http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/16/ncaa-numbers-reveal-widening-financial-gap-in-d1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Revenue gap widening between FBS/FCS
- Thread starter MrTitleist
- Start date
ilovethecats
Well-known member
what "point" needs to be made? it's a subject that is interesting, and for me at least the title is pretty self-explanatory.....
Wonder how the head-in-the-sanders will spin this?
Paytonlives said:
So when one reads the article you discover that it is ONLY talking about 22 FBS programs. That would tend to make me think that only 22 out of 100+ made money so they could be talked about in this article. What about the other 90 or so programs?
That's the question that pops into my mind!
Quote from the article:
"In fact, 22 FBS programs netted an average profit of roughly $7.4 million this past year (although the profits ranged anywhere between $211,000 to $41.9 million), roughly a one-third increase from 2009 where 14 programs netted a surplus. However, the NCAA believes that might have been a “recession-driven anomaly”; at least 18 FBS athletic programs saw a surplus since 2005."
SouthDakotaGrizzly
Well-known member
VictorG said:
One must also wonder then how many FCS programs are turning a profit. Is the percentage higher than at the FBS level?
This thread is irrelevant, unless MrT explains why he posted it. What does it matter re: FBS finances vs. FCS finances, as far as UM is concerned? UM simply cannot afford to go to FBS, right now. Pure & simple. I would LIKE UM to go to FBS, but it ain't in the cards, right now. Maybe MrT can give his side of the story, but so far, he hasn't.
What's telling about those graphics is the difference between DI schools with FCS football and DI schools with no men's football. That expenses between FCS and non football schools would only differ by $1.5 million says a lot about the FCS landscape. It's a sack lunch league.
Seems inaccurate for the author to refer to FBS teams as self-sufficient, as well. Previous NCAA studies have indicated a real disparity between profitable FBS schools and ones that lose money every year.
Seems inaccurate for the author to refer to FBS teams as self-sufficient, as well. Previous NCAA studies have indicated a real disparity between profitable FBS schools and ones that lose money every year.
David2 said:
No offense, but bugger off. Last I checked, and unless you've forgotten how to read, this is "Griz football and the FCS" and last I checked, that article is about finances of FCS teams and the widening gap, which many people are speculating will the cause of the great shift coming in college football. Jesus, do some reading once in a while.
Also, I'm sorry I didn't respond to you in an appropriate amount of time, I'm actually doing WORK!
garizzalies
Well-known member
Did dumb x dumb just call a thread irrelevant?
Isn't that like Hammer saying Butte is wimpy?
Or Alpha saying drinking and driving is dangerous?
Or GrizLA professing his love for Gee-Dub?
Or Growler admitting he was wrong?
Or Playa accusing a player of wrongdoing?
What is this board coming to?
Isn't that like Hammer saying Butte is wimpy?
Or Alpha saying drinking and driving is dangerous?
Or GrizLA professing his love for Gee-Dub?
Or Growler admitting he was wrong?
Or Playa accusing a player of wrongdoing?
What is this board coming to?
ilovethecats
Well-known member
garizzalies said:
:lol:
the solution is really simple. d2 just needs his own forum where he is allowed to make the rules. his attempts to tell everyone what they should and shouldn't think in the main forums doesn't go over well....
Grisly Fan
Well-known member
So if it is your premise is that anyone posting an article has to comment on it or it is automatically irrelevent then I will reiterate, some village somewhere is missing its idiot. Or if you don't intuitively see the connection between the article and the long drawn out debate over move up then I would say you must have missed the pickup point for the short bus. Either way you need to move along home before you are missed.David2 said:
garizzalies
Well-known member
A geriatric C3PO?
YttriumGriz39
Well-known member
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/2010RevExp.pdf
HERE is the NCAA report this guy was writing about.
Looking at Table 4.6 on page 54 only five football teams made money in the FCS last year. Those teams averaged $378,000. The rest (115 teams) averaged a loss of (1,615,000). I wonder which teams made money. I could be wrong but didn't O'Day say that UM was not a team that made money last year. Maybe that was the athletic department as a whole? I wish they would have had a list of all the teams and how they did.
HERE is the NCAA report this guy was writing about.
Looking at Table 4.6 on page 54 only five football teams made money in the FCS last year. Those teams averaged $378,000. The rest (115 teams) averaged a loss of (1,615,000). I wonder which teams made money. I could be wrong but didn't O'Day say that UM was not a team that made money last year. Maybe that was the athletic department as a whole? I wish they would have had a list of all the teams and how they did.
The headline of the article is misleading" in fact, it's basically wrong. The revenue gap is widening between the haves and the have nots (which includes many of the FBS schools). FBS median revenue is increasing at a faster rate than FBS median revenue.
If I'm reading this correctly, the median FBS program loses more than the median FCS program. Thus, if you take out the 22 FBS schools and only 2 FCS schools that make a profit (which have the effect of skewing down the median loss figure), then the gap of median losses would be much wider. Thus, while FBS programs make alot more revenue, the FCS programs towards the bottom have alot bigger losses. I think this means that the bottom revenue (really the ones with the biggest losses) could decrease their losses by moving to FCS. I assume this is sorta what Fullerton is saying.
If I'm reading this correctly, the median FBS program loses more than the median FCS program. Thus, if you take out the 22 FBS schools and only 2 FCS schools that make a profit (which have the effect of skewing down the median loss figure), then the gap of median losses would be much wider. Thus, while FBS programs make alot more revenue, the FCS programs towards the bottom have alot bigger losses. I think this means that the bottom revenue (really the ones with the biggest losses) could decrease their losses by moving to FCS. I assume this is sorta what Fullerton is saying.
BearIt
Well-known member
The table on page 17 compares the revenues and expenses for the athletic departments as a whole. Departments of FBS programs have a median revenue of $48,298,000 and the median expense is $46,688,000. So the median loss is $1.61 million.
Compared to FCS athletic department (median): Revenue=$13,189,000 Expense=13,091,000 Loss=$98,000
So the atheletic department from FBS median loss is $630,000 more than an FCS school.
But,
If you look at the trend on that page: FBS revenue is growing by and average of 8.76% over the last 3 years compared to 8% for FCS. Expenses on the other hand have increased by 6% for FBS programs and 7.6% for FCS programs.
So the gap is widening FCS revenues are not increasing as fast and expenses are rising faster.
Compared to FCS athletic department (median): Revenue=$13,189,000 Expense=13,091,000 Loss=$98,000
So the atheletic department from FBS median loss is $630,000 more than an FCS school.
But,
If you look at the trend on that page: FBS revenue is growing by and average of 8.76% over the last 3 years compared to 8% for FCS. Expenses on the other hand have increased by 6% for FBS programs and 7.6% for FCS programs.
So the gap is widening FCS revenues are not increasing as fast and expenses are rising faster.
