What did Western Kentucky decide?

[GSU Eagle]

I haven't following events very closed over the last month, so can someone tell me what decision WKU made. Are they going to the MAC or staying in 1AA?

[henfan]

They're moving to I-A with UMass and Texas St.

[TexasTerror]

They're moving to I-A with UMass and Texas St.

Texas State - San Marcos is not going I-A. What kind of garbage is that? That's a pipe dream considering they can't even compete in I-AA football or I-A basketball in the SLC.

The Bobcats, if they get their act together and live up to expectations across the board, may be I-A in 10 years, but I think by that point, the face of college sports as we know it will change big time.

[txstman]

What the hell is I-A basketball?

[TexasTerror]

What the hell is I-A basketball?

You know what I mean, Div I basketball. Jumping out of the SLC. They're already Div I basketball, but won't be going Sun Belt, C-USA, MWC or anywhere until they can prove valuable on football field and on the bball court.

[greenG]

I haven't following events very closed over the last month, so can someone tell me what decision WKU made. Are they going to the MAC or staying in 1AA?

There has been no decision, on the part of the MAC, to offer WKU membership yet. It is expected but may not happen until June `06. There is a lot of support from the MAC and WKU fandom for WKU joining. Their moving to D-IA and to the MAC would bring the conference to 14 members for football, now that Temple is a football-only member.

[Killtoppers90]

No decision has been made because it was not WKU's decision to make. A move to the MAC is up to the members of the MAC. And from what I hear, we are not going. It appears that the votes for approval are not there. So we will stay 1-AA until we can move up into Sun Belt competiton.

[greenG]

No decision has been made because it was not WKU's decision to make. A move to the MAC is up to the members of the MAC. And from what I hear, we are not going. It appears that the votes for approval are not there. So we will stay 1-AA until we can move up into Sun Belt competiton.

You are way too pessimistic. There has been no vote by the presidents and there will not be a vote until at least October and probably not until June `06. The MAC is developing its MAC Membership Standards Policy which will be voted on in October. Once that is in place, candidates for expansion will be judged by the conference standards and voted in or not. Conversely, the standards give potential conference members a clearly defined target to shoot at. From everything I've read on the MAC board at NCAABBS.com there is a lot of support for WKU's inclusion and that WKU is making the changes necessary, mostly in football, to move to D-IA and, eventually, the MAC. I expect this time next year the Hilltoppers will be beginning their journey into all sports membership in the Mid-American.

[youwouldno]

I'll assume moving "up" in competition by going to the Sun Belt was a typo.

[JohnStOnge]

Kill...in a very real sense a move to the Sun Belt is not a move "up." I think the Sun Belt football league has a losing record in head to head against I-AA competition in general (it did last time I checked but it's been one or two years) and I know it has a losing record against the Southland in particular. I think that year in and year out the Gateway is a stronger football league than the Sun Belt is.

I also kind of have to shake my head over being all hot to go to the MAC. It might be a little stronger than the Gateway but not by much. But...as always...I just don't understand the desire by somebody to stand on their tippytoes and try to pretend they're something they're not...which is what I think the whole world of football leagues like the MAC and Sun Belt consists of. Everything revolves around having chips on shoulders and trying to be "big time" college football when it's not big time college football and never will be. It's like a 10 year old who insists on mixing it up with the 18 year olds because he thinks doing that will make him look like he's 18. It won't.

[bobcatfan06]

They're moving to I-A with UMass and Texas St.

News to me. Guess I better get my seat now, because that move to I-A will bring massive amounts of people to the Bobcat Stadium on Saturday night. :rolleyes:

[OL FU]

Kill...in a very real sense a move to the Sun Belt is not a move "up." I think the Sun Belt football league has a losing record in head to head against I-AA competition in general (it did last time I checked but it's been one or two years) and I know it has a losing record against the Southland in particular. I think that year in and year out the Gateway is a stronger football league than the Sun Belt is.

I also kind of have to shake my head over being all hot to go to the MAC. It might be a little stronger than the Gateway but not by much. But...as always...I just don't understand the desire by somebody to stand on their tippytoes and try to pretend they're something they're not...which is what I think the whole world of football leagues like the MAC and Sun Belt consists of. Everything revolves around having chips on shoulders and trying to be "big time" college football when it's not big time college football and never will be. It's like a 10 year old who insists on mixing it up with the 18 year olds because he thinks doing that will make him look like he's 18. It won't.

Seems like I remember Killtopper or some other WKU poster telling me it really has more to do with BBall than FBall. Correct?

[therealbigredrules]

Agree Green, Kill seems to be leaning to the pessimistic side. I originaly thought that a WKU move to the MAC would never happen. Not much of an improvement in Basketball and a stretch on our resources for football.

However, as with most of these debates, there is so much more to the
discussion, and while I may just be drinking the cool aid, it does appear
that WKU could improve its overall position with the move. This includes
both sports and academics.

The Sun Belt:
When looking at the realities of on the field competition, to say that a
move to I-A football in the Sun Belt is a move up may be a stretch. I am
not a fan of I-A in the Sun Belt. However, this is mostly due to my
overall lack of faith in the Sun Belt and its management. Bottom line, the
Sun Belt is not stable and not progressive. When WKU joined the Sun Belt
it was for basketball - our football program went independent. This was a
very smart, calculated move because at that time the Sun Belt was a very
strong basketball league. (No question football suffered until it found a
home in the Gateway.) The conference was getting multiple bids, had larger
TV markets, and consistently had teams ranked in the top 20 for Basketball.
The Sun Belt today is only a shell of what it was 20- 25 years ago. It is
time for WKU to move. Change is good.

I-A vs I-AA:
Let me start by saying I love I-AA football, the fact that it has a real
tournament and all that it stands for. I love the debates on this board.
I hate the lack of respect, lack of press, and mostly, the lack of
understanding among the general public. How many times have we read posts
on this board regarding sports writers who comment on a game between a I-A
team and I-AA team and the guy gets it wrong? He makes some comment about an SEC team playing a Division II team from the Gateway or some other I-AA conference. It sucks guys. The NCAA has us in a box. Unfortunately, to the general pubic I-AA is division II and more importantly, this lack of understanding has an impact on a schools overall perception, politicalpower, and funding. (And don't even get me started on my dislike for I-AA non scholarship)

While in reality a move to I-A may not be a significant on the field
competive jump, it does open up the door for a school like WKU to improve
its overall all situation, especially in the state of Kentucky. This may
not be the case every where else. Now, before you jump all over me for
this line of thought, please hear me out, think outside of your box, and
look at this a less of a football issue and more of a State of Kentucky
funding / political issue.

The MAC, Academics, and "The Man":
WKU's mentality is to never consider itself a second tier regional state
school. For years WKU has fought hard to separate itself from other
regional schools due to its strength in sports, academics, and its
incredible student population growth. Unfortually, the power in Frankfort
leans toward both UK and UofL - also known as the evil empire and its evil
sister. It is so bad, that for years while the fans have complained about
lack of funding and support from the state for sports, those in the
academic world have complained about the inability of WKU to obtain funding
and permission to have Doctoral level programs. Sad part is, these two
groups fail to understand how closely related their fight for improvement
has become.

So, lets think this one though...For years, the faculty at WKU has had it
wrong. In their mind, when the WKU administration was funding athletic
programs, they viewed it as taking money away from their academic programs
and therefore reduced their ability to obtain higher level program status.
This line of thinking is wrong. Fact is, both are needed in today's world
to obtain funding.

OK, let me try to put all this rambling into perspective and see
what falls out. Assuming the goal of WKU is to be the best it can be in
all areas, lets take a look at a possible stregic plan that could be
playing out by WKU's administration....and note how a move to I-A football is
only a small part of the marketing equation.

How do you increase your chances of growing, become the best you can, and
maintain a cutting edge mentality? MONEY and POWER! Think of these steps
below as a strategic marketing cycle that starts all over again after step
5.

1) Increase the Student population:
When you look at the reality of the States funding formula, it is in
WKU's best interest to maximize its student population as long as it
is not operating at full capacity.
2) This increases state funding for both academics and athletics

3) More funding can lead to better quality academics and athletics

4) Better quality academics and sports leads to more students due to a
better product to market

5) More and More and more and more and more students leads to....

6) More Alumni, more giving, more voters in the state, more alumni who get
elected to the legislature, and with more WKU alumni in the legislature you
have more power to control of what? MONEY!

So, you see, I-A football is only a very small part of the overall goal of
WKU to dominate the world. No, seriously, I have to give the WKU
administration credit. They truly understand the big picture.

[Killtoppers90]

Not leaning to the pessimisitc side, just more of a realistic point of view.

[Pen Guin]

Do we have to re-hash this again?


1. A move to any conference that sponsors IA football is a move up in football. No discussion (egos) required. Everyone, with half a brain, knows what I mean.

2. Basketball is the dominating force at WKU. Fans want the move because they can dominate the MAC, in basketball, quickly. Factor in the greater potential of multiple teams in the NCAA & NIT tourney's ... something they do not really have in the Sun Belt. It's a smart move, but maybe not the smartest. Football is very important to the MAC, much more so than basketball & Kent controls the rest of the sports off the grid-iron.

3. That being said, There is something to be said in favor of dominating a conference (sun belt) where they are now. A regular seat in the NCAA's is more a cash cow than any I-AA football title will ever bring. Look at Valpo & Gonzaga, same scenerio ... with the exception of occasional spurts of light from ORU & St. Mary's ... not much happening in either the Mid-Con or West-Coast ... unless you are into baseball or women's volleyball. So, what realbigred says makes a great deal of sense to me. I can see WKU becoming more competative, either way, & they do not have to go IA to do it.

[Green Cookie Monster]

IMHO, WKU belongs with UL Monroe, UL Lafayette, Ark. St., N. Texas, M. Tennessee and Troy. Guess thats the SunBelt.

Again, IMHO, the mid-major conferences need to regionalize. WKU has no business in the MAC. Throw La. Tech into the Sunbelt also.

Being an alumni of both Sac State and Texas State, and having just visited San Marcos two weeks ago, I'd say the Bobcats have some nice facilities overall. The weeds were growing up around the walkways into the stadium, but the new fieldhouse is awesome. If they could just remove the ugly RR tracks that cross the property and add a deck and other aesthetic amenities, I think they have a shot at IA facilities wise. I was there in the few years post Wacker, football was still enjoyed every Saturday, lately it has been tough. Especially enjoyed watching My Hornets play my Bobcats. ;) a few years ago.

Is it still considered Suitcase U? Kids backup every weekend to head home to Htown, SAntonio or Austin. Being it was summer, it was basically deserted. A beautiful campus, I notice Joes is now at the Falls.

San Marcos sits almost smack in the middle between SAntonio and Austin. There is a growing metro area from which to draw. I have been to Sam Houston and SFA, there is no way they will ever be IA in football, not enough bodies in a sparsely populated part of the state.

[Green Cookie Monster]

So, you see, I-A football is only a very small part of the overall goal of WKU to dominate the world.

http://re2.mm-a.yimg.com/image/1010302636

:D

[JohnStOnge]

Guin, I understand what you mean on the I-A football thing but I don't think you're necessarily correct. Depends on how you look at it and what your standards are. However, since you don't want to discuss it...beyond that...I won't.

But I will say I think there are a lot of things people assume that are very often untrue. One is that a move to I-A from I-AA is likely to improve a school's financial situation. It's true that more goes in but it's also true that more goes out. Even the idea of more students goes according to that rule. If a school wants more students for the sake of having more students that's one thing. But having more students doesn't make a school better nor does it mean the school's expenditures-minus-expenses picture will improve.

I think a lot of people who want their schools to be I-A just for the sake of being I-A buy into the propaganda many Athletic Department officials who wish to improve their own position have issued. I will say that it's true that the name will probably get out more. But it's not true that that necessarily translates into a net benefit to the institution. There's a difference between improving the positions of school administrators and improving the position of the institution.

[JohnStOnge]

<<Again, IMHO, the mid-major conferences need to regionalize. WKU has no business in the MAC.>>

I'm just about positive that the MAC makes more geographic sense for WKU than the Sun Belt does. The reason I say that is that I actually looked at Middle Tennessee's possible tranfer to the MAC in that way. Believe it or not, there are at least three schools in the Sun Belt (the two Florida Schools and North Texas) that are farther from Middle Tennessee than the most distant school (Buffalo) in the MAC is. The average distance from Middle Tennesse to MAC schools is shorter than that to Sun Belt schools. Plus the MAC has divisions so that would cut the travel even more.

Looks like Bowling Green, Kentucky, is a little closer to all the MAC schools than Murfreesboro is so the same general thing would hold for WKU. If they were going to get into a I-A football conference it would make more sense...if they have the choice...to get into the MAC. Less distance involved and more prestige. In fact the difference in prestige would even increase because WKU probably has the top reputation over time among current Sun Belt basketball schools.

Anyway, if you pull a map of the US out and actually look at it you can see what I mean. About the only thing you could say is that there would be one school...Middle Tennessee...that would be closer to Bowling Green than any MAC school is. What would make even more sense geographically is if both Middle Tennessee and WKU went to the MAC. Then both would have a lot less overall distance to travel for conference competition.

Believe it or not, I was banned from one of the Sun Belt team boards for pointing out, when there was talk of MT going to the MAC, that the MAC is actually a better fit geographically for MT than the Sun Belt is. I kid you not.

[wkuhillhound]

<<Again, IMHO, the mid-major conferences need to regionalize. WKU has no business in the MAC.>>

I'm just about positive that the MAC makes more geographic sense for WKU than the Sun Belt does. The reason I say that is that I actually looked at Middle Tennessee's possible tranfer to the MAC in that way. Believe it or not, there are at least three schools in the Sun Belt (the two Florida Schools and North Texas) that are farther from Middle Tennessee than the most distant school (Buffalo) in the MAC is. The average distance from Middle Tennesse to MAC schools is shorter than that to Sun Belt schools. Plus the MAC has divisions so that would cut the travel even more.

Looks like Bowling Green, Kentucky, is a little closer to all the MAC schools than Murfreesboro is so the same general thing would hold for WKU. If they were going to get into a I-A football conference it would make more sense...if they have the choice...to get into the MAC. Less distance involved and more prestige. In fact the difference in prestige would even increase because WKU probably has the top reputation over time among current Sun Belt basketball schools.

Anyway, if you pull a map of the US out and actually look at it you can see what I mean. About the only thing you could say is that there would be one school...Middle Tennessee...that would be closer to Bowling Green than any MAC school is. What would make even more sense geographically is if both Middle Tennessee and WKU went to the MAC. Then both would have a lot less overall distance to travel for conference competition.

Believe it or not, I was banned from one of the Sun Belt team boards for pointing out, when there was talk of MT going to the MAC, that the MAC is actually a better fit geographically for MT than the Sun Belt is. I kid you not.

Wow, they banned you b/c of that. They must really want WKU to stay in the Sun Belt. ;) :D :p

[JohnStOnge]

Well, if I'm completely honest about it the guy banned me because he wanted me to quit talking about it. He warned me that if I continued to talk about it he'd ban me. Well, somebody countered my points so I countered back. I figure if I'm going to get banned for that I get banned for it. And I was banned for it.

[Granite]

There is also no real economic incentive in moving from the Gateway to the MAC. I posted this on the old board a couple of summers ago (I used to post as GraniteStateUNH), so the numbers may have changed slightly. But basically, I compared the ratio of athletic department revenues to expenditures for the two conferences (Gateway vs. MAC). Here were the rankings (in descending order) for schools based on their ratio of revenues to expenditures:

(revenues) (expenditures) (rev/exp)
(revenues and expenditures are in millions of $$$)

GATEWAY
Western Kentucky (7.1) (6.1) (1.16)
Indiana State (6.7) (5.9) (1.14)
Youngstown St (6.9) (6.7) (1.03)
SIU (7.6) (7.5) (1.01)
SMS (6.8) (8.3) (0.82)
Illinois State (2.6) (5.1) (0.51)
Western Illinois (1.6) (3.4) (0.47)
Northern Iowa (2.6) (5.6) (0.46)

MAC
Western Michigan (15.4) (14.6) (1.05)
Marshall (13.4) (12.9) (1.04)
Akron (9.5) (9.4) (1.01)
Northern Illinois (11.8) (11.7) (1.01)
Kent State (12.6) (12.5) (1.01)
Miami of Ohio (10.8) (10.8) (1.00)
Central Michigan U (10.8) (10.8) (1.00)
Eastern Michigan (12.4) (12.4) (1.00)
Bowling Green (9.9) (10.7) (0.93)
Central Florida (5.8) (7.7) (0.75)
Ball State (3.6) (8.4) (0.43)
Toledo (1.9) (7.4) (0.26)
Buffalo (1.5) (7.8) (0.19)

There is probably lots of room for analysis here, and we can debate some of the individual differences here (like, "way to go, Western Kentucky" and "what the xxxx is going on at Toledo and Buffalo?" ) But overall ratios are interesting - compare the ratios of revenues to expenditures between the Gateway and the MAC and you'll see:

Gateway = (41.9) (48.6) (0.86)
MAC = (119.4) (137.1) (0.87)

Overall, the ratios are almost identical. MAC schools aren't doing much better financially just by being members of Division I-A. Taking out the two outliers (Toledo and Buffalo) gives you a slightly better ratio in the MAC (0.95) but not a dramatic difference, and an overall budget that is still in the red.
Who knows if the numbers hold over multiple conferences (although I'm guessing they would). But from this little analysis, it doesn't seem that the overall ratio of revenues to expenditures increases significantly for non-BCS I-A football teams compared to their I-AA counterparts.

[JohnStOnge]

UNH, I haven't done it for a while and won't do it again right now but I've done a revenues minus expenditures thing for former I-AA programs now in I-AAs now in I-A vs. programs still in I-A before and the former I-AA programs were doing worse in terms of net than the programs still in I-AA were. And the former I-AAs came off looking even worse when compared only to public universities in I-AA (which is fair since all the former I-AAs were public). They were losing more money, on average, both on their football programs and on their overall athletic programs. That and many other things I've looked at is why I say that the idea that going from I-AA to I-A is more likely than not going to improve a school's financial situation is a myth.

I guess there's the argument that if you get more students that means more alumni and potentially more political influence leading to greater funding necessary to offset the increased athletic costs plus the costs of having more students but I'm kind of skeptical about that.

Of course, most schools outside of the BCS would be materially better off if they dropped football entirely so I guess there's at least something to be said for things that aren't material.

[Granite]

I guess there's the argument that if you get more students that means more alumni and potentially more political influence leading to greater funding necessary to offset the increased athletic costs plus the costs of having more students but I'm kind of skeptical about that.

Of course, most schools outside of the BCS would be materially better off if they dropped football entirely so I guess there's at least something to be said for things that aren't material.

That's probably the strongest argument, because the actual athletic department financials just don't seem to justify a move up, unless you are looking at a move to a BCS conference. I guess we could see what the impact of I-A football is on the matriculation decisions of incoming students (and alumni giving, as well) but like you, I'm skeptical.

[greenG]

Here is an article about I-A football expenses that might be of interest.

MAC Report Online (http://www.macreportonline.com/college_football_financial_drain.htm)

[arkstfan]

The Gateway has outstanding revenue because of Missouri Valley basketball.

A lot of Hilltopper fans don't like the Sun Belt but who is going to be happy when they join a league for basketball and all the members except you and one other (South Alabama) have departed for either greener pastures or more appropriate pastures (Jacksonville to the A-Sun).

The nutshell of the situation is simple. When the Sun Belt died, the American South saved it and the core members of that group wanted a home for their I-A football programs. They had to endure the Craig Thompson reign where everyone was told it was an impossibility even though his replacement managed it in just months.

When you look at the Sun Belt you have a number of schools committed to 85 scholie football and they are spending their money there upgrading football related facilities. Of all the members, WKU, Denver and Arkansas-LR are the only members who have made any siginificant basketball facility investment in the past few years, and Denver's investment was actually driven by hockey.

Of the schools that aren't football members, Arkansas-LR and New Orleans have felt that a I-A home for the other members was vital because their best gate comes from hosting regional members of the league that play I-A ball. For South Alabama the same scenario is starting to play out.

The root problem for WKU and the Sun Belt is that WKU's vision does not match that of the league, coupled with being disgruntled at being abandoned in earlier realignment, it makes for a less than pleasant environment.

I think WKU is deluded thinking the environment is any different in the MAC. The league routinely plows a significant portion of its basketball revenue into bowl agreements to support football over basketball.

WKU would be served in the MoValley where basketball is king.

[galojay]

There is also no real economic incentive in moving from the Gateway to the MAC. I posted this on the old board a couple of summers ago (I used to post as GraniteStateUNH), so the numbers may have changed slightly. But basically, I compared the ratio of athletic department revenues to expenditures for the two conferences (Gateway vs. MAC). Here were the rankings (in descending order) for schools based on their ratio of revenues to expenditures:

(revenues) (expenditures) (rev/exp)
(revenues and expenditures are in millions of $$$)

GATEWAY
Western Kentucky (7.1) (6.1) (1.16)
Indiana State (6.7) (5.9) (1.14)
Youngstown St (6.9) (6.7) (1.03)
SIU (7.6) (7.5) (1.01)
SMS (6.8) (8.3) (0.82)
Illinois State (2.6) (5.1) (0.51)
Western Illinois (1.6) (3.4) (0.47)
Northern Iowa (2.6) (5.6) (0.46)

MAC
Western Michigan (15.4) (14.6) (1.05)
Marshall (13.4) (12.9) (1.04)
Akron (9.5) (9.4) (1.01)
Northern Illinois (11.8) (11.7) (1.01)
Kent State (12.6) (12.5) (1.01)
Miami of Ohio (10.8) (10.8) (1.00)
Central Michigan U (10.8) (10.8) (1.00)
Eastern Michigan (12.4) (12.4) (1.00)
Bowling Green (9.9) (10.7) (0.93)
Central Florida (5.8) (7.7) (0.75)
Ball State (3.6) (8.4) (0.43)
Toledo (1.9) (7.4) (0.26)
Buffalo (1.5) (7.8) (0.19)

There is probably lots of room for analysis here, and we can debate some of the individual differences here (like, "way to go, Western Kentucky" and "what the xxxx is going on at Toledo and Buffalo?" ) But overall ratios are interesting - compare the ratios of revenues to expenditures between the Gateway and the MAC and you'll see:

Gateway = (41.9) (48.6) (0.86)
MAC = (119.4) (137.1) (0.87)

Overall, the ratios are almost identical. MAC schools aren't doing much better financially just by being members of Division I-A. Taking out the two outliers (Toledo and Buffalo) gives you a slightly better ratio in the MAC (0.95) but not a dramatic difference, and an overall budget that is still in the red.
Who knows if the numbers hold over multiple conferences (although I'm guessing they would). But from this little analysis, it doesn't seem that the overall ratio of revenues to expenditures increases significantly for non-BCS I-A football teams compared to their I-AA counterparts.


Those are nice numbers, however i learned a while back not to try to compare different school's athletic figures. Their are NO standards to reporting. Some schools count tuition as a cost, others don't, etc etc. Some schools force their athletic dept budgets to balance, when they really don't.

[galojay]

"WKU would be served in the MoValley where basketball is king."

ArkStFan, you are probably correct. Well, I know you are. But that doesn't seem to be the path WKU wants to go. The MAC is still what they are eying.

[therealbigredrules]

GreenG,
I too have seen similar reports and love looking at what others have come
up with. To quote the linked report..."two schools showed that they exactly
broke even in football: Central Michigan and Middle Tennessee State.
Considering the near impossibility of reaching exactly the break-even
point, MAC Report Online questions the accuracy of these reported numbers."

Even though the report that Green linked tried very hard to get be on the
same basis and look at all expenses and all review, I strongly believe that
there really is no standard for how these numbers are calculated between
schools. Just because the instructions that were sent to each school said
to include "xyz" items, it certainly does not mean everyone filled it out the
same way. It was my understanding that unlike the private sector
accounting world there are no GAAP standards for athletic departments. I
certainly know the Securities and Exchange Commission is not investigating
the numbers to make sure they are OK.

Granite,
Also, looking at Ball State's revenue at $3.6M compared to WKU's $7.1M
really looks strange. I am making this comparison because I have am
familiar with both programs and have been to many games for each team.
Bottom line, who really knows what is included.

I do recall reading a journal article from a sports economist outlining how
larger schools manipulate these numbers to hide profits for the purpose of
increasing state funding and alumni giving. Obviously, hiding revenue is
the least of WKU's concerns but it does shed some light on the possible
inconsistencies between schools reporting basis. I have not doubt in my
mind that Ball State and WKU are using a different basis.

What is the bottom line CASH financial impact of football?
This discussion seems to cause some heat among groups at WKU over the
years. What does adding one new scholarship really cost the bottom line?
Is it really all of tuition, room, board, and such? I am not so sure -
especially if a school has excess capacity. So, if there is an open seat
available in a classroom, and open room in the dorm, and you get money from
the state because of the funding formula, the real cash bottom line impact
of adding that extra lineman is most likely overstated by some schools. In
fact, if all you have to do is feed the guy, you could actually be cash
flowing your extra lineman. You see, I have a hard to buying the fact
that when schools report expenses and even revenue they do it on a real
cash basis. I seriously doubt that when you look at the revenue side the
football budget it includes the cash benefit of having that player walking
around campus from the State Legislature point of view. If the State's
funding formula give me xyz dollars per student I don't think we have an
accurate athletic department income statement. My gut says they are adding up the schools published rates for undergraduate tuition, and all the other items that really, may not be having a real cash impact. The MAC reports looks like they tried hard. Cash is King, and trust me, while they will
never admit this in public, all administrators know this fact. (unless
they are some liberal arts graduate who does not understand the differences
between a cashflow and an income statement)

Now, before I get killed here let me also add that with out a doubt the
expenses of going I-A will kill you if you do not have a good plan. I do
not think for one second that WKU going I-A will be a cash cow and may be a
hit to the bottom line. It will be tight and I am still shaking my head in
disbelief that the numbers will actually work. They may not. Only time
will tell. (I keep waiting for the AD to call to show me the numbers, but
it never seems to happen) However, let me leave you with this, the next
time you read some article about how football is draining the finances of
xyz school, take a step back and consider who wrote the article. Does that
person understand fixed cost, variable costs, and mostly CASH? If
comparing multiple schools, did everyone fill out the data the same way.
And could it be that some schools actually report fudged numbers to make
their political case????? Surely not!

Who really knows what is going on, but football sure is expensive and it
sure if fun to try and figure out.

Hope everyone has a good weekend.

[therealbigredrules]

Nice post. But and this is a Big But...The MVC is not calling.

[kats89]

54-24 Kats!!!

[FedUpBuc]

The NCAA may be thinking along those "regional lines" as well:

http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/press_room/2005/june/20050613_pres_task_force_release.html

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The NCAA may be thinking along those "regional lines" as well:

http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/press_room/2005/june/20050613_pres_task_force_release.html


The group — the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics — met under the direction of University of Arizona President Peter Likins and emerged with two themes: strong presidential leadership will fortify the athletics enterprise; and intercollegiate athletics serves its highest purpose when it is fully aligned with the educational mission.

*choking on Rice Krispies*

Holy crap! Likins used to be Lehigh's President when I was a undergrad!

He was a no-nonsense president that tackled underage drinking hard at Lehigh and was IMO very successful (if draconian) about changing the rules. If he is as determined to reform Division I athletics as he was about reforming underage drinking, it's going to be one heck of a battle.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The other three subcommittees are: Implications of Academic Values and Standards, chaired by University of Texas at Austin President Larry Faulkner; Presidential Leadership of Internal and External Constituencies, chaired by Southern Methodist University President Gerald Turner; and Student-Athlete Well-Being, chaired by Ohio State University President Karen Holbrook.

This is just kind of comical...

Representing Academic Values: University of Texas
Texas Last in Big 12 in Graduation Rates (http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2004/aas/200410/20041026footballgrads.html)

Representing Leadership of Values: SMU
SMU History: The Death Penalty (http://student.fortlewis.edu/RJSOBCZYK/Penalty1.htm)

Representing Student-Athlete Well Being: Ohio St.
Maurice Clarett Violations (http://www.sportingnews.com/cfootball/articles/20030830/490142.html)


The NCAA contacted Ohio State with "several pages" of allegations and the university's athletic department is working on a response. Geiger said Saturday that the response was not close to being completed and that he didn't know when it would be sent to the NCAA. He said the response may not be ready by the end of next week.

Asked if Ohio State's investigators are having difficulty answering some of the questions prompted by the NCAA's list of allegations, Geiger said the university was uncovering new problems during the investigation that were extending the process.

The university is also looking into a teaching assistant's charges that athletes -- including Clarett -- received improper help in class. That investigation is separate from the one that led to Clarett's suspension.

[greenG]

Temple and MAC Revenues (http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/mac/invision/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=22034&)