Watering down of FCS

[BigSkyBears]

State flagship universities with similar a anemic rankings,similar research dollars,etc.

Even you have to admit Montana has far more in common with CSU than it does UNC. Same thing with Wazzu and Eastetn. That's no disrespect to UNC or Eastern It's just a fact and the nature of being a flagship university.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CSU is not the flagship of Colorado. The University of Colorado is. CSU is the land grant. I'll do some digging and find out how much research dollars are spent at CSU compared to Montana. I already gave the endowment $$$, and they're not comparable at all.

Also, by your logic does that mean Idaho State should be FBS? Should Kentucky State be FBS? Illinois State? Tennessee State?

 

[BigSkyBears]

State flagship universities with similar a anemic rankings,similar research dollars,etc.

Even you have to admit Montana has far more in common with CSU than it does UNC. Same thing with Wazzu and Eastetn. That's no disrespect to UNC or Eastern It's just a fact and the nature of being a flagship university.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, if you're going by $$$ which again is the most important thing in college sports and some would say academia, you're going to find out you're more close to UNC than CSU.

Look at the endowment money. Endowment is probably the best figure to look at because endowment is essentially money the bank.

CSU - $234,705, 908
Montana - $130,685, 908
That's a difference of $104, 019 776

Now compare UNC and Montana
Montana - $130,685, 908
UNC - $77,173, 142.
That's only a difference of $53, 512, 766

 

[GrizzMark]

L

 

[get'em_griz]

Would it really be that far-fetched to think that maybe enrollment would rise if we moved up to FBS?

 

[kemajic]

If you're nitpicking about Montana's glorious academic reputation :roll: then consider new Big SKy members UC-Davis and Cal Poly. Both of which are far and above any other Big Sky school when it comes to academics; yet I don't see any of their fans complaining about being with "lowly Big Sky schools."

Beggars can't be choosers.... Where else were they going before the act of mercy?

 

[kemajic]

the BSC won more than they know with the addition of these two.

Since only for football, I don't know how important that is.

 

[griz4life]

I recall Davis' students being told FCS was a stepping stone, that was the pitch for higher athletic fees when they left DII. Davis is one of the best Ag Science schools in the nation, way better than MSU. Cal Poly SLO is a better engineering school. I think the liberal arts comparison might not be applicable.

 

[kemajic]

State flagship universities with similar a anemic rankings,similar research dollars,etc.

Even you have to admit Montana has far more in common with CSU than it does UNC. Same thing with Wazzu and Eastetn. That's no disrespect to UNC or Eastern It's just a fact and the nature of being a flagship university.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, if you're going by $$$ which again is the most important thing in college sports and some would say academia, you're going to find out you're more close to UNC than CSU.

Look at the endowment money. Endowment is probably the best figure to look at because endowment is essentially money the bank.

CSU - $234,705, 908
Montana - $130,685, 908
That's a difference of $104, 019 776 0r 79%
Now compare UNC and Montana
Montana - $130,685, 908
UNC - $77,173, 142. That's only a difference of $53, 512, 766[/b] Or 70%

That's a big difference? I would argue that endowment is not the best measuring stick, since endowments typically are directed to specific departments and not to the general fund. So unless you know how much is endowed to the ADs, then it doesn't mean much. Better is a look at football attendance, since that is directly related to football revenue, before the creative accountants go to work.

Montana - 25,236 ave.
CSU - 19,250
That's a difference of 5986 (more than any UNC game) or 31%

 

[indian-outlaw]

State flagship universities with similar a anemic rankings,similar research dollars,etc.

Even you have to admit Montana has far more in common with CSU than it does UNC. Same thing with Wazzu and Eastetn. That's no disrespect to UNC or Eastern It's just a fact and the nature of being a flagship university.

As far as research dollars go, which is the difference between colleges and universities along with grad school programs, we are more closely aligned with UNC and EWU than CSU or Washington State for sure.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Better is a look at football attendance, since that is directly related to football revenue, before the creative accountants go to work.

Montana - 25,236 ave.
CSU - 19,250
That's a difference of 5986 (more than any UNC game) or 31%

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So, Montana draws more than CSU and UNC COMBINED?? :lol: :lol:

 

[BigSkyBears]

State flagship universities with similar a anemic rankings,similar research dollars,etc.

Even you have to admit Montana has far more in common with CSU than it does UNC. Same thing with Wazzu and Eastetn. That's no disrespect to UNC or Eastern It's just a fact and the nature of being a flagship university.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, if you're going by $$$ which again is the most important thing in college sports and some would say academia, you're going to find out you're more close to UNC than CSU.

Look at the endowment money. Endowment is probably the best figure to look at because endowment is essentially money the bank.

CSU - $234,705, 908
Montana - $130,685, 908
That's a difference of $104, 019 776 0r 79%
Now compare UNC and Montana
Montana - $130,685, 908
UNC - $77,173, 142. That's only a difference of $53, 512, 766[/b] Or 70%

That's a big difference? I would argue that endowment is not the best measuring stick, since endowments typically are directed to specific departments and not to the general fund. So unless you know how much is endowed to the ADs, then it doesn't mean much. Better is a look at football attendance, since that is directly related to football revenue, before the creative accountants go to work.

Montana - 25,236 ave.
CSU - 19,250
That's a difference of 5986 (more than any UNC game) or 31%

But even if you look at athletic revenues, you're still closer to UNC, not CSU. It's not a big margin, but a difference nonetheless. I still like to use endowment because that's essentially how rich you are. Comparably UNC and Montana are closer.

Here's the data on athletic revenues.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[flowtowngriz]

The main question is what is going to grow your university. If your happy what we have and don't think we should expand the university to different area like medical, or any other types of programs or research dollars then stay at the fcs. If you want to grow then a move to fbs is almost essential not a must. The idea of fbs to the university is to get your name in front of a national audience so that you can grow the student count and more dollars from corporations to invest. It not all just football. Though the fans would get better games for their money. You forget that most fbs school bring more fans to away games then most fcs schools have for home games. Sad but it is true. Plus it would help for basketball, softball, and volleyball.

 

[PlayerRep]

What would you expect those revenues to be ?

Not wanting to be invasive, but being a member of the Gang of Five (the lower tier FBS conferences) would give each conference $12,000,000 each per year maximum, or $1,000,000 for each school if under 12. Conference has 12 teams, gets $1,000,000 per year per team minimum from the BCS playoff pool. Conference adds additional teams, still just divides the twelve million.

Additionally, each of the Gof5's will be ranked each year, basically APR and record. Additional monies will be paid to each conference dependent upon their ranking each year. Top conference gets an additional, I believe $2.4 million to be divided among the members. Some expect this amount to go up quite a bit in the next few years. Goes down pretty proportionally with each conference place finish each year.

The top Gof5 team that is selected to play in the four team BCS Championship Playoffs received several million dollars, how much they keep depends on their conference arrangement. Additionally will help their television/media rights in the future.

Each Gof5 has their television/media rights that may bring in from practically nothing to as much as @ $2.4 million per conference member per year.

Additionally the cost paid to a Gof5 from BCS teams can be a lot more than if they are an FCS team. App State will receive $1,000,000 for playing Michigan again next year. Arkansas State just signed a couple of days ago to play Southern Cal in 2015 for $1.3 million. This is normally 2 to 3 times as much as most FCS teams are paid, additionally certain BCS conferences may not allow their schools to play FCS teams in the future, as the Big 10 said a few months ago.

There are other things, such as corporate sponsorship and donations and additional sales maybe from items. Additionally Tier 3 media rights can be sold if not controlled by the conference (basically OOC games in football and basketball). Here again, didn't mean to interfere with this thread as an outsider, but have researched it a lot more recently than some because of App State's pending move to FBS.

Sorry to inform you, but the feasiblity studies, including the one for UM, generally show that it takes over $5 million per year to move up, plus the cost of additional and better facilties. Even if you numbers are accepted as accurate, they don't come close to that amount of additional needed funds to move up.

Even as of over 5 years ago, UM received $600,000 or so for one or more FBS games. That's not one million, but it's not too far from what you say ASU will get from Michigan in the future.

With continuing realignment, and the threat of the top FBS conferences breaking away to form their own football group, the "expected" money from the playoffs for the bottom FBS conferences looks a bit shakey to me.

The revenue numbers, even your optimistic ones, just don't add up to even come close to covering the additional expenses. In fact, they don't even come close to covering the additional costs.

 

[get'em_griz]

State flagship universities with similar a anemic rankings,similar research dollars,etc.

Even you have to admit Montana has far more in common with CSU than it does UNC. Same thing with Wazzu and Eastetn. That's no disrespect to UNC or Eastern It's just a fact and the nature of being a flagship university.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, if you're going by $$$ which again is the most important thing in college sports and some would say academia, you're going to find out you're more close to UNC than CSU.

Look at the endowment money. Endowment is probably the best figure to look at because endowment is essentially money the bank.

CSU - $234,705, 908
Montana - $130,685, 908
That's a difference of $104, 019 776 0r 79%
Now compare UNC and Montana
Montana - $130,685, 908
UNC - $77,173, 142. That's only a difference of $53, 512, 766[/b] Or 70%

That's a big difference? I would argue that endowment is not the best measuring stick, since endowments typically are directed to specific departments and not to the general fund. So unless you know how much is endowed to the ADs, then it doesn't mean much. Better is a look at football attendance, since that is directly related to football revenue, before the creative accountants go to work.

Montana - 25,236 ave.
CSU - 19,250
That's a difference of 5986 (more than any UNC game) or 31%

But even if you look at athletic revenues, you're still closer to UNC, not CSU. It's not a big margin, but a difference nonetheless. I still like to use endowment because that's essentially how rich you are. Comparably UNC and Montana are closer.

Here's the data on athletic revenues.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course our revenues aren't as high as CSU... Teams in the FBS bring in more revenue than the FCS. If Montana were to go to the fBS, you would see revenues closer to what CSU has now.

 

[EverettGriz]

What would you expect those revenues to be ?

Not wanting to be invasive, but being a member of the Gang of Five (the lower tier FBS conferences) would give each conference $12,000,000 each per year maximum, or $1,000,000 for each school if under 12. Conference has 12 teams, gets $1,000,000 per year per team minimum from the BCS playoff pool. Conference adds additional teams, still just divides the twelve million.

Additionally, each of the Gof5's will be ranked each year, basically APR and record. Additional monies will be paid to each conference dependent upon their ranking each year. Top conference gets an additional, I believe $2.4 million to be divided among the members. Some expect this amount to go up quite a bit in the next few years. Goes down pretty proportionally with each conference place finish each year.

The top Gof5 team that is selected to play in the four team BCS Championship Playoffs received several million dollars, how much they keep depends on their conference arrangement. Additionally will help their television/media rights in the future.

Each Gof5 has their television/media rights that may bring in from practically nothing to as much as @ $2.4 million per conference member per year.

Additionally the cost paid to a Gof5 from BCS teams can be a lot more than if they are an FCS team. App State will receive $1,000,000 for playing Michigan again next year. Arkansas State just signed a couple of days ago to play Southern Cal in 2015 for $1.3 million. This is normally 2 to 3 times as much as most FCS teams are paid, additionally certain BCS conferences may not allow their schools to play FCS teams in the future, as the Big 10 said a few months ago.

There are other things, such as corporate sponsorship and donations and additional sales maybe from items. Additionally Tier 3 media rights can be sold if not controlled by the conference (basically OOC games in football and basketball). Here again, didn't mean to interfere with this thread as an outsider, but have researched it a lot more recently than some because of App State's pending move to FBS.

Sorry to inform you, but the feasiblity studies, including the one for UM, generally show that it takes over $5 million per year to move up, plus the cost of additional and better facilties. Even if you numbers are accepted as accurate, they don't come close to that amount of additional needed funds to move up.

Even as of over 5 years ago, UM received $600,000 or so for one or more FBS games. That's not one million, but it's not too far from what you say ASU will get from Michigan in the future.

With continuing realignment, and the threat of the top FBS conferences breaking away to form their own football group, the "expected" money from the playoffs for the bottom FBS conferences looks a bit shakey to me.

The revenue numbers, even your optimistic ones, just don't add up to even come close to covering the additional expenses. In fact, they don't even come close to covering the additional costs.

So -- and this is not a rhetorical question; I'd REALLY like someone who is steadfastly against a move up due to this "revenue will never meet expenses" argument to answer it -- how do all of the other FBS teams afford it? Why are none moving down or closing up shop?

 

[flowtowngriz]

How much more money would the university make if the amount of students raised 5% eac year for say 5 years or 10 years

 

[PlayerRep]

How much more money would the university make if the amount of students raised 5% eac year for say 5 years or 10 years

How much would it cost the university to add 5% more students every year for 10 years? How many new buildings would have to be built? Where would the buildings be built? How fast could they be built?

 

[PlayerRep]

What would you expect those revenues to be ?

Not wanting to be invasive, but being a member of the Gang of Five (the lower tier FBS conferences) would give each conference $12,000,000 each per year maximum, or $1,000,000 for each school if under 12. Conference has 12 teams, gets $1,000,000 per year per team minimum from the BCS playoff pool. Conference adds additional teams, still just divides the twelve million.

Additionally, each of the Gof5's will be ranked each year, basically APR and record. Additional monies will be paid to each conference dependent upon their ranking each year. Top conference gets an additional, I believe $2.4 million to be divided among the members. Some expect this amount to go up quite a bit in the next few years. Goes down pretty proportionally with each conference place finish each year.

The top Gof5 team that is selected to play in the four team BCS Championship Playoffs received several million dollars, how much they keep depends on their conference arrangement. Additionally will help their television/media rights in the future.

Each Gof5 has their television/media rights that may bring in from practically nothing to as much as @ $2.4 million per conference member per year.

Additionally the cost paid to a Gof5 from BCS teams can be a lot more than if they are an FCS team. App State will receive $1,000,000 for playing Michigan again next year. Arkansas State just signed a couple of days ago to play Southern Cal in 2015 for $1.3 million. This is normally 2 to 3 times as much as most FCS teams are paid, additionally certain BCS conferences may not allow their schools to play FCS teams in the future, as the Big 10 said a few months ago.

There are other things, such as corporate sponsorship and donations and additional sales maybe from items. Additionally Tier 3 media rights can be sold if not controlled by the conference (basically OOC games in football and basketball). Here again, didn't mean to interfere with this thread as an outsider, but have researched it a lot more recently than some because of App State's pending move to FBS.

Sorry to inform you, but the feasiblity studies, including the one for UM, generally show that it takes over $5 million per year to move up, plus the cost of additional and better facilties. Even if you numbers are accepted as accurate, they don't come close to that amount of additional needed funds to move up.

Even as of over 5 years ago, UM received $600,000 or so for one or more FBS games. That's not one million, but it's not too far from what you say ASU will get from Michigan in the future.

With continuing realignment, and the threat of the top FBS conferences breaking away to form their own football group, the "expected" money from the playoffs for the bottom FBS conferences looks a bit shakey to me.

The revenue numbers, even your optimistic ones, just don't add up to even come close to covering the additional expenses. In fact, they don't even come close to covering the additional costs.

So -- and this is not a rhetorical question; I'd REALLY like someone who is steadfastly against a move up due to this "revenue will never meet expenses" argument to answer it -- how do all of the other FBS teams afford it? Why are none moving down or closing up shop?

"Revenues" are increased to cover the additional costs in a number of ways: Increased student fees, increased state subsidies, increased ticket prices. This is how the "shortfall" is covered, or some of the ways. The shortfall is the portion of increased costs not covered by the below components. Increased attendance (for those schools whose attendance will increase after the move up). Also increased donations and corporate sponsors. In addition, there is increased revenue from the new conference, including television and perhaps from our sources like ncaa hoops payouts (depending on the conference), and increased non-conference game fees. In the coming years, there may be a $1 million or so payout from the FBS playoffs, if this revenue stream does in fact materialize. For some schools (like Idaho), they will move up on the cheap, i.e. without adequate increases in the budget, and suffer the consequences by decreasing their chances of success. For example, not have enough money for better facilities to attract topnotch recruits, not pay their coaches enough, not have a big enough recruiting budget, etc.

I did this off the top of my head. Feel free to point out other components that I may have missed.

 

[PlayerRep]

Found this on App St's move up. I think App St's feasibility concluded that they'd need about $5 million extra to move up. If the below figure is correct, they're only planning on $4 million. Is App St skimping a bit of the needed increased budget?

"Budget impact:

ASU’s annual athletic budget is project to increase from 16 million to about 20 million. Plans are for increased revenue at the FBS level to help offset the additional cost, which will include more travel, more scholarships and eventual salary and staff upgrades.

The income increase will come from a variety of sources.

Sun Belt revenue sharing is expected to increase the till by about $1.5 million a year. That money will come from television contracts – the Sun Belt has a multi-year agreement with ESPN as well as a partnership with Comcast/Charter Sports Southeast and Cox Sports Television; a BCS share given to non-AQ conferences; and NCAA proceeds including basketball tournament and bowl payouts shared by Sun Belt members.

On the ASU front, there will be continued income from student fees and an aim and hope to raise more money from donors to fund scholarships as well as some debt-refinancing factors and potential to earn more for non-conference road games to help the bottom line.

One relatively small increase in income as result of the move to the FBS is that ASU is now set to receive $1 million for playing at Michigan in 2014 rather than $850,000.

ASU’s entry fee to join the Sun Belt is $1 million, which can be spread out over a three-year period. The Sun Belt’s exit fee is also $1 million."

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/app_trail/article_bb74d02e-97c8-11e2-a863-0019bb30f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GoApps, why don't you lay out, more specifically, how App St is going to pay for the move up?

 

[PlayerRep]

Linked below is the executive summary of the Georgia Southern feasiblity study. Says they'll need $5.1 million plus additional funds for facilities-related costs, to move up. Their budget at the time of the study was $9 million.

Here's a comment on other possible conferences besides the Sun Belt:

"Given the substantial differences in various institutional and market characteristics, it is highly unlikely that Georgia Southern could make an effective transition into FBS conferences such as Conference USA, the Atlantic Coast Conference or the Southeastern Conference in the foreseeable future."

Here's the Conclusion:

"Conclusion
Georgia Southern University could successfully make the transition from NCAA FCS to FBS from a competitive athletic perspective. There is much less confidence in the financial capability to meet the challenge of existing in the high cost and high inflation rate that comes with NCAA FBS. The risk is considerable and the rewards need to be calculated in some concept other than revenue generation. The experience of almost all of those institutions that have reclassified is the dramatic increase in the cost to the institution of intercollegiate athletics.It is not a financial decision to be made based upon a profit motive. It is a decision that more likely should be based upon the prestige of being in the “major leagues” and how that will benefit the institution as it contemplates its future growth and direction."

http://www.southernpigskin.com/SoCon/view/gsu_fbs_feasibility_summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;