-
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!
Tough decision awaits Idaho athletics
- Thread starter MrTitleist
- Start date
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
Grizmayor said:And to win. Can you imagine what WaGriz would look like on Saturday's if we stunk it up like Idaho now does (for the most part).GrizMusician said:
Not too hard to imagine that. Just look at any Big Sky Conference program outside the State of Montana, to see it. Isn't it amazing, how other teams fans can resemble stadium chairs? :lol:
Screamin_Eagle174
Well-known member
spartypants said:
I plan on it.
stargriz said:
This series dates back to 1903...The Griz lost 19 of the first 24 and 31 of the first 43 (one tie). Currently the series stands at 55-27, which means that since 1945 the series is 36-22. Not exactly total domination. And from the Don Read-era and beyond the Griz lead 9-6, including 8 of the last 10. Me thinks the Idaho "mystique" has been pretty much solved.
IdaGriz01
Well-known member
Money Talks ... BS Walks
Some fodder for the on-going debate about moving up/down. I will not get into the “academic peer” issue, since that’s totally fuzzy and subject to interpretation by everyone on this board.
No, I think we can all agree that it’s all (mostly?) about the money. This site ... “Business of College Sports” (BofCS) ... has posted a series of articles with data from the U.S. Department of Education. The data is from reports the schools are required to submit to the Department. (The service academies are not included.) The link is http://businessofcollegesports.com/category/conference.finance.series/
They did it for both football and basketball. There’s a huge amount of data there, and I won’t repeat the caveats about how to interpret the numbers. Most programs did “officially” make money, BTW. The BofCS people only did it for the FBS conferences, but I went and got the same report for UM. (I’ll let someone else do it for the Big Sky, if they want to.)
A look at the numbers suggests that for teams like Idaho (and UM and the other top FCS programs), the move up/down issue is almost irrelevant. The difference in $$$ between the top dogs and the bottom feeders of the FBS conferences is just ridiculous. Even lowly Vanderbilt had as much revenue as the average FB program in the ACC, and it gets worse from there.
My point: Sooner rather than later, we’re going to see a seismic shift in Division-I football. With some sort of nod to the better basketball schools, I believe those rich programs will create their own division. There are 48 schools that generate over $30 million in total revenue from their football and basketball programs annually. (All compete in both sports.) The average total revenue is $51.8 million.
None of those 48 teams are from non-BCS conferences. (Only four of the eight Big East teams that play football make the $30 million total revenue cut-off, BTW.) With that kind of money to play around with, the “haves” can easily find some way to buy off the NCAA. What that will mean for the remaining FBS have-nots, and the FCS ... I have no idea. I have a few other comments below, for after you’ve skimmed the numbers.
Football revenues (all amounts in millions), sorted by conference average
SEC
. . . Avg $53.3
. . . Hi .. $76.8 (Alabama)
. . . Lo .. $22.5 (Vanderbilt)
Big Ten
. . . Avg $43.4
. . . Hi .. $72.8 (Penn State)
. . . Lo .. $18.4 (Purdue)
Big 12
. . . Avg $35.5
. . . Hi .. $95.8 (Texas)
. . . Lo .. $13.5 (Kansas)
Pac.12 (expect dramatic rise with a new TV contract)
. . . Avg $25.0
. . . Hi .. $39.4 (Washington)
. . . Lo .. $12.7 (Washington State)
ACC
. . . Avg $22.5
. . . Hi .. $35.1 (Virg Tech)
. . . Lo ... $9.4 (Wake Forrest)
Wake lost money ($3.8) on its football program in 2010-2011.
Big East
. . . Avg $19.1
. . . Hi .. $25.0 (West Virg)
. . . Lo .. $13.4 (Cincinnati)
Mt West
. . . Avg $12.9
. . . Hi .. $22.6 (TCU)
. . . Lo ... $7.7 (Colo State)
Conf USA
. . . Avg . $9.2
. . . Hi .. $13.4 (UCF)
. . . Lo ... $6.4 (So. Miss)
WAC
. . . Avg .. $7.5
. . . Hi .. $13.0 (Boise State)
. . . mid.. $7.7 (Idaho. Net $2.0 over expenses -- football only)
. . . Lo ... $4.8 (Utah State)
Utah State lost money ($0.5) on its football program in 2010-2011.
UM
. . . val .. $6.9 (Net of $1.8 million over expenses)
Mid.Amer
. . . Avg . $6.2
. . . Hi .. $10.1 (Temple)
. . . Lo ... $4.2 (No. Illinois)
No. Illinois lost money ($2.2) on its football program in 2010-2011.
Sun Belt
. . . Avg. $5.6
. . . Hi .. $7.8 (Fla. International)
. . . Lo .. $3.0 (La. Monroe)
Note that Idaho seems to be right where it belongs, financially, with revenue very close to the average for the WAC. Revenue for the Griz are above the average for the MAC and Sun Belt, and within striking distance for the WAC.
However, as I implied above, it seems rather pointless to even worry about that issue. Who knows what college football will look like when the monster money machine starts dictating terms?
Some fodder for the on-going debate about moving up/down. I will not get into the “academic peer” issue, since that’s totally fuzzy and subject to interpretation by everyone on this board.
No, I think we can all agree that it’s all (mostly?) about the money. This site ... “Business of College Sports” (BofCS) ... has posted a series of articles with data from the U.S. Department of Education. The data is from reports the schools are required to submit to the Department. (The service academies are not included.) The link is http://businessofcollegesports.com/category/conference.finance.series/
They did it for both football and basketball. There’s a huge amount of data there, and I won’t repeat the caveats about how to interpret the numbers. Most programs did “officially” make money, BTW. The BofCS people only did it for the FBS conferences, but I went and got the same report for UM. (I’ll let someone else do it for the Big Sky, if they want to.)
A look at the numbers suggests that for teams like Idaho (and UM and the other top FCS programs), the move up/down issue is almost irrelevant. The difference in $$$ between the top dogs and the bottom feeders of the FBS conferences is just ridiculous. Even lowly Vanderbilt had as much revenue as the average FB program in the ACC, and it gets worse from there.
My point: Sooner rather than later, we’re going to see a seismic shift in Division-I football. With some sort of nod to the better basketball schools, I believe those rich programs will create their own division. There are 48 schools that generate over $30 million in total revenue from their football and basketball programs annually. (All compete in both sports.) The average total revenue is $51.8 million.
None of those 48 teams are from non-BCS conferences. (Only four of the eight Big East teams that play football make the $30 million total revenue cut-off, BTW.) With that kind of money to play around with, the “haves” can easily find some way to buy off the NCAA. What that will mean for the remaining FBS have-nots, and the FCS ... I have no idea. I have a few other comments below, for after you’ve skimmed the numbers.
Football revenues (all amounts in millions), sorted by conference average
SEC
. . . Avg $53.3
. . . Hi .. $76.8 (Alabama)
. . . Lo .. $22.5 (Vanderbilt)
Big Ten
. . . Avg $43.4
. . . Hi .. $72.8 (Penn State)
. . . Lo .. $18.4 (Purdue)
Big 12
. . . Avg $35.5
. . . Hi .. $95.8 (Texas)
. . . Lo .. $13.5 (Kansas)
Pac.12 (expect dramatic rise with a new TV contract)
. . . Avg $25.0
. . . Hi .. $39.4 (Washington)
. . . Lo .. $12.7 (Washington State)
ACC
. . . Avg $22.5
. . . Hi .. $35.1 (Virg Tech)
. . . Lo ... $9.4 (Wake Forrest)
Wake lost money ($3.8) on its football program in 2010-2011.
Big East
. . . Avg $19.1
. . . Hi .. $25.0 (West Virg)
. . . Lo .. $13.4 (Cincinnati)
Mt West
. . . Avg $12.9
. . . Hi .. $22.6 (TCU)
. . . Lo ... $7.7 (Colo State)
Conf USA
. . . Avg . $9.2
. . . Hi .. $13.4 (UCF)
. . . Lo ... $6.4 (So. Miss)
WAC
. . . Avg .. $7.5
. . . Hi .. $13.0 (Boise State)
. . . mid.. $7.7 (Idaho. Net $2.0 over expenses -- football only)
. . . Lo ... $4.8 (Utah State)
Utah State lost money ($0.5) on its football program in 2010-2011.
UM
. . . val .. $6.9 (Net of $1.8 million over expenses)
Mid.Amer
. . . Avg . $6.2
. . . Hi .. $10.1 (Temple)
. . . Lo ... $4.2 (No. Illinois)
No. Illinois lost money ($2.2) on its football program in 2010-2011.
Sun Belt
. . . Avg. $5.6
. . . Hi .. $7.8 (Fla. International)
. . . Lo .. $3.0 (La. Monroe)
Note that Idaho seems to be right where it belongs, financially, with revenue very close to the average for the WAC. Revenue for the Griz are above the average for the MAC and Sun Belt, and within striking distance for the WAC.
However, as I implied above, it seems rather pointless to even worry about that issue. Who knows what college football will look like when the monster money machine starts dictating terms?
IdaGriz01
Well-known member
Beats hell outa me. I read -- and just re-read -- the original article, and the sport-writers "reasons" are pretty lame anyway.Spanky said:
Huh?Sheltra said:
He makes the assumption the WAC is probably going to die, and leave Idaho with no place to go ... except back to the Big Sky. Aside from the shakiness of that assumption, trying to figure how various possible realignments might go after that is pure guesswork. His ramblings about budgets and body-bag games are all right as far they go, but not really relevant to the drop-down question. So I don't buy his argument.
Personally, I think there is almost no chance that Idaho drops back to FCS. Besides, as I suggested in my post, the fate of have-not programs like Idaho is not going to be decided in Moscow, or in Boise for that matter. Even Boise State, at $13 million in revenue, barely matches the absolute bottom FB programs in the Pac-12, Big 12, and Big East.
I suspect that those against moving from FCS to FBS continue to look to point out how Idaho has failed in FBS and, of course, the same would be true if UM moved to FBS. Now, Hammer, this isn't a move up post. I've pointed out, more than once that I don't believe UM will move up..for many reasons. :thumb:
