Watering down of FCS

[GoApps70]

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.

No need to be sorry to inform me. Was never my intention or purpose to push Montana's move to FBS. Only to provide some of the additional sources of money that might be available if such a move was anticipated, as was asked.
Any school moving to FBS obviously would have to spend more normally. Bean counters would be more able to tell you of the feasibility. Sounds like you may have had a study at some time so that would tell you some things. Some of this BCS revenue was not available until the last couple of months, and would not have been included in your study.
Would like to point out that the study you show for Georgia Southern was done in 2009 , I believe, for their former AD Baker, who for many years sided with GSU not only not moving to FBS but not even making facility improvements in many cases. Many believe that anyone could justify almost any school not moving to FBS if that were their intentions.

 

[EverettGriz]

70 clearly understands these issues.

Thanks for posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[get'em_griz]

70 clearly understands these issues.

Thanks for posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 agreed.

 

[BigSkyBears]

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.

I know, but EverettGrizz mentioned CSU and Montana are on par, meaning equals as of right now. The $$$ as evidence clearly states Montana and Colorado State are not comparable.

 

[JBS]

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?

I think PR is onto something here. Why WOULD a University want to increase it's enrollment anyway? I say let's decrease it (Engstrom has done a brilliant job of that so far) and rent out some of the buildings. Coffee shops, suntan salons, halfass CPA offices, some shady lawyers, maybe even a weed store or two. We could rent to a couple of bars, but since the campus is non-smoking they would probably fail. And on top of that, the golf course would be safe because we wouldn't need the COT(or whatever it is called now) because in the spirit of decreased enrollment, who needs more students? Once again, PR has made a brilliant point! !!!!DOWN WITH MORE STUDENTS!!!!! !!!!NO MORE STUDENTS!!!! !!!!STUDENTS SUCK!!!!

 

[GrizLA]

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?

I think PR is onto something here. Why WOULD a University want to increase it's enrollment anyway? I say let's decrease it (Engstrom has done a brilliant job of that so far) and rent out some of the buildings. Coffee shops, suntan salons, halfass CPA offices, some shady lawyers, maybe even a weed store or two. We could rent to a couple of bars, but since the campus is non-smoking they would probably fail. And on top of that, the golf course would be safe because we wouldn't need the COT(or whatever it is called now) because in the spirit of decreased enrollment, who needs more students? Once again, PR has made a brilliant point! !!!!DOWN WITH MORE STUDENTS!!!!! !!!!NO MORE STUDENTS!!!! !!!!STUDENTS SUCK!!!!

It is academics more than athletics that attracts students these days in most parts of the country. In fact, California schools and the Ivy League are now magnets for foreign students who have never heard of football as it is played in the US....UM is curtailing staff and that is not what great schools do.

 

[JBS]

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?

I think PR is onto something here. Why WOULD a University want to increase it's enrollment anyway? I say let's decrease it (Engstrom has done a brilliant job of that so far) and rent out some of the buildings. Coffee shops, suntan salons, halfass CPA offices, some shady lawyers, maybe even a weed store or two. We could rent to a couple of bars, but since the campus is non-smoking they would probably fail. And on top of that, the golf course would be safe because we wouldn't need the COT(or whatever it is called now) because in the spirit of decreased enrollment, who needs more students? Once again, PR has made a brilliant point! !!!!DOWN WITH MORE STUDENTS!!!!! !!!!NO MORE STUDENTS!!!! !!!!STUDENTS SUCK!!!!

It is academics more than athletics that attracts students these days in most parts of the country. In fact, California schools and the Ivy League are now magnets for foreign students who have never heard of football as it is played in the US....UM is curtailing staff and that is not what great schools do.

I hope you got my sarcasm.

 

[GrizLA]

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?

I think PR is onto something here. Why WOULD a University want to increase it's enrollment anyway? I say let's decrease it (Engstrom has done a brilliant job of that so far) and rent out some of the buildings. Coffee shops, suntan salons, halfass CPA offices, some shady lawyers, maybe even a weed store or two. We could rent to a couple of bars, but since the campus is non-smoking they would probably fail. And on top of that, the golf course would be safe because we wouldn't need the COT(or whatever it is called now) because in the spirit of decreased enrollment, who needs more students? Once again, PR has made a brilliant point! !!!!DOWN WITH MORE STUDENTS!!!!! !!!!NO MORE STUDENTS!!!! !!!!STUDENTS SUCK!!!!

It is academics more than athletics that attracts students these days in most parts of the country. In fact, California schools and the Ivy League are now magnets for foreign students who have never heard of football as it is played in the US....UM is curtailing staff and that is not what great schools do.

I hope you got my sarcasm.

oops...must be the heat...

 

[EverettGriz]

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.

I know, but EverettGrizz mentioned CSU and Montana are on par, meaning equals as of right now. The $$$ as evidence clearly states Montana and Colorado State are not comparable.

At no time did I say UM and CSU were on par. I said they are peer universities. As a matter of fact, the point I was trying to make in this thread is that while they are peer universities, they are NOT on par, because one is FBS and plays in a legit conference and one does not.

And yes, they are peer universities.

 

[KoolMoeDee]

At no time did I say UM and CSU were on par. I said they are peer universities. As a matter of fact, the point I was trying to make in this thread is that while they are peer universities, they are NOT on par, because one is FBS and plays in a legit conference and one does not.

And yes, they are peer universities.

Could you give a link to this info. All I've found is that neither claim to be the others "peer."

 

[BigSkyBears]

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.

I know, but EverettGrizz mentioned CSU and Montana are on par, meaning equals as of right now. The $$$ as evidence clearly states Montana and Colorado State are not comparable.

At no time did I say UM and CSU were on par. I said they are peer universities. As a matter of fact, the point I was trying to make in this thread is that while they are peer universities, they are NOT on par, because one is FBS and plays in a legit conference and one does not.

And yes, they are peer universities.

Well, "peer" can be a little misleading. Do you should Montana be in the same league as Colorado State? Might as well add Texas State, Illinois State, Idaho State, Indiana State, etc. Not all "state" universities are equal. Your budget dollars tell you right now you're closer to UNC rather than CSU. Isn't Montana's budget for athletics going to decrease because of budget cuts? I think I saw something on here mentioning that. I guess the bottom line is your arrogance is beyond facts, Everette. Stop pretending you're CSU, USC, Notre Dame, Florida State, etc. Your $$$$ says you're not at all.

 

[BigSkyBears]

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.

I know, but EverettGrizz mentioned CSU and Montana are on par, meaning equals as of right now. The $$$ as evidence clearly states Montana and Colorado State are not comparable.

At no time did I say UM and CSU were on par. I said they are peer universities. As a matter of fact, the point I was trying to make in this thread is that while they are peer universities, they are NOT on par, because one is FBS and plays in a legit conference and one does not.

And yes, they are peer universities.

The Big Sky isn't a legit conference? I think it's a very good conference. Be Humble, man. You never know if Montana football will fall.

 

[Spanky]

Big Sky....Everett is right on with his comments. I realize that you want your school to do well, but don't try to lower UM to the same level as Northern Colorado. Yes, we have an inept president at the moment, but most of us are hoping not for long. In the meantime, it might be good for your school to move back to Division2 as the move to FCS was ill advised until the athletic program has some fan support, except for yourself and the other 299.

 

[WILDCATFAN]

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.

I know, but EverettGrizz mentioned CSU and Montana are on par, meaning equals as of right now. The $$$ as evidence clearly states Montana and Colorado State are not comparable.

At no time did I say UM and CSU were on par. I said they are peer universities. As a matter of fact, the point I was trying to make in this thread is that while they are peer universities, they are NOT on par, because one is FBS and plays in a legit conference and one does not.

And yes, they are peer universities.

The Big Sky isn't a legit conference? I think it's a very good conference. Be Humble, man. You never know if Montana football will fall.

+1

I thought the Big Sky was one of the most LEGIT conferences in the FCS last year, it was a strong football conference, And even some of the weaker programs last year pushed the Big Dogs to thier limits. Non legit conference my @$$

 

[Spanky]

Wildcat....the Big Sky is a community college conference..

 

[EverettGriz]

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.

I know, but EverettGrizz mentioned CSU and Montana are on par, meaning equals as of right now. The $$$ as evidence clearly states Montana and Colorado State are not comparable.

At no time did I say UM and CSU were on par. I said they are peer universities. As a matter of fact, the point I was trying to make in this thread is that while they are peer universities, they are NOT on par, because one is FBS and plays in a legit conference and one does not.

And yes, they are peer universities.

Well, "peer" can be a little misleading. Do you should Montana be in the same league as Colorado State? Might as well add Texas State, Illinois State, Idaho State, Indiana State, etc. Not all "state" universities are equal. You're budget dollars tell you right now you're closer to UNC rather than CSU. Isn't Montana's budget for athletics going to decrease because of budget cuts? I think I saw something on here mentioning that. I guess the bottom line is your arrogance is beyond facts, Everette. Stop pretending you're CSU, USC, Notre Dame, Florida State, etc. Your $$$$ says you're not at all.

This post is so dumb I don't even know how to begin to address it without sounding like a complete moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BigSkyBears]

I know, but EverettGrizz mentioned CSU and Montana are on par, meaning equals as of right now. The $$$ as evidence clearly states Montana and Colorado State are not comparable.

At no time did I say UM and CSU were on par. I said they are peer universities. As a matter of fact, the point I was trying to make in this thread is that while they are peer universities, they are NOT on par, because one is FBS and plays in a legit conference and one does not.

And yes, they are peer universities.

Well, "peer" can be a little misleading. Do you should Montana be in the same league as Colorado State? Might as well add Texas State, Illinois State, Idaho State, Indiana State, etc. Not all "state" universities are equal. Your budget dollars tell you right now you're closer to UNC rather than CSU. Isn't Montana's budget for athletics going to decrease because of budget cuts? I think I saw something on here mentioning that. I guess the bottom line is your arrogance is beyond facts, Everette. Stop pretending you're CSU, USC, Notre Dame, Florida State, etc. Your $$$$ says you're not at all.

This post is so dumb I don't even know how to begin to address it without sounding like a complete moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why are you such an arrogant fan?

 

[billings_poke]

Old Dominion on moving up to CUSA


ODU athletic director Wood Selig said joining C-USA will be a financial boon. The school received about $125,000 in yearly revenue from the CAA; in 2013-2014, C-USA will provide about $1.2 million. That increases to more than $2.2 million in 2014, ODU's first year as a full football member. All schools are expected to received about $1 million apiece from the new College Football Championship in 2014.

That means conference revenue should cover most of the $3 million in budget increases ODU needed to pay for moving up.


Source:
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/06/cusa-no-stranger-conference-realignment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[flowtowngriz]

The main question is are we content playing teams that we believe are below us or should we try to stay with the teams that we feel is our rivals or we get excited for.
Idaho, Boise St, Nevada and Wyoming.
Or Eastern Washington, Weber, and Portland St
In my opinion there is no way the rival of Idaho will ever be reached by any Big Sky team we have now

 

[EverettGriz]

Old Dominion on moving up to CUSA


ODU athletic director Wood Selig said joining C-USA will be a financial boon. The school received about $125,000 in yearly revenue from the CAA; in 2013-2014, C-USA will provide about $1.2 million. That increases to more than $2.2 million in 2014, ODU's first year as a full football member. All schools are expected to received about $1 million apiece from the new College Football Championship in 2014.

That means conference revenue should cover most of the $3 million in budget increases ODU needed to pay for moving up.


Source:
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/06/cusa-no-stranger-conference-realignment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shocking.