(08-16-2019 12:33 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 11:30 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  In basketball, by conference RPI in 2018-2019, the WAC was ranked #16 and the Summit #27 out of 32 conferences. The WAC won the head-to-head challenge with the Summit, 9-4. The WAC conference RPI ranking in 2017-2018 was #15 and in 2016-2017 was #17. So the conference has established in the past three seasons that it is about in the middle of the 32 conferences.

By Net ranking, NMSU was #40, UVU #90 and GCU #96 last season. The Summit did not have a school in the top 100. By RPI ranking, NMSU was # 43 and UVU #67. The Summit did not have a school in the top 100. Sure, the WAC has the benefit of having NMSU, but they also have the burden of Chicago State. Last season, Chicago State was ranked #353 in Net ranking, which was dead last in D1 college basketball.

Yes, they had a good year last year as a conference, while the Summit had a bad one. I don't think anyone can dispute that. Most of the time they're around the same level, and that's with the well-financed and well-supported FBS school the WAC gets.

Quote:Look at the upside of some of the programs in the WAC. There is nothing close to GCU in the Summit. GCU had a basketball budget of $5.3 million in 2017-2018. GCU averaged 7,170 fans per game in the 12th largest TV market in the country. Denver had the largest basketball expense budget in the Summit in 2017-2018 at $2.5 million. The only other school over $2 million in the Summit was Oral Roberts. Omaha had a basketball budget in 2017-2018 of $1.2 million.

Okay? Again, why would Denver want to compete with that? Their basketball program hasn't exactly been its strong suit, and GCU just came off of being a for-profit school. The city of Denver's not exactly known for its strong support of college teams, either.

Quote:CBU was the only school to beat NMSU in the WAC last season and they are only going to get better. They are the one school in the WAC that can keep up with GCU financially:

https://cbulancers.com/news/2019/7/9/gen...erway.aspx

"The APC will include a 10,800-square-foot weight room, the largest of the NCAA Division I non-football institutions in the state of California. The project will also include a dedicated nutrition space, a basketball practice court and a six-lane, 30-yard training area among other features." CBU has the advantage of being in the 2nd largest TV market in the country and in a market that is loaded with athletic talent.

Seattle is the school that is most like Denver in either conference. They had a $2.9 million basketball budget in 2017-2018. Both Denver and Seattle are highly rated academically, both are private, both have law schools. Seattle is in the #13 TV market in the country.

GCU, CBU and Seattle are private, western schools in big markets. Denver has the largest market in the Summit. They would be #5 in the WAC. Denver does not have anyone on their men's basketball roster from the west. No one from Colorado, California, Arizona, Washington. For a western school, that is ridiculous. Denver is not going to get into the WCC playing in the Summit. They need to recruit in the west and win in basketball. GCU, CBU and Seattle are all in a better position to get a bid an invite from the WCC, if one ever occurs. Denver has alumni chapters in Southern California, Phoenix and Seattle. The "Island of Misfit Toys" phrase really only applies to Chicago State and even Chicago has a alumni chapter for Denver.

If facilities meant wins Nebraska would have won a tournament game under Tim Miles, and markets don't matter at all at this level because neither conference will see any regular season games broadcast nationwide outside of ESPN3. You need a pre-built nationwide fanbase for markets to matter to you, like say, the Big Ten does. Otherwise market ratings are just meaningless numbers. I can guarantee that Washington State basketball gets more interest in the Seattle region than SU does, despite the campus being hundreds of miles away. I also wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of Seattle's basketball budget involved them having to fly down to the Mexican border for most of their conference away games.

Denver's bread and butter as an institution is being a prestigious pre-law and law school. They disproportionately serve the Northeast, which is why they've been able to have the lacrosse success they've had. The school itself generally doesn't look west for its student body, unlike the other schools in the area.

NMSU is a misfit because they're way too well-off and successful for their conference mates, and they really should be in the MWC, but politics are keeping them out. SU is a misfit because again, the WAC is a border-centric conference, and they're up by the wrong border. They should be WCC, but politics are keeping them out. UTRGV is basically on the Gulf Coast, stuck on a geographic island in the Central time zone. They'd be a better fit for the Southland, but the Southland's full, so they're stuck on an island. Again, a misfit. The WAC is still a conference of mismatched parts. There's more to it than Chicago State being a dumpster fire of an institution. I think there are the pieces for a cohesive conference here, GCU being a big one, but right now? It's not.

Quote:As for men's soccer, the WAC has received two bids in the last in 3 of the last 4 seasons to the NCAA tournament. In 2017, Seattle and Air Force both went to the tournament. In 2018, GCU and Air Force were both invited. In 2015, Seattle won the WAC and UVU got an at-large bid to the tournament. UNLV won the title in 2016. Denver has a good men's soccer team but they would face tougher competition in the WAC, which would make the WAC and Denver better.

Denver's a consistent top 25 team in soccer. They made the Sweet 16 in 2015 and the NCAA finals in 2016. They'll be fine wherever they go. Still, moving to a conference with steeper competition would be a bit of a dice roll. Right now they can make the NCAAs on an off year if Omaha doesn't field a good team either. They wouldn't get the same chance in the WAC.

I can guarantee that Washington State basketball gets more interest in the Seattle region than SU does, despite the campus being hundreds of miles away.

This isn't true at all. WSU basketball hasn't had much of a following in Seattle since Tony Bennet left to take over Virginia and even still it wasn't much hype.

the class demographics for denver are interesting. i'm sure the men's lacrosse program is disproportionately drawn from the mid atlantic and northeast as those are traditional hot beds for lacrosse but Denver's lacrosse success is because they hired a legendary coach.

Mav, you said the WAC was a "downgrade and a "bad fit" for Denver. I pointed out that:

1. The WAC has had a higher RPI than the Summit in basketball for the past three seasons. So the fact is it is not really a downgrade in basketball.
2. The WAC is a western conference and the headquarters are in Denver. How is that a bad fit?

NMSU is not a well-financed and well-supported FBS school.

3. NMSU plays FBS football because of money games. They will make $3.8 million on three money games in 2019. That pays for the rest of the athletic department. Without the money games, they would be hurting.
4. NMSU has the third largest basketball budget behind GCU and Seattle. CBU will move NMSU to 4th eventually. GCU has a basketball budget that is almost $3 million larger than NMSU, annually.

Budgets, facilities and markets equate to potential. It does not guarantee success, but it does help. The WAC is a western conference with six western schools. If you are in the west, you are a fit. Seattle is not a bus trip for anyone, but neither is Gonzaga for the WCC. I don't hear any complaining about Gonzaga. UTRGV is an Olympic sports school and there is not room for another Olympic sports school in a football conference like the SLC. The closest Olympic sports league is the WAC.

Look, you obviously want Denver in the Summit. If they are afraid to compete against NMSU and other schools in the WAC, then they should stay there. Let's not pretend that they may someday get into the WCC. They would have to compete against schools like Gonzaga, BYU and St. Mary's. They don't bring baseball, they don't win in basketball and they cannot recruit basketball players in the west. They should stay in the Dakota league.

(08-15-2019 11:48 PM)Todor Wrote:  Main takeaway here-- Denver is a misfit.

If the Pioneers were 1200 or more miles further east or 1200 or so miles further west, they would have a number of really good options finding a conference that is a fit for their profile and self-identity.

Absent the school packing up and moving or a sudden rise of Division I non-football private liberal arts colleges near the front range, finding a fit is always going to be a challenge.

As one former Sun Belt AD once said of them, if they were in Nashville, or Atlanta or Jackson they would be a great fit and our president would have their back, but they are in Denver.

Incidentally, D3 Colorado College is also a misfit, playing in an almost entirely Texas based league. Johnson and Wales Denver played as an Indy for all of their time as the only NAIA school for hundreds of miles before eventually joining CCs conference and joining D3. Tough location for small private schools.

But to stay in topic and address the ridiculous notion proposed about the Summit potentially falling apart because of Auguatana--one word-- No.

Well, what a very entertaining thread for this Denver fan...

As someone who posts here and writes regularly on the LetsGODU blog, I can say with relative certainly that while I did not write that particular blog article on Augustana, I agree with the major points it makes. Augustana would be a serious drag on the Summit brand, and is precisely the kind of school that most of the Summit League schools went D-I to get away from, and the Sanford Health aspects of the story are also somewhat uncomfortable from where we sit in Denver.

That said, DU probably isn't going anywhere. It just that some of our die-hard fans don't like where the Summit is going or how it's being led, and it's hard to blame them. LetsGODU is very much a fan blog written by (and followed by) the die hard element of the Denver fan base. It is not an official school position - it does not speak for DU at all. My guess is most of the DU coaches and administrators are probably fine with being in the Summit League, given that there are no real new conference alternatives for us at this point. The WAC is a conference DU left already in 2013, the WCC doesn't want us, nor does anyone else for that matter. With our relatively remote location requiring a jet ride for most opponents and our unusual sports mix, our fans know very well that we are very much a misfit for just about any conference. We play in a primary conference that is well out of driving distance of our campus, and our non-Summit sports are in playing in four other different conference affiliations spread across three time zones (Big 12 (Gymnastics), Big East (Lacrosse), RMISA (Skiing) and NCHC (ice hockey).

We're kind of a Patriot League type of private school that happens to be located in Colorado, and as such, our fan base will always be small and stuck in one of the most oversaturated sports markets in the country, with eight pro teams (MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS, NLL, MLL, AHL) and four larger public D-I football schools (CU, CSU, Air Force and UNC) within an hour of Denver who split up most of the remaining media coverage.

Sure, DU could probably raise the money to change our sports mix (add football, baseball, track and softball) to get into a more regional conference like the Mountain West. But having to fund that effort would quickly starve/kill off the very sports where DU is already a national power - hockey, lacrosse, gymnastics and skiing - sports that are funded at or near the top of those respective sports. To me it isn't worth throwing away the traditions, the sellout crowds or our 33 NCAA D-I titles just to become an also-ran in more popular sports.

(08-16-2019 05:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Mav, you said the WAC was a "downgrade and a "bad fit" for Denver. I pointed out that:

1. The WAC has had a higher RPI than the Summit in basketball for the past three seasons. So the fact is it is not really a downgrade in basketball.
2. The WAC is a western conference and the headquarters are in Denver. How is that a bad fit?

NMSU is not a well-financed and well-supported FBS school.

3. NMSU plays FBS football because of money games. They will make $3.8 million on three money games in 2019. That pays for the rest of the athletic department. Without the money games, they would be hurting.
4. NMSU has the third largest basketball budget behind GCU and Seattle. CBU will move NMSU to 4th eventually. GCU has a basketball budget that is almost $3 million larger than NMSU, annually.

Budgets, facilities and markets equate to potential. It does not guarantee success, but it does help. The WAC is a western conference with six western schools. If you are in the west, you are a fit. Seattle is not a bus trip for anyone, but neither is Gonzaga for the WCC. I don't hear any complaining about Gonzaga. UTRGV is an Olympic sports school and there is not room for another Olympic sports school in a football conference like the SLC. The closest Olympic sports league is the WAC.

Look, you obviously want Denver in the Summit. If they are afraid to compete against NMSU and other schools in the WAC, then they should stay there. Let's not pretend that they may someday get into the WCC. They would have to compete against schools like Gonzaga, BYU and St. Mary's. They don't bring baseball, they don't win in basketball and they cannot recruit basketball players in the west. They should stay in the Dakota league.

I love SoCalBobcat78's accounting skills. He can turn a $1 investment into 50 cents fast.

FBS football at NMSU cost $7,563,062 last year, plus most of the $272,515 on Men's teams recruiting was football (say $180K).

Note all team sports other than football and basketball was $7,329,875 plus $4,081,967 for men's and women's basketball. Based on this nearly equal split, we can assign about 40% of the $5,837,513 "not allocated by sport/gender" to Football (Football budget being 40% of the total team allocated costs as well) or $2,335,005.

So the total cost of Football is about $10.1M according to equity in Athletics report to the US Department of Education last year. In 2018 the school got $3M in contributions and ticket sales (all sports) and $3.6M in rights and licensing and $2.7M in other (revenue games add, purchased opponents subtract, etc). So total non support revenue was about $9.3M, and not all of that was Football. So Football definitely costs more than it brings in. It's not adding $1 to other sports.

You can see that in the equity in athletics report. If the revenue for a sport is equal to the expenses, that means it almost certainly lost money, requiring funds be transferred to make the balance sheet zero. For NMSU both "revenue" (which includes transferred funds) and expenses were $7,563,062. So it lost money.

But you can see it in the department totals. Besides $3,338,420 in student fees (which I never have an issue with, since its on the students, all 9,661 of them at about $350 each), the President of the school cut a check for $13,683,457. After 2017-18 he cut a check for $13,418,234, after 2016-17 one for $14,910,343, and after 2015-16 one for $14,782,682.

Obviously Football is not paying for Athletics, the tax payer is via the University President's annual check writing. Over the last ten years $150,416,481 has been transferred to the Athletic department. (That comes out to about $6000 per full time student for a four year education at NMSU).

So let's be honest. $3.8M in revenue games (offset by $500K to bring in an FCS victim) might marginally make Football in the black for one year. But it's not paying for other sports, and has not ever.

(08-16-2019 10:18 PM)puck swami Wrote:  Well, what a very entertaining thread for this Denver fan...

As someone who posts here and writes regularly on the LetsGODU blog, I can say with relative certainly that while I did not write that particular blog article on Augustana, I agree with the major points it makes. Augustana would be a serious drag on the Summit brand, and is precisely the kind of school that most of the Summit League schools went D-I to get away from, and the Sanford Health aspects of the story are also somewhat uncomfortable from where we sit in Denver.

That said, DU probably isn't going anywhere. It just that some of our die-hard fans don't like where the Summit is going or how it's being led, and it's hard to blame them. LetsGODU is very much a fan blog written by (and followed by) the die hard element of the Denver fan base. It is not an official school position - it does not speak for DU at all. My guess is most of the DU coaches and administrators are probably fine with being in the Summit League, given that there are no real new conference alternatives for us at this point. The WAC is a conference DU left already in 2013, the WCC doesn't want us, nor does anyone else for that matter. With our relatively remote location requiring a jet ride for most opponents and our unusual sports mix, our fans know very well that we are very much a misfit for just about any conference. We play in a primary conference that is well out of driving distance of our campus, and our non-Summit sports are in playing in four other different conference affiliations spread across three time zones (Big 12 (Gymnastics), Big East (Lacrosse), RMISA (Skiing) and NCHC (ice hockey).

We're kind of a Patriot League type of private school that happens to be located in Colorado, and as such, our fan base will always be small and stuck in one of the most oversaturated sports markets in the country, with eight pro teams (MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS, NLL, MLL, AHL) and four larger public D-I football schools (CU, CSU, Air Force and UNC) within an hour of Denver who split up most of the remaining media coverage.

Sure, DU could probably raise the money to change our sports mix (add football, baseball, track and softball) to get into a more regional conference like the Mountain West. But having to fund that effort would quickly starve/kill off the very sports where DU is already a national power - hockey, lacrosse, gymnastics and skiing - sports that are funded at or near the top of those respective sports. To me it isn't worth throwing away the traditions, the sellout crowds or our 33 NCAA D-I titles just to become an also-ran in more popular sports.

Not suggesting this just curious if its possible.
I remember reading a D2 can have two D1 programs.
Could Denver be D1 in lacrosse and hockey and D2 in everything else?
Possibly have a Minnesota Duluth type set up.

(08-16-2019 11:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 05:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Mav, you said the WAC was a "downgrade and a "bad fit" for Denver. I pointed out that:

1. The WAC has had a higher RPI than the Summit in basketball for the past three seasons. So the fact is it is not really a downgrade in basketball.
2. The WAC is a western conference and the headquarters are in Denver. How is that a bad fit?

NMSU is not a well-financed and well-supported FBS school.

3. NMSU plays FBS football because of money games. They will make $3.8 million on three money games in 2019. That pays for the rest of the athletic department. Without the money games, they would be hurting.
4. NMSU has the third largest basketball budget behind GCU and Seattle. CBU will move NMSU to 4th eventually. GCU has a basketball budget that is almost $3 million larger than NMSU, annually.

Budgets, facilities and markets equate to potential. It does not guarantee success, but it does help. The WAC is a western conference with six western schools. If you are in the west, you are a fit. Seattle is not a bus trip for anyone, but neither is Gonzaga for the WCC. I don't hear any complaining about Gonzaga. UTRGV is an Olympic sports school and there is not room for another Olympic sports school in a football conference like the SLC. The closest Olympic sports league is the WAC.

Look, you obviously want Denver in the Summit. If they are afraid to compete against NMSU and other schools in the WAC, then they should stay there. Let's not pretend that they may someday get into the WCC. They would have to compete against schools like Gonzaga, BYU and St. Mary's. They don't bring baseball, they don't win in basketball and they cannot recruit basketball players in the west. They should stay in the Dakota league.

I love SoCalBobcat78's accounting skills. He can turn a $1 investment into 50 cents fast.

FBS football at NMSU cost $7,563,062 last year, plus most of the $272,515 on Men's teams recruiting was football (say $180K).

Note all team sports other than football and basketball was $7,329,875 plus $4,081,967 for men's and women's basketball. Based on this nearly equal split, we can assign about 40% of the $5,837,513 "not allocated by sport/gender" to Football (Football budget being 40% of the total team allocated costs as well) or $2,335,005.

So the total cost of Football is about $10.1M according to equity in Athletics report to the US Department of Education last year. In 2018 the school got $3M in contributions and ticket sales (all sports) and $3.6M in rights and licensing and $2.7M in other (revenue games add, purchased opponents subtract, etc). So total non support revenue was about $9.3M, and not all of that was Football. So Football definitely costs more than it brings in. It's not adding $1 to other sports.

You can see that in the equity in athletics report. If the revenue for a sport is equal to the expenses, that means it almost certainly lost money, requiring funds be transferred to make the balance sheet zero. For NMSU both "revenue" (which includes transferred funds) and expenses were $7,563,062. So it lost money.

But you can see it in the department totals. Besides $3,338,420 in student fees (which I never have an issue with, since its on the students, all 9,661 of them at about $350 each), the President of the school cut a check for $13,683,457. After 2017-18 he cut a check for $13,418,234, after 2016-17 one for $14,910,343, and after 2015-16 one for $14,782,682.

Obviously Football is not paying for Athletics, the tax payer is via the University President's annual check writing. Over the last ten years $150,416,481 has been transferred to the Athletic department. (That comes out to about $6000 per full time student for a four year education at NMSU).

So let's be honest. $3.8M in revenue games (offset by $500K to bring in an FCS victim) might marginally make Football in the black for one year. But it's paying for other sports, and has not ever.

Regardless of his football accounting skills he’s right about the WAC being a better basketball conference than the Summit and a better fit for Denver if its long-term goal is WCC membership.

Having said that, I don’t see Denver returning to the WAC in the foreseeable future because Denver views some schools in the WAC as institutionally incompatible.

(08-17-2019 10:46 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Not suggesting this just curious if its possible.
I remember reading a D2 can have two D1 programs.
Could Denver be D1 in lacrosse and hockey and D2 in everything else?
Possibly have a Minnesota Duluth type set up.

some info here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC...n_I_sports

I wonder if the unexpected St. Thomas situation couldn't become a big monkey wrench for Auggie's plans?

In other words, if STU got permission to go straight to D1, I think that more Summit schools would prefer STU over Auggie in the Summit for reasons listed in this thread (bigger school, more prestigious, better finances, opens up Minn to Summit, avoids over saturating the state of South Dakota, etc.)

I wonder if things aren't becoming more urgent in Sioux Falls to wrap this up before STU becomes available??

(08-16-2019 11:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I love SoCalBobcat78's accounting skills. He can turn a $1 investment into 50 cents fast.

FBS football at NMSU cost $7,563,062 last year, plus most of the $272,515 on Men's teams recruiting was football (say $180K).

Note all team sports other than football and basketball was $7,329,875 plus $4,081,967 for men's and women's basketball. Based on this nearly equal split, we can assign about 40% of the $5,837,513 "not allocated by sport/gender" to Football (Football budget being 40% of the total team allocated costs as well) or $2,335,005.

So the total cost of Football is about $10.1M according to equity in Athletics report to the US Department of Education last year. In 2018 the school got $3M in contributions and ticket sales (all sports) and $3.6M in rights and licensing and $2.7M in other (revenue games add, purchased opponents subtract, etc). So total non support revenue was about $9.3M, and not all of that was Football. So Football definitely costs more than it brings in. It's not adding $1 to other sports.

You can see that in the equity in athletics report. If the revenue for a sport is equal to the expenses, that means it almost certainly lost money, requiring funds be transferred to make the balance sheet zero. For NMSU both "revenue" (which includes transferred funds) and expenses were $7,563,062. So it lost money.

But you can see it in the department totals. Besides $3,338,420 in student fees (which I never have an issue with, since its on the students, all 9,661 of them at about $350 each), the President of the school cut a check for $13,683,457. After 2017-18 he cut a check for $13,418,234, after 2016-17 one for $14,910,343, and after 2015-16 one for $14,782,682.

Obviously Football is not paying for Athletics, the tax payer is via the University President's annual check writing. Over the last ten years $150,416,481 has been transferred to the Athletic department. (That comes out to about $6000 per full time student for a four year education at NMSU).

So let's be honest. $3.8M in revenue games (offset by $500K to bring in an FCS victim) might marginally make Football in the black for one year. But it's not paying for other sports, and has not ever.

Stu, you need to learn to understand budgets. The athletic budget was just over $18 million in 2017-2018. The $5,837,513 "not allocated by sport/gender" covers the following:

Athletic Director's salary, bonuses & benefits
Assistant Athletic Directors' salaries, bonuses & benefits
Salaries, bonuses & benefits for the athletic department support staff
Trainers' salaries, bonuses & benefits
General administrative overhead
Conference and NCAA dues
Costs for teams for which there were no participants (Start-up or Discontinued teams)
Any other expenses pertaining to varsity athletics, but not to a particular team

The football budget was $7.5 million, not $10 million. The $5.8 million is not part of the football budget. It is for AD salaries, administrative overhead, conference dues. Basic accounting and budgeting.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1261310/nmsu-...letes.html

The Aggie football team is slated to earn $3.8 million in revenue for guarantee games against Washington State ($600,000), Alabama ($1.7 million) and Mississippi ($1.5 million) in 2019.

“Right now football is earning an enormous amount of money and not seeing the direct benefit,” Moccia said. “One game is going to the annual debt payment. The other one goes to fund the department. Unfortunately when we are making up the budgets, we aren’t giving the sports enough to operate at a basic level, so they are forced to fund raise.”

So the football team is obviously giving to other athletic departments. They will give at least $2 million to the athletic department in 2019-2020. That is common with athletic departments. FBS guarantee game revenue is often used for other sports, especially the non-revenue sports.

(08-17-2019 10:46 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Not suggesting this just curious if its possible.
I remember reading a D2 can have two D1 programs.
Could Denver be D1 in lacrosse and hockey and D2 in everything else?
Possibly have a Minnesota Duluth type set up.

Even if they could do it, why would Denver want to do that? Denver has had the best non-football, D-I athletic program in the country for 11 of the past 12 years (NACDA Cups). Each year, DU usually gets 10-13 of its 17 sports programs into the respective NCAA tournaments, including several top 10 finishes - last year, hockey, skiing, and gymnastics were all top 5 finishes, women's lacrosse was top 8. Men's lacrosse is usually a perennial top 10 program, men's soccer made it to the 2016 College Cup, Volleyball has made 5 consecutive NCAA tournaments, etc.

When you consider the athletic budget of about $35 million, our remote location (requiring 85% jet travel in and out and playing in five different conferences), academic success (95% graduation rate for athletes) and the lack of scandals/arrests, no school delivers more for the athletic buck than DU does.

SoCalBobCat78,

The only reason NMSU plays football at FBS level is because UTEP and UNM play at that level. The football season is over for NMSU fans before September is out, and they are on to Basketball. NMSU is basically a Basketball school. But they need Football to play their rivals in Basketball. Without football there is a fair chance those rivalries vanish too.

But for you to claim it's a money maker is a complete joke. You are buying into the propaganda of the advocacy lobby, and the ridiculous accounting tricks played to make it look like it makes money, which is used by every program and it's supporters who earn their meal tickets from it. (And the active sports alumni who typically fund 10-15% of it, but think they find 110% of it).

(08-18-2019 01:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  SoCalBobCat78,

The only reason NMSU plays football at FBS level is because UTEP and UNM play at that level. The football season is over for NMSU fans before September is out, and they are on to Basketball. NMSU is basically a Basketball school. But they need Football to play their rivals in Basketball. Without football there is a fair chance those rivalries vanish too.

But for you to claim it's a money maker is a complete joke. You are buying into the propaganda of the advocacy lobby, and the ridiculous accounting tricks played to make it look like it makes money, which is used by every program and it's supporters who earn their meal tickets from it. (And the active sports alumni who typically fund 10-15% of it, but think they find 110% of it).

NMSU playing FBS is a little more nuanced than that. The Aggies are the frequent victim of realignment:

Abandoned by the Border Conference when the WAC was founded
Got taken in by a mismatch MVC—NCAA legislation in the early 80s caused the conference to lose DI-A status.
Jumped to the Big West. A bunch of that league bails for the WAC or disbands their programs. Big West ceases as a fb conference so they jump to the new SBC football program.
They finally get their WAC invite, the conference they wanted to join in 1962, and then the MWC, C-USA, and SBC gut the league 7 years later.

(08-18-2019 02:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 01:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  SoCalBobCat78,

The only reason NMSU plays football at FBS level is because UTEP and UNM play at that level. The football season is over for NMSU fans before September is out, and they are on to Basketball. NMSU is basically a Basketball school. But they need Football to play their rivals in Basketball. Without football there is a fair chance those rivalries vanish too.

But for you to claim it's a money maker is a complete joke. You are buying into the propaganda of the advocacy lobby, and the ridiculous accounting tricks played to make it look like it makes money, which is used by every program and it's supporters who earn their meal tickets from it. (And the active sports alumni who typically fund 10-15% of it, but think they find 110% of it).

NMSU playing FBS is a little more nuanced than that. The Aggies are the frequent victim of realignment:

Abandoned by the Border Conference when the WAC was founded
Got taken in by a mismatch MVC—NCAA legislation in the early 80s caused the conference to lose DI-A status.
Jumped to the Big West. A bunch of that league bails for the WAC or disbands their programs. Big West ceases as a fb conference so they jump to the new SBC football program.
They finally get their WAC invite, the conference they wanted to join in 1962, and then the MWC, C-USA, and SBC gut the league 7 years later.

I meant continue to play Football

(08-18-2019 02:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 01:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  SoCalBobCat78,

The only reason NMSU plays football at FBS level is because UTEP and UNM play at that level. The football season is over for NMSU fans before September is out, and they are on to Basketball. NMSU is basically a Basketball school. But they need Football to play their rivals in Basketball. Without football there is a fair chance those rivalries vanish too.

But for you to claim it's a money maker is a complete joke. You are buying into the propaganda of the advocacy lobby, and the ridiculous accounting tricks played to make it look like it makes money, which is used by every program and it's supporters who earn their meal tickets from it. (And the active sports alumni who typically fund 10-15% of it, but think they find 110% of it).

NMSU playing FBS is a little more nuanced than that. The Aggies are the frequent victim of realignment:

Abandoned by the Border Conference when the WAC was founded
Got taken in by a mismatch MVC—NCAA legislation in the early 80s caused the conference to lose DI-A status.
Jumped to the Big West. A bunch of that league bails for the WAC or disbands their programs. Big West ceases as a fb conference so they jump to the new SBC football program.
They finally get their WAC invite, the conference they wanted to join in 1962, and then the MWC, C-USA, and SBC gut the league 7 years later.

Its almost like NMSU football is a league killer...

(08-18-2019 11:35 AM)puck swami Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 10:46 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Not suggesting this just curious if its possible.
I remember reading a D2 can have two D1 programs.
Could Denver be D1 in lacrosse and hockey and D2 in everything else?
Possibly have a Minnesota Duluth type set up.

Even if they could do it, why would Denver want to do that? Denver has had the best non-football, D-I athletic program in the country for 11 of the past 12 years (NACDA Cups). Each year, DU usually gets 10-13 of its 17 sports programs into the respective NCAA tournaments, including several top 10 finishes - last year, hockey, skiing, and gymnastics were all top 5 finishes, women's lacrosse was top 8. Men's lacrosse is usually a perennial top 10 program, men's soccer made it to the 2016 College Cup, Volleyball has made 5 consecutive NCAA tournaments, etc.

When you consider the athletic budget of about $35 million, our remote location (requiring 85% jet travel in and out and playing in five different conferences), academic success (95% graduation rate for athletes) and the lack of scandals/arrests, no school delivers more for the athletic buck than DU does.

Already explained that by not suggesting it.
I was thinking Lacrosse and hockey were the top sports.
Those non revenue sports could play closer to home.
I was thinking Ferris St recent frozen four and D2 basketball title had it pretty good.
The whole hockey D1 everything else D2 seems like a good deal for those schools.
Not really really looking into Denver's situation that deep.
Soccer , Volleyball, Lacrosse , golf , Bowling , rifle , Skiing I have no idea which schools are good at those sports. Lacrosse a little I guess.

(08-15-2019 06:11 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Now a fan blog that gets less than 10 comments per post is source material for Davey.

(08-18-2019 11:35 AM)puck swami Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 10:46 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Not suggesting this just curious if its possible.
I remember reading a D2 can have two D1 programs.
Could Denver be D1 in lacrosse and hockey and D2 in everything else?
Possibly have a Minnesota Duluth type set up.

Even if they could do it, why would Denver want to do that? Denver has had the best non-football, D-I athletic program in the country for 11 of the past 12 years (NACDA Cups). Each year, DU usually gets 10-13 of its 17 sports programs into the respective NCAA tournaments, including several top 10 finishes - last year, hockey, skiing, and gymnastics were all top 5 finishes, women's lacrosse was top 8. Men's lacrosse is usually a perennial top 10 program, men's soccer made it to the 2016 College Cup, Volleyball has made 5 consecutive NCAA tournaments, etc.

When you consider the athletic budget of about $35 million, our remote location (requiring 85% jet travel in and out and playing in five different conferences), academic success (95% graduation rate for athletes) and the lack of scandals/arrests, no school delivers more for the athletic buck than DU does.

I remember seeing Denver volleyball play at College of Charleston a couple seasons ago and Denver had about 50 fans there. That was pretty impressive for a non-revenue sport playing two time zones away.

(08-18-2019 01:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  SoCalBobCat78,

The only reason NMSU plays football at FBS level is because UTEP and UNM play at that level. The football season is over for NMSU fans before September is out, and they are on to Basketball. NMSU is basically a Basketball school. But they need Football to play their rivals in Basketball. Without football there is a fair chance those rivalries vanish too.

But for you to claim it's a money maker is a complete joke. You are buying into the propaganda of the advocacy lobby, and the ridiculous accounting tricks played to make it look like it makes money, which is used by every program and it's supporters who earn their meal tickets from it. (And the active sports alumni who typically fund 10-15% of it, but think they find 110% of it).

The NMSU committee that looked at a drop to FCS football stated that they would lose $2.3 annually by dropping to FCS. Their media deal with Learfield sports of $1.1 million annually would have been cut in half. The UTEP and UNM games would have been lost as well. These are both bus trip road games and usually draw good home crowds.

https://www.abqjournal.com/769152/nmsu-w...level.html

The committee conducted a “very thorough analysis of costs and revenues” in comparing operations of an FBS and FCS program, Hicks said. Its findings: An FCS program, though it operates with smaller football staffs and with 63 football scholarships as opposed to 85 in FBS, nonetheless would be a $2.3 million bigger hit to the athletics budget.

The committee said "that while some sources of revenue like student fees and donorships would stay flat, ticket sales and sponsorships would decrease with the Aggies playing at the FCS level. And the critical opportunity to play money games against an FBS power – the going rate for one is in the low seven figures – likely would go away."

I never said football was a money maker, I just said that football brings in a lot of revenue through guarantee games. If the football program can bring in $4 to $6 million in revenue on an $7.5 million football budget, that is pretty good. But they are never going to bring in more than the budget and how many G5 schools do?

By the way, UTEP is playing at NMSU on November 23rd this season. A big game for NMSU & UTEP fans late in the season that should draw good crowd. You might also remember that in 2017 NMSU made it to a bowl game, the Arizona bowl on December 29th, beating Utah State. They made a $265,000 net profit on the bowl game, thanks to thousands of fans buying tickets for the games.

They also had to win a couple of critical home games in late November and early December to clinch that bowl bid that year in front of the two largest crowds of the season. So much for your September theory on NMSU football.