• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Moving to FBS a challenge for most: ESPN

PlayerRep

Well-known member
This is a terrific article, with lots of interesting and current information. A must read. Here are some excerpts.

"Those schools are likely chasing the dream -- the $40.6 million median revenue in FBS, as compared to just $3.8 million in the FCS -- but a recent study by the NCAA suggests it could be a nightmare.

Kathleen McNeely, the NCAA's chief financial officer, discussed the findings of an NCAA study on reclassification from FCS to FBS at the College Athletic Business Management Association's annual convention this week.

From 1978 to 2010, 19 teams have made the move up. Few of those have seen increased success on the field, and the additional cost of doing business has many relying more heavily on student fees.

According to the NCAA's study, the average winning percentage of those ... fell to 44.8 percent. They've also seen far fewer winning seasons, from 64.4 percent in the FCS to 37.2 after moving up a classification.

Some teams have bucked the trend. Boise State, which reclassified in 1996, has gone from an average of 7.44 wins per season in the FCS to 10 per year in the FBS. Five other schools out of the 19 have seen an improvement, but UConn is the only other school to have seen an improvement of more than one game per year.

Although numerous studies have found revenue increases with a move to FBS, they've also found expenses generally increase at an even greater rate. There's some evidence to suggest being at the top of FCS is better -- both from a financial and student-athlete experience standpoint -- than being at the bottom of FBS. The average revenue for an FBS program in the bottom quartile is $22.5 million, compared to $25.6 million in the top quartile of FCS.

Remember that median revenue of $40.6 million in the FBS? Drill down a little further and you find out the median for AQs is $69.9 million, while it's a mere $9.7 million for non-AQs.

Among other drawbacks:

Less opportunity at a title: McNeely said more FCS teams have won national championships in the past 10 years than teams from FBS conferences that are not automatic qualifiers, which would be where a reclassifying team would land. The NCAA says almost 90 percent of national champions in all NCAA sports hail from FBS automatic qualifying conferences.

Fewer athletes get a chance: NCAA data shows an FCS school in the top quartile sponsors 23.6 sports, compared to just 16.8 sponsored by the bottom quartile FBS schools. The total number of student-athletes also drops from 639 in the top quartile of FCS to 458 in the bottom quartile of the FBS.

Higher student fees: McNeely's presentation said schools reclassifying increase student fees by an average of $1.2 million annually to keep up with the added expenses."

The article discusses some of the benefits of moving up, and has alot of quotes from Georgia Southern's AD.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/79554/moving-to-fbs-a-challenge-for-most" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
The average revenue for an FBS program in the bottom quartile is $22.5 million, compared to $25.6 million in the top quartile of FCS.


What?? Well the hell are they getting THOSE numbers?? The top 25% of FCS teams have revenues of $25 million?? If that's the case, they must be counting $24.5 million in state or student funding. Montana is the largest FCS revenue producer, and what was that number, $3 million?

That article is a joke.
 
Who knows about the accuracy of the numbers, but its a no brainer that being at the top of the FCS is far better than being at the bottom of the FBS.
 
ranco said:
Who knows about the accuracy of the numbers, but its a no brainer that being at the top of the FCS is far better than being at the bottom of the FBS.


Then I wonder why no one has ever moved down. Must be a lot of university presidents without brains.

Wait, no. You said it was a no-brainer. So that can't be it. Hmmm, this is quite the conundrum.
 
Interesting article. here are some more quotes:

Tom Kleinlein, the athletic director at Georgia Southern, says it doesn't matter.

"Go ask someone 100 miles from Statesboro how many national championships we won at the FCS level," he said. "No one knows."

Kleinlein pointed out that the lowest-rated bowl games still routinely garner higher ratings than the FCS national championship game.

Last season, only one bowl game was watched by fewer viewers than the FCS national championship game: the 2013 Heart of Dallas Bowl featuring Purdue against Oklahoma State. That game averaged 943,000 viewers, while the FCS championship game averaged 1.1 million.

"For us, we're pretty good in some of our other sports. These other sports are constantly having to fight the battle of whether they're a Division I school because of the labeling and association of FBS football."

Jeff Schemmel, a former athletic director and currently managing director of the college division at JMI Sports, thinks with the playoff on the horizon, now is the time to make the move up, because every conference in FBS will be making more money.

"The money is getting so big from the playoffs now it's clearly -- especially for a school with a budget of $7-8 million -- it's going to be a pretty nice little bump for those guys," Schemmel said.

Some of the numbers are strange. For example the article notes the expenses go up faster than revenue, but that the number of sports sponsored adn athletes participating is lower in lower quadrant FBS than top quadrant FCS. This implies you can have lower expenses and more student athletes and sponsored sports staying at FCS than FBS, but since sponsored sports and scholarships are the biggest expense (as well as additional coaching salaries for football) it is impossible to both add sports and athletes and lower cost. I suspect these upper FCS numbers are skewed by Ivy League schools, which of course are an anomaly to all college athletics.
 
we moved down, so did idaho, anout 50 years ago. we both did well after moving down. idaho moved back up and has regretted it ever since. what more do you need to know?
 
EverettGriz said:
The average revenue for an FBS program in the bottom quartile is $22.5 million, compared to $25.6 million in the top quartile of FCS.


What?? Well the hell are they getting THOSE numbers?? The top 25% of FCS teams have revenues of $25 million?? If that's the case, they must be counting $24.5 million in state or student funding. Montana is the largest FCS revenue producer, and what was that number, $3 million?

That article is a joke.
I think that $3M is profit, not revenue.
 
Tod, you're absolutely correct; it is. My apologies.

That said, without institutional support, UM's revenue did not come close to approaching 25 mil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EverettGriz said:
Tod, you're absolutely correct; it is. My apologies.

That said, without institutional support, UM's revenue did not come close to approaching 25 mil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it depends on how they define "revenue". If it's all monies going into athletics before costs, my guess is that we'd fall short of $25M simply because we support the minimum number of sports at 14.

Women's softball will be funded at $750K annually, all from raising the student athletics fee. Is that revenue?

As a side, I'm anxious to watch softball. I hope they can make back a good chunk of that money (draw fans)!

Also brings us closer to Title IX compliance and only one sport shy of FBS if we go that route.

Ok, end of rambling.
 
Tod said:
EverettGriz said:
Tod, you're absolutely correct; it is. My apologies.

That said, without institutional support, UM's revenue did not come close to approaching 25 mil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it depends on how they define "revenue". If it's all monies going into athletics before costs, my guess is that we'd fall short of $25M simply because we support the minimum number of sports at 14.

Women's softball will be funded at $750K annually, all from raising the student athletics fee. Is that revenue?

As a side, I'm anxious to watch softball. I hope they can make back a good chunk of that money (draw fans)!

Also brings us closer to Title IX compliance and only one sport shy of FBS if we go that route.

Ok, end of rambling.
Did the students vote to raise the fees, or was it pushed on them?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
Well, it's my guess that if they're quoting the top quartile having revenue of 25 million, they have to be including everything: state money, student fees, etc. That's why it's a ridiculous figure. Those sources are not "revenue".

I, too am excited about softball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
PhxGriz said:
Tod said:
EverettGriz said:
Tod, you're absolutely correct; it is. My apologies.

That said, without institutional support, UM's revenue did not come close to approaching 25 mil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it depends on how they define "revenue". If it's all monies going into athletics before costs, my guess is that we'd fall short of $25M simply because we support the minimum number of sports at 14.

Women's softball will be funded at $750K annually, all from raising the student athletics fee. Is that revenue?

As a side, I'm anxious to watch softball. I hope they can make back a good chunk of that money (draw fans)!

Also brings us closer to Title IX compliance and only one sport shy of FBS if we go that route.

Ok, end of rambling.
Did the students vote to raise the fees, or was it pushed on them?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
They voted.
 
getgrizzy said:
we moved down, so did idaho, anout 50 years ago. we both did well after moving down. idaho moved back up and has regretted it ever since. what more do you need to know?

And Boise State used to be a community college. What's your point?
 
PR's point (or at least article is so clear, and on target its scary. Its also wrong and what happens to guys when they get old and worse start thinking like they are old. I know PR has helped dismantle some once great on the edge companies, who failed to embrace the future too late.

Its that same "Management by Bean Counters" that made JCPenney, Sears/K-Mart, and Best Buy the retail Giants they are today - provided they survive.

I'm not anxious to move up, I'd prefer to move over if that becomes available. But ignoring the change in College Football and only realizing too late what needs to be done, could be the undoing of everything.
 
Tom Kleinlein, the athletic director at Georgia Southern, says it doesn't matter.

"Go ask someone 100 miles from Statesboro how many national championships we won at the FCS level," he said. "No one knows."

Go ask someone 100 miles from Statesboro how many BCS titles GA Southern will win at the FBS level. :shock:
 
EverettGriz said:
The average revenue for an FBS program in the bottom quartile is $22.5 million, compared to $25.6 million in the top quartile of FCS.


What?? Well the hell are they getting THOSE numbers?? The top 25% of FCS teams have revenues of $25 million?? If that's the case, they must be counting $24.5 million in state or student funding. Montana is the largest FCS revenue producer, and what was that number, $3 million?

That article is a joke.

Revenue =/ profit :lol:
 
It's a long thread without pictures, nwf. One wouldn't expect a cat fan to be able to read it all in one sitting. Take your time, come back to it 3 or 4 times, sound out the big words (it's okay if your lips move while reading), and then actually address the points made.

cat fans. :roll:
 
Back
Top