Title IX, many of those schools would probably be competing at G5 level

Also, FCS and Division II have their own perks. Many schools are convinced FCS and DII are better for them. If a school weighs their options, - Division II, FCS, or G5 - and they decide G5 is best, then that's their decision. G5 does come with its downfalls: no national championship, if you're brand new you have to find a conference, pricier then FCS and DII.

Lastly, it's not just a matter of 'is your football program good?' Many of the G5 schools that don't have good football programs, are great in other sports.
Many? In the last forty years? UTA and Pacific dropped the sport. Idaho dropped down. Who else?

There are no perks in FCS or Div II that are greater than that 30 second halftime commercial on Saturday.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Since 1979, quite a few schools have either dropped to I-AA/FCS or dropped football entirely. Most of them were during the Great Reclassification of 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC...r_programs
02-02-2019 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,042
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 765
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #62
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The trim FBS people cannot articulate any real reason to trim it and no one who understands how the intercollegiate economy works would expect the P5 to harm themselves by trimming G5 away.

Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2019 10:31 AM by quo vadis.)
02-02-2019 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,091
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 280
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #63
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 08:06 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:10 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:18 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Rice and UTEP. They've been passed by UNT, UTSA, and Texas St. recently. They have no future if FBS. They'd have no future in FCS either. They should consider D-2.

I disagree. Rice has the finances to be a player in the FBS if they ever choose to commit the resources to that end. UTEP has a long history in the FBS and they are the only game in El Paso. When they turn it around, they will fill their stands again. Texas State has posted a 4-20 record over the last 3 seasons. How is that really any better than what Rice and UTEP have done?

Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

North Texas was not a program that was even mentioned in the article. Nor should it have been. The Mean Green have been to four bowls in the last 5 seasons, and averaged over 23,000 fans per game last season. We are on the upswing. If you really want me to create a list of 40 to 45 teams that could/should be removed from the FBS, I can do that.

Cutting to 85 only provides room for like 22 G5 programs.

The entire AAC is probably in one would figure. Then BYU/Army. That is 14 right there.

At least 8 programs in the MWC are worthy, if not the whole conference.

I don't see where there is room for UNT and they would be behind So Miss, Marshall, AState and a few others listed in the article for making that type of cut. Not enough history and a glut of Texas schools hurts.

You are mistaken. Not every program in the AAC or MWC deserves to be in the 85. If there was a cut off at 85 programs, those 21 or 22 spots in the FBS should go to programs that have the best combinations of resources, commitment to playing at the FBS level, and on the field success. If you look at attendance numbers, athletic budgets, facilities, OOC scheduling, records over the last five season, and bowl appearances over the last five seasons, it becomes clearer which programs should get those 21/22 spots. Of course even under these standards, some programs that are weak in an area or two will still be included. There are just not enough G5 programs to fill all of the spots with solid performers in each area.

Here are the programs that I think would have the best chance at making the cut of 85. And I'll be upfront about my choices. I do give a higher consideration to public universities with larger alumni bases. In my opinion, they just seem to have more access to resources, and greater potential for growth.

UCF
Boise State
App State
Army
South Florida
San Diego State
Memphis
Houston
Fresno State
Cincinnati
North Texas
Air Force
Navy
BYU
Marshall
UAB
ECU
Colorado State
Buffalo
Ohio
UTSA
UTEP

I think with 85 programs in the FBS, we could end up at 7 or 8 FBS conferences, and their would be better media deals for these G2/G3 programs. If I have time later, I will come back and group these programs into conferences.
02-02-2019 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,042
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 765
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #64
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 10:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 08:06 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:10 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I disagree. Rice has the finances to be a player in the FBS if they ever choose to commit the resources to that end. UTEP has a long history in the FBS and they are the only game in El Paso. When they turn it around, they will fill their stands again. Texas State has posted a 4-20 record over the last 3 seasons. How is that really any better than what Rice and UTEP have done?

Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

North Texas was not a program that was even mentioned in the article. Nor should it have been. The Mean Green have been to four bowls in the last 5 seasons, and averaged over 23,000 fans per game last season. We are on the upswing. If you really want me to create a list of 40 to 45 teams that could/should be removed from the FBS, I can do that.

Cutting to 85 only provides room for like 22 G5 programs.

The entire AAC is probably in one would figure. Then BYU/Army. That is 14 right there.

At least 8 programs in the MWC are worthy, if not the whole conference.

I don't see where there is room for UNT and they would be behind So Miss, Marshall, AState and a few others listed in the article for making that type of cut. Not enough history and a glut of Texas schools hurts.

You are mistaken. Not every program in the AAC or MWC deserves to be in the 85. If there was a cut off at 85 programs, those 21 or 22 spots in the FBS should go to programs that have the best combinations of resources, commitment to playing at the FBS level, and on the field success. If you look at attendance numbers, athletic budgets, facilities, OOC scheduling, records over the last five season, and bowl appearances over the last five seasons, it becomes clearer which programs should get those 21/22 spots. Of course even under these standards, some programs that are weak in an area or two will still be included. There are just not enough G5 programs to fill all of the spots with solid performers in each area.

Here are the programs that I think would have the best chance at making the cut of 85. And I'll be upfront about my choices. I do give a higher consideration to public universities with larger alumni bases. In my opinion, they just seem to have more access to resources, and greater potential for growth.

Without reading further, let me guess ... North Texas is on that list?

But it doesn't really matter who is or isn't on these lists because these discussions about cuts are IMO a pipe dream. Nobody currently in FBS is going to be "cut" by some higher authority. And that's because the highest authority, the major conferences, want the G5 teams around. To an Alabama or an Ohio State, it's wonderful that some MAC or whatever school is willing to soak its students for $25 million in fees each year so it can puff out its chest and pretend it is a "big time" university because it is somehow tangentially in the same football category, thus allowing the real big time schools to play and beat them for full credit.

Basically, at Eastern Michigan, students are paying about $1,000 each per year for the "privilege" of being able to occasionally schedule and get beat by Michigan or whoever. That's a dream situation for Michigan.
02-02-2019 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,147
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 82
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #65
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
I'd rather see the FBS-FCS games eliminated entirely. Schools that are transitioning would be immediately eligible and would be expected to scale from 63 to 85 scholarships in one season, without the "lost" year in which a program isn't eligible for the FCS playoffs are a bowl.
02-02-2019 11:31 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,813
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-01-2019 11:08 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The "could win more" concept is flawed. If a school could maintain its FBS coaching staff, FBS players, and FBS facilities while dropping down to FCS, they could probably win more games. The reality is they are going to have FCS coaches, players and facilities. They are going to be way behind established FCS programs.

It's also going to be a financial nightmare with lower donations, lower ticket prices, and lower attendance.

For Idaho and ULM, moving up has been a financial nightmare.
02-02-2019 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,813
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 10:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 08:06 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:10 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

North Texas was not a program that was even mentioned in the article. Nor should it have been. The Mean Green have been to four bowls in the last 5 seasons, and averaged over 23,000 fans per game last season. We are on the upswing. If you really want me to create a list of 40 to 45 teams that could/should be removed from the FBS, I can do that.

Cutting to 85 only provides room for like 22 G5 programs.

The entire AAC is probably in one would figure. Then BYU/Army. That is 14 right there.

At least 8 programs in the MWC are worthy, if not the whole conference.

I don't see where there is room for UNT and they would be behind So Miss, Marshall, AState and a few others listed in the article for making that type of cut. Not enough history and a glut of Texas schools hurts.

You are mistaken. Not every program in the AAC or MWC deserves to be in the 85. If there was a cut off at 85 programs, those 21 or 22 spots in the FBS should go to programs that have the best combinations of resources, commitment to playing at the FBS level, and on the field success. If you look at attendance numbers, athletic budgets, facilities, OOC scheduling, records over the last five season, and bowl appearances over the last five seasons, it becomes clearer which programs should get those 21/22 spots. Of course even under these standards, some programs that are weak in an area or two will still be included. There are just not enough G5 programs to fill all of the spots with solid performers in each area.

Here are the programs that I think would have the best chance at making the cut of 85. And I'll be upfront about my choices. I do give a higher consideration to public universities with larger alumni bases. In my opinion, they just seem to have more access to resources, and greater potential for growth.

Without reading further, let me guess ... North Texas is on that list?

But it doesn't really matter who is or isn't on these lists because these discussions about cuts are IMO a pipe dream. Nobody currently in FBS is going to be "cut" by some higher authority. And that's because the highest authority, the major conferences, want the G5 teams around. To an Alabama or an Ohio State, it's wonderful that some MAC or whatever school is willing to soak its students for $25 million in fees each year so it can puff out its chest and pretend it is a "big time" university because it is somehow tangentially in the same football category, thus allowing the real big time schools to play and beat them for full credit.

Basically, at Eastern Michigan, students are paying about $1,000 each per year for the "privilege" of being able to occasionally schedule and get beat by Michigan or whoever. That's a dream situation for Michigan.

In the past, they have, a couple of times, raised the standards once the top division gets too much bigger than 100.

That's what they will do, raise the cost of staying. Actual cost of attendance was the first step. They may raise the financial aid and scholarship requirements at some point, but the P5 seems content for now to simply outspend everyone else.
02-02-2019 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,813
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 10:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 08:06 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:10 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

North Texas was not a program that was even mentioned in the article. Nor should it have been. The Mean Green have been to four bowls in the last 5 seasons, and averaged over 23,000 fans per game last season. We are on the upswing. If you really want me to create a list of 40 to 45 teams that could/should be removed from the FBS, I can do that.

Cutting to 85 only provides room for like 22 G5 programs.

The entire AAC is probably in one would figure. Then BYU/Army. That is 14 right there.

At least 8 programs in the MWC are worthy, if not the whole conference.

I don't see where there is room for UNT and they would be behind So Miss, Marshall, AState and a few others listed in the article for making that type of cut. Not enough history and a glut of Texas schools hurts.

You are mistaken. Not every program in the AAC or MWC deserves to be in the 85. If there was a cut off at 85 programs, those 21 or 22 spots in the FBS should go to programs that have the best combinations of resources, commitment to playing at the FBS level, and on the field success. If you look at attendance numbers, athletic budgets, facilities, OOC scheduling, records over the last five season, and bowl appearances over the last five seasons, it becomes clearer which programs should get those 21/22 spots. Of course even under these standards, some programs that are weak in an area or two will still be included. There are just not enough G5 programs to fill all of the spots with solid performers in each area.

Here are the programs that I think would have the best chance at making the cut of 85. And I'll be upfront about my choices. I do give a higher consideration to public universities with larger alumni bases. In my opinion, they just seem to have more access to resources, and greater potential for growth.

Without reading further, let me guess ... North Texas is on that list?

But it doesn't really matter who is or isn't on these lists because these discussions about cuts are IMO a pipe dream. Nobody currently in FBS is going to be "cut" by some higher authority. And that's because the highest authority, the major conferences, want the G5 teams around. To an Alabama or an Ohio State, it's wonderful that some MAC or whatever school is willing to soak its students for $25 million in fees each year so it can puff out its chest and pretend it is a "big time" university because it is somehow tangentially in the same football category, thus allowing the real big time schools to play and beat them for full credit.

Basically, at Eastern Michigan, students are paying about $1,000 each per year for the "privilege" of being able to occasionally schedule and get beat by Michigan or whoever. That's a dream situation for Michigan.

Exactly. Has VCU, another commuter school, been hurt by not having football? Being near Detroit, EMU should have a strong basketball program. They have at times in the past. Unlike in the west, there are a lot of conference alternatives in the midwest and east.
02-02-2019 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,656
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 56
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The trim FBS people cannot articulate any real reason to trim it and no one who understands how the intercollegiate economy works would expect the P5 to harm themselves by trimming G5 away.

Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

They would also have lost $450,000 per year from their multimedia rights guarantee with Learfield sports by dropping to FCS. They estimated a loss of almost $400,000 from ticket sales, primarily due to the loss of their annual home game with either New Mexico or UTEP. FBS Independents also get a little over $300,000 from CFP revenue.

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

If the writer of the article just did a little research he would have found that the information is out there on each school. It might not tell you that they looked at dropping down to FCS, but it will certainly tell you why they would not drop down.
02-02-2019 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,813
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
A number of them should just drop football entirely. As did a large number of schools in the 70s (mostly midwest) and 80s (mostly west).
02-02-2019 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,402
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 472
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #71
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 04:09 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The trim FBS people cannot articulate any real reason to trim it and no one who understands how the intercollegiate economy works would expect the P5 to harm themselves by trimming G5 away.

Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

They would also have lost $450,000 per year from their multimedia rights guarantee with Learfield sports by dropping to FCS. They estimated a loss of almost $400,000 from ticket sales, primarily due to the loss of their annual home game with either New Mexico or UTEP. FBS Independents also get a little over $300,000 from CFP revenue.

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

If the writer of the article just did a little research he would have found that the information is out there on each school. It might not tell you that they looked at dropping down to FCS, but it will certainly tell you why they would not drop down.

It also tells us why so many FCS schools have chosen to move up to FBS. The only surprise is why Idaho dropped down. It not only doesn't cost anything to move up, it does cost a school which elects to stay in FCS.

Now, if every FCS school were to decide to move up (an option which isn't currently available) then the economics would change. The CFP money currently available to G5 schools is a fixed pool. It won't grow if the number of schools grows. And if there were a virtually infinite pool of teams the P5 could play a buy game against to qualify for a bowl, the price for those games would plummet.

Unless the cost of belonging to the FBS were to increase dramatically (and I don't mean optional costs like full cost of attendance or any other tweaks to the amounts players can be paid to play) we will continue to increase the competitive imbalance we have now.
02-02-2019 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,091
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 280
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #72
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 10:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 08:06 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:10 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

North Texas was not a program that was even mentioned in the article. Nor should it have been. The Mean Green have been to four bowls in the last 5 seasons, and averaged over 23,000 fans per game last season. We are on the upswing. If you really want me to create a list of 40 to 45 teams that could/should be removed from the FBS, I can do that.

Cutting to 85 only provides room for like 22 G5 programs.

The entire AAC is probably in one would figure. Then BYU/Army. That is 14 right there.

At least 8 programs in the MWC are worthy, if not the whole conference.

I don't see where there is room for UNT and they would be behind So Miss, Marshall, AState and a few others listed in the article for making that type of cut. Not enough history and a glut of Texas schools hurts.

You are mistaken. Not every program in the AAC or MWC deserves to be in the 85. If there was a cut off at 85 programs, those 21 or 22 spots in the FBS should go to programs that have the best combinations of resources, commitment to playing at the FBS level, and on the field success. If you look at attendance numbers, athletic budgets, facilities, OOC scheduling, records over the last five season, and bowl appearances over the last five seasons, it becomes clearer which programs should get those 21/22 spots. Of course even under these standards, some programs that are weak in an area or two will still be included. There are just not enough G5 programs to fill all of the spots with solid performers in each area.

Here are the programs that I think would have the best chance at making the cut of 85. And I'll be upfront about my choices. I do give a higher consideration to public universities with larger alumni bases. In my opinion, they just seem to have more access to resources, and greater potential for growth.

Without reading further, let me guess ... North Texas is on that list?

But it doesn't really matter who is or isn't on these lists because these discussions about cuts are IMO a pipe dream. Nobody currently in FBS is going to be "cut" by some higher authority. And that's because the highest authority, the major conferences, want the G5 teams around. To an Alabama or an Ohio State, it's wonderful that some MAC or whatever school is willing to soak its students for $25 million in fees each year so it can puff out its chest and pretend it is a "big time" university because it is somehow tangentially in the same football category, thus allowing the real big time schools to play and beat them for full credit.

Basically, at Eastern Michigan, students are paying about $1,000 each per year for the "privilege" of being able to occasionally schedule and get beat by Michigan or whoever. That's a dream situation for Michigan.

It has been done before, and due to the growing number of FBS programs it will happen again... probably within a few seasons. In my opinion, every G5 is in a race to maneuver their program into the best competitive and financial position before the next reorganization occurs.
02-02-2019 06:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,813
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 05:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 04:09 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

They would also have lost $450,000 per year from their multimedia rights guarantee with Learfield sports by dropping to FCS. They estimated a loss of almost $400,000 from ticket sales, primarily due to the loss of their annual home game with either New Mexico or UTEP. FBS Independents also get a little over $300,000 from CFP revenue.

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

If the writer of the article just did a little research he would have found that the information is out there on each school. It might not tell you that they looked at dropping down to FCS, but it will certainly tell you why they would not drop down.

It also tells us why so many FCS schools have chosen to move up to FBS. The only surprise is why Idaho dropped down. It not only doesn't cost anything to move up, it does cost a school which elects to stay in FCS.

Now, if every FCS school were to decide to move up (an option which isn't currently available) then the economics would change. The CFP money currently available to G5 schools is a fixed pool. It won't grow if the number of schools grows. And if there were a virtually infinite pool of teams the P5 could play a buy game against to qualify for a bowl, the price for those games would plummet.

Unless the cost of belonging to the FBS were to increase dramatically (and I don't mean optional costs like full cost of attendance or any other tweaks to the amounts players can be paid to play) we will continue to increase the competitive imbalance we have now.

22 extra men's scholarships. An equivalent number of women's scholarships, probably requiring at least one new women's sport. 16 total sports instead of 14. Significantly increased head coach and assistant coach salaries. Significant upgrade for training facilities and stadium.

Doesn't cost anything?

And if you are successful in FCS and struggle in FBS, attendance can go down. I suspect Montana and Montana St. would lose significantly if they moved up.
02-02-2019 06:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,042
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 765
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #74
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 04:09 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The trim FBS people cannot articulate any real reason to trim it and no one who understands how the intercollegiate economy works would expect the P5 to harm themselves by trimming G5 away.

Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

.....

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

Remember, in many cases, these panels and committees are put together by elites that want to see a particular answer - stay in FBS. That can color the kinds of assumptions that go into these analyses.

IIRC, NMSU elites made a 2013 "commitment" to FBS before it did any studies, so it's not surprising that a 2015 panel would come back with a pro-FBS result. E.g., in the study you quote, i think the panel assumed that as an FCS they would get no money from "money games", even though FCS teams can play money games too.

That's before we even consider that playing money games is a pretty sad-sack reason for being FBS: "Hey, why do we have an FBS football team? So we can make a million bucks to get beat up at Texas!"

It's really not a surprise that elite administrators almost always favor having big bloated athletic programs. It's in their personal interest to do so even if it is at odds with the school they currently work for.

E.g. if you are the President or AD at a school like NMSU or EMU, do you want them to drop down to FCS on your watch? Even if that is actually great for EMU, it is likely to look terrible on your resume, because for an admin at EMU, a move up means a move to a P5 school, and a P5 school is going to hate seeing that.

IIRC, about 5 years ago when EMU was really struggling and the HBO report on their athletic finances came out, EMU had a brand-new AD, and she vigorously defended keeping EMU football FBS and in the MAC. In 2017, she left EMU to take the the AD job at Pittsburgh. That had to be a banner day for her, a move from a struggling directional MAC school to a venerable ACC member. I bet her salary went up hugely and her career is now made.

Now, even if cutting EMU football entirely or dropping to FCS was best for EMU (less than a year after she left for Pitt, EMU announced it was cutting 4 other sports to help the budget), do you think there's any chance at all she gets the Pitt job if EMU had cut football or dropped to FCS on her watch? Not a chance, because schools like Pitt are always looking to expand athletics, not cut them.

So the pro-FBS position of G5 admins has to be viewed with skepticism.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2019 07:38 PM by quo vadis.)
02-02-2019 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,777
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 177
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 09:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 08:06 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:10 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 09:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I disagree. Rice has the finances to be a player in the FBS if they ever choose to commit the resources to that end. UTEP has a long history in the FBS and they are the only game in El Paso. When they turn it around, they will fill their stands again. Texas State has posted a 4-20 record over the last 3 seasons. How is that really any better than what Rice and UTEP have done?

Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

North Texas was not a program that was even mentioned in the article. Nor should it have been. The Mean Green have been to four bowls in the last 5 seasons, and averaged over 23,000 fans per game last season. We are on the upswing. If you really want me to create a list of 40 to 45 teams that could/should be removed from the FBS, I can do that.

Cutting to 85 only provides room for like 22 G5 programs.

The entire AAC is probably in one would figure. Then BYU/Army. That is 14 right there.

At least 8 programs in the MWC are worthy, if not the whole conference.

I don't see where there is room for UNT and they would be behind So Miss, Marshall, AState and a few others listed in the article for making that type of cut. Not enough history and a glut of Texas schools hurts.

My 85 divided up into conferences:

Aac7
Army, Navy, lv

Independent: Notre Dame

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Arizona St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona
East: Nebraska, Iowa St, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St
South: Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
*Arizona and Arizona St switch divisions annually

SEC
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
South: Alabama, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Tennessee
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
North: Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, Miami
*South and East divisions lined up by permanent cross-division rivalries
*Divided so each division has a Texas or Florida presence

B1G
West: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
North: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St
East: Pittsburgh, Penn St, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College
South: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest

AAC
West: San Diego St, Fresno St, Boise St, Utah, BYU, Colorado St, Air Force, New Mexico
Central: Tulsa, SMU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Navy
East: Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Louisville, Cincinnati, Temple, Connecticut, Army

Total by current conference:
PAC - 12
XII - 10
SEC - 14
B1G - 14
ACC - 14
AAC - 12
MWC - 6
IND - 3

I would replace Tulsa and Tulane with UNR and Hawaii. I would consider Toledo, Buffalo and Northern Illinois as the better WAC candidates. Southern Mississippi and Marshall with Arkansas State, Troy, Appalachian State and Georgia Southern. The P5 would want to keep Hawaii as one of the 85 for the 13th game.
02-02-2019 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,777
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 177
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 06:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 05:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 04:09 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

They would also have lost $450,000 per year from their multimedia rights guarantee with Learfield sports by dropping to FCS. They estimated a loss of almost $400,000 from ticket sales, primarily due to the loss of their annual home game with either New Mexico or UTEP. FBS Independents also get a little over $300,000 from CFP revenue.

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

If the writer of the article just did a little research he would have found that the information is out there on each school. It might not tell you that they looked at dropping down to FCS, but it will certainly tell you why they would not drop down.

It also tells us why so many FCS schools have chosen to move up to FBS. The only surprise is why Idaho dropped down. It not only doesn't cost anything to move up, it does cost a school which elects to stay in FCS.

Now, if every FCS school were to decide to move up (an option which isn't currently available) then the economics would change. The CFP money currently available to G5 schools is a fixed pool. It won't grow if the number of schools grows. And if there were a virtually infinite pool of teams the P5 could play a buy game against to qualify for a bowl, the price for those games would plummet.

Unless the cost of belonging to the FBS were to increase dramatically (and I don't mean optional costs like full cost of attendance or any other tweaks to the amounts players can be paid to play) we will continue to increase the competitive imbalance we have now.

22 extra men's scholarships. An equivalent number of women's scholarships, probably requiring at least one new women's sport. 16 total sports instead of 14. Significantly increased head coach and assistant coach salaries. Significant upgrade for training facilities and stadium.

Doesn't cost anything?

And if you are successful in FCS and struggle in FBS, attendance can go down. I suspect Montana and Montana St. would lose significantly if they moved up.


Or they could be winners like Troy, Boise State, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Marshall and Western Kentucky.
Only Charlotte and Georgia State are the weakest ones that moved up. We know Montana and Montana State both are better than those 2 and maybe Liberty and South Alabama.
02-02-2019 07:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 04:09 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

.....

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

Remember, in many cases, these panels and committees are put together by elites that want to see a particular answer - stay in FBS. That can color the kinds of assumptions that go into these analyses.

IIRC, NMSU elites made a 2013 "commitment" to FBS before it did any studies, so it's not surprising that a 2015 panel would come back with a pro-FBS result. E.g., in the study you quote, i think the panel assumed that as an FCS they would get no money from "money games", even though FCS teams can play money games too.

That's before we even consider that playing money games is a pretty sad-sack reason for being FBS: "Hey, why do we have an FBS football team? So we can make a million bucks to get beat up at Texas!"

It's really not a surprise that elite administrators almost always favor having big bloated athletic programs. It's in their personal interest to do so even if it is at odds with the school they currently work for.

E.g. if you are the President or AD at a school like NMSU or EMU, do you want them to drop down to FCS on your watch? Even if that is actually great for EMU, it is likely to look terrible on your resume, because for an admin at EMU, a move up means a move to a P5 school, and a P5 school is going to hate seeing that.

IIRC, about 5 years ago when EMU was really struggling and the HBO report on their athletic finances came out, EMU had a brand-new AD, and she vigorously defended keeping EMU football FBS and in the MAC. In 2017, she left EMU to take the the AD job at Pittsburgh. That had to be a banner day for her, a move from a struggling directional MAC school to a venerable ACC member. I bet her salary went up hugely and her career is now made.

Now, even if cutting EMU football entirely or dropping to FCS was best for EMU (less than a year after she left for Pitt, EMU announced it was cutting 4 other sports to help the budget), do you think there's any chance at all she gets the Pitt job if EMU had cut football or dropped to FCS on her watch? Not a chance, because schools like Pitt are always looking to expand athletics, not cut them.

So the pro-FBS position of G5 admins has to be viewed with skepticism.

This is an excellent point. It is more valuable for an AD to be head of an FBS program rather than an FCS one.

The numbers you throw about though on FB being a 25 million dollar sinkhole at EMU are not right. Football is only a portion of the cost and pulling in all the revenue. It's just that FB doesnt make enough to subsidize the entire athletic department like it is with B1G membership.
02-02-2019 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,777
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 177
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
Adding more schools to FBS status also could give more inventory for the Networks. That also brings in the most money for them. I rather want to see a Boise State vs North Dakota State game over a Boise State against San Jose State. People would want to see a James Madison U. in C-USA instead of Charlotte.
02-02-2019 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,813
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 04:09 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

.....

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

Remember, in many cases, these panels and committees are put together by elites that want to see a particular answer - stay in FBS. That can color the kinds of assumptions that go into these analyses.

IIRC, NMSU elites made a 2013 "commitment" to FBS before it did any studies, so it's not surprising that a 2015 panel would come back with a pro-FBS result. E.g., in the study you quote, i think the panel assumed that as an FCS they would get no money from "money games", even though FCS teams can play money games too.

That's before we even consider that playing money games is a pretty sad-sack reason for being FBS: "Hey, why do we have an FBS football team? So we can make a million bucks to get beat up at Texas!"

It's really not a surprise that elite administrators almost always favor having big bloated athletic programs. It's in their personal interest to do so even if it is at odds with the school they currently work for.

E.g. if you are the President or AD at a school like NMSU or EMU, do you want them to drop down to FCS on your watch? Even if that is actually great for EMU, it is likely to look terrible on your resume, because for an admin at EMU, a move up means a move to a P5 school, and a P5 school is going to hate seeing that.

IIRC, about 5 years ago when EMU was really struggling and the HBO report on their athletic finances came out, EMU had a brand-new AD, and she vigorously defended keeping EMU football FBS and in the MAC. In 2017, she left EMU to take the the AD job at Pittsburgh. That had to be a banner day for her, a move from a struggling directional MAC school to a venerable ACC member. I bet her salary went up hugely and her career is now made.

Now, even if cutting EMU football entirely or dropping to FCS was best for EMU (less than a year after she left for Pitt, EMU announced it was cutting 4 other sports to help the budget), do you think there's any chance at all she gets the Pitt job if EMU had cut football or dropped to FCS on her watch? Not a chance, because schools like Pitt are always looking to expand athletics, not cut them.

So the pro-FBS position of G5 admins has to be viewed with skepticism.

If you know anything about how these studies are done, you are always skeptical. The "experts" usually know the desired answer and try to fit it into their analysis.

Now Rice did a good thorough, fair study a few years back. That one came to the conclusion that their only real choices were stay in CUSA or go to Division III. And in Division III they would have more travel since they would join the UAA which stretches from St. Louis to Atlanta to New York.
02-02-2019 11:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,656
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 56
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Which teams should leave FBS?
(02-02-2019 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, in many cases, these panels and committees are put together by elites that want to see a particular answer - stay in FBS. That can color the kinds of assumptions that go into these analyses.

IIRC, NMSU elites made a 2013 "commitment" to FBS before it did any studies, so it's not surprising that a 2015 panel would come back with a pro-FBS result. E.g., in the study you quote, i think the panel assumed that as an FCS they would get no money from "money games", even though FCS teams can play money games too.

That's before we even consider that playing money games is a pretty sad-sack reason for being FBS: "Hey, why do we have an FBS football team? So we can make a million bucks to get beat up at Texas!"

It's really not a surprise that elite administrators almost always favor having big bloated athletic programs. It's in their personal interest to do so even if it is at odds with the school they currently work for.

E.g. if you are the President or AD at a school like NMSU or EMU, do you want them to drop down to FCS on your watch? Even if that is actually great for EMU, it is likely to look terrible on your resume, because for an admin at EMU, a move up means a move to a P5 school, and a P5 school is going to hate seeing that.

IIRC, about 5 years ago when EMU was really struggling and the HBO report on their athletic finances came out, EMU had a brand-new AD, and she vigorously defended keeping EMU football FBS and in the MAC. In 2017, she left EMU to take the the AD job at Pittsburgh. That had to be a banner day for her, a move from a struggling directional MAC school to a venerable ACC member. I bet her salary went up hugely and her career is now made.

Now, even if cutting EMU football entirely or dropping to FCS was best for EMU (less than a year after she left for Pitt, EMU announced it was cutting 4 other sports to help the budget), do you think there's any chance at all she gets the Pitt job if EMU had cut football or dropped to FCS on her watch? Not a chance, because schools like Pitt are always looking to expand athletics, not cut them.

So the pro-FBS position of G5 admins has to be viewed with skepticism.

The Athletic Review Committee made the decision based on the numbers and their geography. It was unanimous, 18-0. The AD can only present the facts. He cannot convince every member to vote his way. Your assertion of pro-FBS bias of G5 admins is not based on anything other than speculation and the evidence is the committee made their decision based on the numbers.

In 2013, both Idaho and NMSU were invited to join the Sun Belt in March of 2013, five months before the 2013 season started:

https://sunbeltsports.org/news/2013/3/27...th=general

There was $6 million in BCS money that was distributed to the WAC that was available to the teams that stayed in the WAC for the 2013-2014 season. Idaho and NMSU stayed in the WAC and split the money. It also made sense for both to go independent for at least one season to see if an opening came up and it did.

The money games are a big reason to move up to FBS. I actually think it is great. EMU got paid $860,000 to beat Rutgers in 2017. They got paid $550,000 to beat Purdue in 2018, the same Purdue team that crushed Ohio State. It is not hard to figure out why they would not want to move down to FCS.

The NMSU study mentioned that less money was given to FCS schools and that some conferences were considering cutting out games with FCS schools. As an example of the money, Western Carolina will play Alabama in 2019 and get $525,000. NMSU will play Alabama and get $1.7 million. NMSU will get $1.9 million for their game against Alabama in 2021. The numbers don't lie.

I will give you this. No FBS Athletic Director wants to lead his school from the FBS to the FCS. It will not exactly enhance your career. That is the reason the decision is not the Athletic Director's alone. At NMSU, it was believed that the Chancellor was open to dropping down to FCS. That is why an Athletic Review Committee was required to get to the best decision for their school.
02-03-2019 12:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.