(05-15-2020 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:18 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Almost no sport or university department makes money. It's not all about money and FBS losses way less than FCS at the G5 level. FCS teams do not get 1.9 M from the P5 teams for a buy game.

According to the NCAA, the average athletic operating loss at G5 schools is $20 million. For FCS it is $13 million.

FCS do get pay-day games from P5, but unlike G5, they don't pay their coaches $2 million either. G5 is in a tough spot - they see themselves as in the same "league" as P5, so feel the need to keep up in terms of spending on coaches, facilities, etc. but they don't have the income to sustain that. FCS do bring in less revenue than G5, but aren't under the same pressure regarding expenses.

G5 are like someone with a $60,000 a year income who move into a neighborhood with $500,000 houses and annual income of $150,000. They go in to heavy debt to "keep up appearances" for the neighbors, spending more than they can afford.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files...180123.pdf

That sounds like the AAC you are talking about. Places you know like USF.

MAC schools spend $1 million more on FB than FCS programs but earn many million more. Paydays, CFP money is a few million, Maction deal, marketing rights ect.

MAC schools are among the most-subsidized G5 schools, which suggests the opposite - awful football finances. A Michigan paper published an article in 2015 or so showing that the Michigan directionals in the MAC were gushing football red ink. And IIRC, one of the Ohio MAC schools has to buy about 5,000 tickets a year just to meet the very low NCAA FBS benchmark.

In 2017 it was reported that of EMU's $32m athletic budget, $23m was subsidized, meaning an operational loss of $23m. That's really bad by any standard. The same year, WMU's operational loss was a whopping $26 million.

Football is a red ink gusher at those places. Football lost $5.8m at EMU in 2017.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html

But its the alternative quo. FCS brings in far less revenue.

9 of the 12 MAC teams have appeared in the Top 25 since 2000. The ones that haven't are Buffalo, EMU and Akron. Buffalo has become a lot better in the last decade and the get a pass because they were DIII only 30 years ago. EMU has rebranded their program and now plays consistently decent football.

That leave if anyone Akron who might see the MAC level as too much, considering they were 0-10 last year and facing crippling budget issues before the pandemic. They can't recruit very well outside of their local region.

Ohio turned its program mostly around 3 star guys from Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and an extensive walk-on program of 40 players. Akron isn't competitive state wide and doesn't attract walk-ons because its a commuter school.

Eastern Michigan even if it has a fair commuter base to its enrollment at least is its own college town near a major city vs. being right in the city like Akron. Akron is like not even going to college.

(05-14-2020 08:18 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:04 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 07:29 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 06:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In terms the of the marketing benefit an athletics department might deliver to a school----I would imagine the vast majority of it comes from football at most FBS universities. Thats probably the reason a school is willing to lose some money on that sport and more likely to cut rowing, even though it loses less money than football.

I'd be really curious to see some sort of data on this.

Maybe a survey asking people in Texas, especially high school students and parents, to identify the made up schools out of University of North Texas, Texas State University, Sam Houston State, South Texas STate, UT Rio Grande Valley, UT Fort Worth, Texas Southern University, and East Texas A&M.

Does the "front porch" advertising effect of lower-FBS really do any good compared to FCS? Does Texas State really have a higher profile than Stephen F Austin State? I really don't know. Does FBS North Texas really have advantages over UT Dallas or UT Arlington? Or is that not a good comparison, because UNT students aren't competitive for UTA or UTD?

In Texas, the perception gap comes more from having football and not having football. You are considered a "real school" if you have a football team. Once you get below FBS, the level doesn't matter as much. But, the bigger the school, the higher level the school is going to try to play at. They want to keep up with their "peers". Texas has grown so much in the last 20 years, and the kids can't all go to UT or A&M. So, Texas State, Sam Houston, and Stephen F. Austin have gotten bigger. So, when Texas State's enrollment increased to 20-30,000, they made the move to FBS. They still recruit the same students as Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin, but they have more of them due to their location between Austin and San Antonio. My kids' high school in suburban Houston sends plenty of students to Texas State. They're not going there because they play Sun Belt football, but because it's a big state school with acheivable admission standards that is close (but not too close) to home. And the kids do like the money games against schools like A&M.

North Texas fills the same role in north Texas. They don't recruit the same students as UT-Arlington or UT-Dallas. It's a big state school that's easier to get into than UT or A&M.

The admission standards at UT-Dallas are actually higher than those for Texas A&M.

And, your statement about UNT is not correct. North Texas does not fill the same roll as Texas State, SFA, or Sam Houston. North Texas is a Tier 1 research university. There are only eight in the state of Texas (Texas, Texas A&M, Rice, Houston, North Texas, Texas Tech, UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington). We are not the fall back option for kids that can't get into Texas or Texas A&M. I know a current high school senior that got accepted to both North Texas and Texas A&M, but choose to go to UNT this fall.

Just for the sake of accuracy, UTEP is also a tier 1 research university but it accepts anyone due to it's regional role. Carry on.

When did UTEP make the cut?

(05-15-2020 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:18 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Almost no sport or university department makes money. It's not all about money and FBS losses way less than FCS at the G5 level. FCS teams do not get 1.9 M from the P5 teams for a buy game.

According to the NCAA, the average athletic operating loss at G5 schools is $20 million. For FCS it is $13 million.

FCS do get pay-day games from P5, but unlike G5, they don't pay their coaches $2 million either. G5 is in a tough spot - they see themselves as in the same "league" as P5, so feel the need to keep up in terms of spending on coaches, facilities, etc. but they don't have the income to sustain that. FCS do bring in less revenue than G5, but aren't under the same pressure regarding expenses.

G5 are like someone with a $60,000 a year income who move into a neighborhood with $500,000 houses and annual income of $150,000. They go in to heavy debt to "keep up appearances" for the neighbors, spending more than they can afford.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files...180123.pdf

That sounds like the AAC you are talking about. Places you know like USF.

MAC schools spend $1 million more on FB than FCS programs but earn many million more. Paydays, CFP money is a few million, Maction deal, marketing rights ect.

MAC schools are among the most-subsidized G5 schools, which suggests the opposite - awful football finances. A Michigan paper published an article in 2015 or so showing that the Michigan directionals in the MAC were gushing football red ink. And IIRC, one of the Ohio MAC schools has to buy about 5,000 tickets a year just to meet the very low NCAA FBS benchmark.

In 2017 it was reported that of EMU's $32m athletic budget, $23m was subsidized, meaning an operational loss of $23m. That's really bad by any standard. The same year, WMU's operational loss was a whopping $26 million.

Football is a red ink gusher at those places. Football lost $5.8m at EMU in 2017.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html

It's not Football that's a red ink gusher though, properly understood. It's athletics.

Looking at the Ohio Division I schools because you have some FBS, some FCS, some non-football that are all state schools. Dayton Daily News article from 2019, using the Knight Commission numbers from 2017 and the Equity in Athletics site for the total athletic budgets. (I don't think the numbers are from the same year, but it's a good ballpark estimate)

Nonfootball
Wright State. Total budget $12M, subsidy $8.5M.
Cleveland State. Total budget $13M, subsidy $11M
FCS
Youngstown State. Total budget $16M, subsidy $10M
FBS
Akron. Total budget $35M, subsidy $25M
Bowling Green. Total budget $26M, subsidy $16M
Cincinnati. Total budget $53M, subsidy $28M
Kent State. Total budget $29M, subsidy $19M
Miami-O. Total budget $39M, subsidy $25M
Ohio U. Total budget $28M, subsidy $20M
Toledo . Total budget $33M, subsidy $21M

So, with the exception of the P5 (and maybe some basketball schools), just being Division I costs a school $10M a year, whether it's Horizon League, FCS or MAC. Youngstown State isn't subsidizing much more than Cleveland State or Wright State, but that may be an exception.

Being FBS costs your students and/or university funds $20M a year.

(05-14-2020 06:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In terms the of the marketing benefit an athletics department might deliver to a school----I would imagine the vast majority of it comes from football at most FBS universities. Thats probably the reason a school is willing to lose some money on that sport and more likely to cut rowing, even though it loses less money than football.

I'd be really curious to see some sort of data on this.

Maybe a survey asking people in Texas, especially high school students and parents, to identify the made up schools out of University of North Texas, Texas State University, Sam Houston State, South Texas STate, UT Rio Grande Valley, UT Fort Worth, Texas Southern University, and East Texas A&M.

Does the "front porch" advertising effect of lower-FBS really do any good compared to FCS? Does Texas State really have a higher profile than Stephen F Austin State? I really don't know. Does FBS North Texas really have advantages over UT Dallas or UT Arlington? Or is that not a good comparison, because UNT students aren't competitive for UTA or UTD?

No idea about data. What’s clear to anyone is the Akron name is incredibly visible for 8-12 weeks each fall for 3 hours a week on national television—watched by sometimes over a million people on Tuesday nights. There will be large Akron write ups in the paper, additional reports on local news, and even more mentions on cable sports shows and cable news crawlers. Women’s rowing or cross country can’t touch that. Heck, even FCS football csnt touch that. In most any business, that kind of exposure would be considered beneficial and valuable.

One more thing to remember—the biggest cost of football is the scholarships—which means the biggest component of this subsidy is the university sending money to athletics that the athletics department then immediately sends back to the university.

Over the years I've taken a look at recruiting patterns and the type of guys which are coming into the program.

Ohio was #3 in the APR rankings last showing they can bring in a well qualified athlete and compete.

Think about this and think about that Ohio is 2/1 odds on favorites to win the MAC with two freshman QB's that haven't even played a down. Who in the MAC has ever been favored so highly to win it no returning QB? That is because we have a real program.

You can see this just from the recruiting tracker with Ohio's guys from 2021.

Bryce Butler TE (offers): Akron, App St, Arkansas, Buffalo, UConn, East Carolina, Kansas, Kent St, Toledo, Pitt

Jake Skelly T (offers): Akron, Ball St, EMU, Kent St, Toledo

Davion Weatherspoon C (offers): Army, BG, CMU, Kentucky, Michigan

https://www.bobcatattack.com/football/recruiting.asp

The top guy is more of a G5 level recruit as you can see SBC and AAC schools had some interest. The middle guy is more of a MAC level recruit with just conference offers. Its these guys that Akron cannot win.

For Ohio this is their version of diamond in the rough recruiting. They select guys that will make it academically and have developmental upside so they don't rate as highly in the recruiting rankings as they should. The same with the preferred walk on program.

Akron is loading up on marginal qualifiers or non-qualifiers that don't pan out. That is why they don't have any consistency.

(05-15-2020 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 06:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In terms the of the marketing benefit an athletics department might deliver to a school----I would imagine the vast majority of it comes from football at most FBS universities. Thats probably the reason a school is willing to lose some money on that sport and more likely to cut rowing, even though it loses less money than football.

I'd be really curious to see some sort of data on this.

It's hard to find because it barely exists, and what does isn't encouraging.

For example, there was a recent study done on enrollment and donations. It showed that if a school wins BIG in football or hoops, like winning an NY6 bowl or going to the Final 4, there is a significant boost, about 10%, in enrollment and donations, and this lasts for about 3 years, fading each year. Merely winning isn't enough, you have to win big, as mentioned above.

It's hilarious that universities - the fountains of scientific research - can't seem to produce evidence of "front porch" effects for football. They just assert them.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair"

That's a great quote. There are just a lot of powerful actors - athletic and academic admins - that make more money and have more power when football is around. And with boosters and alums it is an ego thing.

Add that up and you get .... students and the "academic side" being soaked to the tune of $20 million a year to largely pay for "big time" football.

Even if that's not true in a pure white room scenario, it would create political problems to change and kill athletics (or football), and they didn't get to be university presidents by creating political problems.

Akron's in-state 2020 signings:

Juan Jarrett OLB (offers): Kansas, CMU, Georgia Tech, Liberty
MyJaden Horton Dual (offers): Kentucky, Louisville
Joey Marousek Dual (offers): Ashland, Bucknell, Buffalo, Georgetown
Ronan Chambers OT (offers): Sacred Heart, Youngstown St
Jonzel Norilis RB (offers): Eastern Illinois
Nate Williams OT (offers): N/A
Tony Georges OT (offers): N/A

https://247sports.com/college/akron/Seas...l/Commits/

Take a look at this list. The first guy has an offer from Georgia Tech so my guess is he's a legit qualifier if GT was ever in the consideration. Solid recruit for a MAC school.

The second guy based on his offers is most likely a non-qualifier that had offers from Kentucky/Louisville but didn't qualify at the last second.

Beyond that they look like FCS recruits. Its worth noting they aren't winning MAC level recruiting battles with the lineman as there are only so many quality ones in state. What you have in the trenches largely dictates performance.

(05-15-2020 10:28 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Akron's in-state 2020 signings:

Juan Jarrett OLB (offers): Kansas, CMU, Georgia Tech, Liberty
MyJaden Horton Dual (offers): Kentucky, Louisville
Joey Marousek Dual (offers): Ashland, Bucknell, Buffalo, Georgetown
Ronan Chambers OT (offers): Sacred Heart, Youngstown St
Jonzel Norilis RB (offers): Eastern Illinois
Nate Williams OT (offers): N/A
Tony Georges OT (offers): N/A

https://247sports.com/college/akron/Seas...l/Commits/

Take a look at this list. The first guy has an offer from Georgia Tech so my guess is he's a legit qualifier if GT was ever in the consideration. Solid recruit for a MAC school.

The second guy based on his offers is most likely a non-qualifier that had offers from Kentucky/Louisville but didn't qualify at the last second.

Beyond that they look like FCS recruits. Its worth noting they aren't winning MAC level recruiting battles with the lineman as there are only so many quality ones in state. What you have in the trenches largely dictates performance.

I'm bored so I looked at all of their three star recruits that aren't from Ohio and here's what I got.

Ryan Mclain: offers from Jacksonville st, Kent St. So they beat out a top FCS and fellow MAC member

Nazir Sy: none shown

Ronald Jackson: Iowa State, BG, Ohio, and Toledo

Dimarco Johnson: Uconn Bottom feeder but still a big name

Brycen Yarmo: Umass, SEMO. Bottom feeder FBS and FCS programs

Konata Mumfield: fcs offers

A safety whose name I dont feel like typing: Umass

Teon Dollard: SFA, bottom feeder FCS

Woobendy Guerrier: none shown

Janirr Wade: BG, Purdue, Rutgers. Solid Offers

Isiah Childs: K-State, fcs


Outside of like 3 guys that's pretty rough. Now I'm scared to relook at our 2020 recruits other offers lol

Those guys with P5 offers probably didn't qualify that is how Akron got them.

Its FCS level recruits with non-qualifiers mixed in.

(05-15-2020 08:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:18 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Almost no sport or university department makes money. It's not all about money and FBS losses way less than FCS at the G5 level. FCS teams do not get 1.9 M from the P5 teams for a buy game.

According to the NCAA, the average athletic operating loss at G5 schools is $20 million. For FCS it is $13 million.

FCS do get pay-day games from P5, but unlike G5, they don't pay their coaches $2 million either. G5 is in a tough spot - they see themselves as in the same "league" as P5, so feel the need to keep up in terms of spending on coaches, facilities, etc. but they don't have the income to sustain that. FCS do bring in less revenue than G5, but aren't under the same pressure regarding expenses.

G5 are like someone with a $60,000 a year income who move into a neighborhood with $500,000 houses and annual income of $150,000. They go in to heavy debt to "keep up appearances" for the neighbors, spending more than they can afford.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files...180123.pdf

That sounds like the AAC you are talking about. Places you know like USF.

MAC schools spend $1 million more on FB than FCS programs but earn many million more. Paydays, CFP money is a few million, Maction deal, marketing rights ect.

MAC schools are among the most-subsidized G5 schools, which suggests the opposite - awful football finances. A Michigan paper published an article in 2015 or so showing that the Michigan directionals in the MAC were gushing football red ink. And IIRC, one of the Ohio MAC schools has to buy about 5,000 tickets a year just to meet the very low NCAA FBS benchmark.

In 2017 it was reported that of EMU's $32m athletic budget, $23m was subsidized, meaning an operational loss of $23m. That's really bad by any standard. The same year, WMU's operational loss was a whopping $26 million.

Football is a red ink gusher at those places. Football lost $5.8m at EMU in 2017.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html

But its the alternative quo. FCS brings in far less revenue.

I posted NCAA stats on that - the average G5 loses $22 million on athletics, the average FCS loses $13 million. Because it's not just revenue, it is expenses as well.

FCS does not get the same revenue, but they also do not pay $3 million for the football coaching staffs either. G5 are under constant pressure to keep up "big time" appearances, FCS are not.

(05-15-2020 09:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:18 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Almost no sport or university department makes money. It's not all about money and FBS losses way less than FCS at the G5 level. FCS teams do not get 1.9 M from the P5 teams for a buy game.

According to the NCAA, the average athletic operating loss at G5 schools is $20 million. For FCS it is $13 million.

FCS do get pay-day games from P5, but unlike G5, they don't pay their coaches $2 million either. G5 is in a tough spot - they see themselves as in the same "league" as P5, so feel the need to keep up in terms of spending on coaches, facilities, etc. but they don't have the income to sustain that. FCS do bring in less revenue than G5, but aren't under the same pressure regarding expenses.

G5 are like someone with a $60,000 a year income who move into a neighborhood with $500,000 houses and annual income of $150,000. They go in to heavy debt to "keep up appearances" for the neighbors, spending more than they can afford.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files...180123.pdf

That sounds like the AAC you are talking about. Places you know like USF.

MAC schools spend $1 million more on FB than FCS programs but earn many million more. Paydays, CFP money is a few million, Maction deal, marketing rights ect.

MAC schools are among the most-subsidized G5 schools, which suggests the opposite - awful football finances. A Michigan paper published an article in 2015 or so showing that the Michigan directionals in the MAC were gushing football red ink. And IIRC, one of the Ohio MAC schools has to buy about 5,000 tickets a year just to meet the very low NCAA FBS benchmark.

In 2017 it was reported that of EMU's $32m athletic budget, $23m was subsidized, meaning an operational loss of $23m. That's really bad by any standard. The same year, WMU's operational loss was a whopping $26 million.

Football is a red ink gusher at those places. Football lost $5.8m at EMU in 2017.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html

It's not Football that's a red ink gusher though, properly understood. It's athletics.

I'd say properly understood, it is both. The other sports lose money too, but just not as much as football. Football is the biggest money-loser, but of course sports like women's soccer lose money too. They all do, at most G5 places.

In fact, football is in a way responsible for many of those other sport costs, because football means you have to have several money losing womens sports to comply with T9.

(05-15-2020 09:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:18 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Almost no sport or university department makes money. It's not all about money and FBS losses way less than FCS at the G5 level. FCS teams do not get 1.9 M from the P5 teams for a buy game.

According to the NCAA, the average athletic operating loss at G5 schools is $20 million. For FCS it is $13 million.

FCS do get pay-day games from P5, but unlike G5, they don't pay their coaches $2 million either. G5 is in a tough spot - they see themselves as in the same "league" as P5, so feel the need to keep up in terms of spending on coaches, facilities, etc. but they don't have the income to sustain that. FCS do bring in less revenue than G5, but aren't under the same pressure regarding expenses.

G5 are like someone with a $60,000 a year income who move into a neighborhood with $500,000 houses and annual income of $150,000. They go in to heavy debt to "keep up appearances" for the neighbors, spending more than they can afford.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files...180123.pdf

That sounds like the AAC you are talking about. Places you know like USF.

MAC schools spend $1 million more on FB than FCS programs but earn many million more. Paydays, CFP money is a few million, Maction deal, marketing rights ect.

MAC schools are among the most-subsidized G5 schools, which suggests the opposite - awful football finances. A Michigan paper published an article in 2015 or so showing that the Michigan directionals in the MAC were gushing football red ink. And IIRC, one of the Ohio MAC schools has to buy about 5,000 tickets a year just to meet the very low NCAA FBS benchmark.

In 2017 it was reported that of EMU's $32m athletic budget, $23m was subsidized, meaning an operational loss of $23m. That's really bad by any standard. The same year, WMU's operational loss was a whopping $26 million.

Football is a red ink gusher at those places. Football lost $5.8m at EMU in 2017.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html

It's not Football that's a red ink gusher though, properly understood. It's athletics.

Looking at the Ohio Division I schools because you have some FBS, some FCS, some non-football that are all state schools. Dayton Daily News article from 2019, using the Knight Commission numbers from 2017 and the Equity in Athletics site for the total athletic budgets. (I don't think the numbers are from the same year, but it's a good ballpark estimate)

Nonfootball
Wright State. Total budget $12M, subsidy $8.5M.
Cleveland State. Total budget $13M, subsidy $11M
FCS
Youngstown State. Total budget $16M, subsidy $10M
FBS
Akron. Total budget $35M, subsidy $25M
Bowling Green. Total budget $26M, subsidy $16M
Cincinnati. Total budget $53M, subsidy $28M
Kent State. Total budget $29M, subsidy $19M
Miami-O. Total budget $39M, subsidy $25M
Ohio U. Total budget $28M, subsidy $20M
Toledo . Total budget $33M, subsidy $21M

So, with the exception of the P5 (and maybe some basketball schools), just being Division I costs a school $10M a year, whether it's Horizon League, FCS or MAC. Youngstown State isn't subsidizing much more than Cleveland State or Wright State, but that may be an exception.

Being FBS costs your students and/or university funds $20M a year.

That is eye-opening. Looks like Cincinnati is the first one that needs to cut their football program.

(05-15-2020 09:54 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Over the years I've taken a look at recruiting patterns and the type of guys which are coming into the program.

Ohio was #3 in the APR rankings last showing they can bring in a well qualified athlete and compete.

Think about this and think about that Ohio is 2/1 odds on favorites to win the MAC with two freshman QB's that haven't even played a down. Who in the MAC has ever been favored so highly to win it no returning QB? That is because we have a real program.

You can see this just from the recruiting tracker with Ohio's guys from 2021.

Bryce Butler TE (offers): Akron, App St, Arkansas, Buffalo, UConn, East Carolina, Kansas, Kent St, Toledo, Pitt

Jake Skelly T (offers): Akron, Ball St, EMU, Kent St, Toledo

Davion Weatherspoon C (offers): Army, BG, CMU, Kentucky, Michigan

https://www.bobcatattack.com/football/recruiting.asp

The top guy is more of a G5 level recruit as you can see SBC and AAC schools had some interest. The middle guy is more of a MAC level recruit with just conference offers. Its these guys that Akron cannot win.

For Ohio this is their version of diamond in the rough recruiting. They select guys that will make it academically and have developmental upside so they don't rate as highly in the recruiting rankings as they should. The same with the preferred walk on program.

Akron is loading up on marginal qualifiers or non-qualifiers that don't pan out. That is why they don't have any consistency.

You'd think it was Ohio that won a MAC championship in the modern era and not Akron..

(05-15-2020 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  According to the NCAA, the average athletic operating loss at G5 schools is $20 million. For FCS it is $13 million.

FCS do get pay-day games from P5, but unlike G5, they don't pay their coaches $2 million either. G5 is in a tough spot - they see themselves as in the same "league" as P5, so feel the need to keep up in terms of spending on coaches, facilities, etc. but they don't have the income to sustain that. FCS do bring in less revenue than G5, but aren't under the same pressure regarding expenses.

G5 are like someone with a $60,000 a year income who move into a neighborhood with $500,000 houses and annual income of $150,000. They go in to heavy debt to "keep up appearances" for the neighbors, spending more than they can afford.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files...180123.pdf

That sounds like the AAC you are talking about. Places you know like USF.

MAC schools spend $1 million more on FB than FCS programs but earn many million more. Paydays, CFP money is a few million, Maction deal, marketing rights ect.

MAC schools are among the most-subsidized G5 schools, which suggests the opposite - awful football finances. A Michigan paper published an article in 2015 or so showing that the Michigan directionals in the MAC were gushing football red ink. And IIRC, one of the Ohio MAC schools has to buy about 5,000 tickets a year just to meet the very low NCAA FBS benchmark.

In 2017 it was reported that of EMU's $32m athletic budget, $23m was subsidized, meaning an operational loss of $23m. That's really bad by any standard. The same year, WMU's operational loss was a whopping $26 million.

Football is a red ink gusher at those places. Football lost $5.8m at EMU in 2017.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html

But its the alternative quo. FCS brings in far less revenue.

I posted NCAA stats on that - the average G5 loses $22 million on athletics, the average FCS loses $13 million. Because it's not just revenue, it is expenses as well.

FCS does not get the same revenue, but they also do not pay $3 million for the football coaching staffs either. G5 are under constant pressure to keep up "big time" appearances, FCS are not.

And those numbers don't include facilities. Those cost more in FBS than in FCS.

(05-15-2020 11:48 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 09:54 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Over the years I've taken a look at recruiting patterns and the type of guys which are coming into the program.

Ohio was #3 in the APR rankings last showing they can bring in a well qualified athlete and compete.

Think about this and think about that Ohio is 2/1 odds on favorites to win the MAC with two freshman QB's that haven't even played a down. Who in the MAC has ever been favored so highly to win it no returning QB? That is because we have a real program.

You can see this just from the recruiting tracker with Ohio's guys from 2021.

Bryce Butler TE (offers): Akron, App St, Arkansas, Buffalo, UConn, East Carolina, Kansas, Kent St, Toledo, Pitt

Jake Skelly T (offers): Akron, Ball St, EMU, Kent St, Toledo

Davion Weatherspoon C (offers): Army, BG, CMU, Kentucky, Michigan

https://www.bobcatattack.com/football/recruiting.asp

The top guy is more of a G5 level recruit as you can see SBC and AAC schools had some interest. The middle guy is more of a MAC level recruit with just conference offers. Its these guys that Akron cannot win.

For Ohio this is their version of diamond in the rough recruiting. They select guys that will make it academically and have developmental upside so they don't rate as highly in the recruiting rankings as they should. The same with the preferred walk on program.

Akron is loading up on marginal qualifiers or non-qualifiers that don't pan out. That is why they don't have any consistency.

You'd think it was Ohio that won a MAC championship in the modern era and not Akron..

Hahahahaha!!! It’s been 50+ years and a proposed Airport since the last OU Football championship

(05-15-2020 12:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That sounds like the AAC you are talking about. Places you know like USF.

MAC schools spend $1 million more on FB than FCS programs but earn many million more. Paydays, CFP money is a few million, Maction deal, marketing rights ect.

MAC schools are among the most-subsidized G5 schools, which suggests the opposite - awful football finances. A Michigan paper published an article in 2015 or so showing that the Michigan directionals in the MAC were gushing football red ink. And IIRC, one of the Ohio MAC schools has to buy about 5,000 tickets a year just to meet the very low NCAA FBS benchmark.

In 2017 it was reported that of EMU's $32m athletic budget, $23m was subsidized, meaning an operational loss of $23m. That's really bad by any standard. The same year, WMU's operational loss was a whopping $26 million.

Football is a red ink gusher at those places. Football lost $5.8m at EMU in 2017.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html

But its the alternative quo. FCS brings in far less revenue.

I posted NCAA stats on that - the average G5 loses $22 million on athletics, the average FCS loses $13 million. Because it's not just revenue, it is expenses as well.

FCS does not get the same revenue, but they also do not pay $3 million for the football coaching staffs either. G5 are under constant pressure to keep up "big time" appearances, FCS are not.

And those numbers don't include facilities. Those cost more in FBS than in FCS.

Once you have the facility though its there for life.

Also don't forget a lot of that G5 cost is in sholarships which are more than at the FCS level where they play less sports.

And the amount spent on athletics relative to size of university. AAC spends more but some of those universities are pretty large so more capacity to collect fees.

On a related note, it was just announced Bowling Green State University axed it’s baseball program for good.

Also MAC teams will no longer stay at a hotel on the night before a home football game and travel rosters will be cut from 76 to 70 players.

(05-15-2020 12:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That sounds like the AAC you are talking about. Places you know like USF.

MAC schools spend $1 million more on FB than FCS programs but earn many million more. Paydays, CFP money is a few million, Maction deal, marketing rights ect.

MAC schools are among the most-subsidized G5 schools, which suggests the opposite - awful football finances. A Michigan paper published an article in 2015 or so showing that the Michigan directionals in the MAC were gushing football red ink. And IIRC, one of the Ohio MAC schools has to buy about 5,000 tickets a year just to meet the very low NCAA FBS benchmark.

In 2017 it was reported that of EMU's $32m athletic budget, $23m was subsidized, meaning an operational loss of $23m. That's really bad by any standard. The same year, WMU's operational loss was a whopping $26 million.

Football is a red ink gusher at those places. Football lost $5.8m at EMU in 2017.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html

But its the alternative quo. FCS brings in far less revenue.

I posted NCAA stats on that - the average G5 loses $22 million on athletics, the average FCS loses $13 million. Because it's not just revenue, it is expenses as well.

FCS does not get the same revenue, but they also do not pay $3 million for the football coaching staffs either. G5 are under constant pressure to keep up "big time" appearances, FCS are not.

And those numbers don't include facilities. Those cost more in FBS than in FCS.

Yes, but you're paying for a service. The service is exposure.

Cincinnati pays $28 million a year for about 30 nationally broadcast 2-3 hour advertisements. Half of those are home games that show several minutes of vistas of our beautiful campus.

A university can't buy that sort of exposure any other way than FBS football or the NCAA basketball tournament.

MAC schools are subsidizing/paying a little less than Cincinnati, but they're only getting regional TV coverage for most of their games. Cincinnati gets national exposure, many of them on ESPN or broadcast networks.


A University of Cincinnati degree is worth something in California or Atlanta because people there have heard of Cincinnati through sports. MAC schools don't have that nationwide brand recognition.

(05-15-2020 08:50 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:18 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 08:04 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 07:29 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 06:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

The admission standards at UT-Dallas are actually higher than those for Texas A&M.

And, your statement about UNT is not correct. North Texas does not fill the same roll as Texas State, SFA, or Sam Houston. North Texas is a Tier 1 research university. There are only eight in the state of Texas (Texas, Texas A&M, Rice, Houston, North Texas, Texas Tech, UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington). We are not the fall back option for kids that can't get into Texas or Texas A&M. I know a current high school senior that got accepted to both North Texas and Texas A&M, but choose to go to UNT this fall.

Just for the sake of accuracy, UTEP is also a tier 1 research university but it accepts anyone due to it's regional role. Carry on.

When did UTEP make the cut?

Dec 2018.

UTEP Tier 1

UTEP is a Top Tier Research University
The University of Texas at El Paso was awarded an R1 designation (top tier doctoral university with very high research activity) by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education in December 2018. UTEP is one of only 131 (4.5%) universities among the 2,883 four-year higher education institutions across the U.S. to earn this distinction.
Heather Wilson, Ph.D., assumed the campus’ highest office Aug. 15, 2019, on the heels of a period of unprecedented growth in enrollment, academic programs and physical structures throughout the campus that culminated with the University achieving R1 status. The feat was the realization of a significant goal outlined for the campus by President Emerita Diana Natalicio, who stepped down in August 2019 after 31 years in the campus’ highest position.
The exceptional momentum is something President Wilson is not only looking to sustain, but to enhance. UTEP’s research strength is critical to the economic development of the region, both from a technological standpoint and in preparation for the steadily evolving workforce needs of the 21st century.

(05-15-2020 01:28 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  A University of Cincinnati degree is worth something in California or Atlanta because people there have heard of Cincinnati through sports. MAC schools don't have that nationwide brand recognition.

I'm not 100% sure on that. US News has UC tied for #139, while Miami-O is #90. At #132 are University of Dayton and University of Illinois-Chicago, Kentucky and something called University of LaVerne. UC is tied with Oregon State, Missouri, Nebraska--and Seattle University(WAC), and St Thomas University (joining the Summit from D-III)

Maybe US News isn't the best gauge, but I don't think many people are going to assume that your UC degree is better than a Miami-O degree or an Ohio U degree or a U of Albany degree because of Bearcats athletics.

Cincinnati is not a top 10 or top 50 school, who the general public would hear the name and assume that you were pretty close to getting into Harvard. It's not a school with a mildly embarrassing name, that sounds like you went there because you didn't have the grades to go somewhere better (directional schools, City State).

If they don't know the names of MAC schools, I doubt they see your Cincinnati degree as anything more than a generic degree.

EDIT: Yes UC gets a lot of exposure on ESPN, but is that exposure really targeted at relevant markets? High school students, parents of high school students?
It's one thing to make the argument for Ohio State, where you have babies in Buckeye onesies, so "the OSU" name recognition is total in Ohio.