Is a Eastern based FBS Conference Possible?

[Smendy]

The South has the Sun Belt....The West has the WAC and Mountain West....The Mid-West has the MAC....Middle America, in general, has Conference USA. So why not a mid-major FBS conference based in the Northeast?

The conference could be put together by mixing some eastern based FBS progams and getting a handful of FCS schools to move up. Figuring the southeast schools could've joined the Sun Belt already, I'm focusing more on the Northeast.

Any chance of this happening any time in the next decade?


My top picks would be:

Buffalo
Temple
Villanova
Hofstra
Delaware
Army
Navy
Massachussets
Appalachian State

Others worthy of consideration:

New Hampshire
Richmond
Rhode Island
Maine
James Madison
William & Mary
Marshall

[DFW HOYA]

The "Rust Belt" has potential, but not among all the schools you cited. Assuming this would be a football-only setup and not an all-sports concept,
Temple and Buffalo are a given, maybe Marshall and, on the outside, Youngstown State.

As to some of the others...

1. Villanova? No. The Wildcats cannot play in a I-A conference outside the Big East by its conference bylaws. (That also applies to Georgetown even though they're not in this conversation.)
2. Hofstra? No. does not have close to a minimum stadium size for I-A, as they would have siginficantly expand Shuart Stadium to do so.
3. Delaware? Yes.
4. Army, Navy? No. The academies like being independent because it allows barnstorming nationwide for athletic (and cadet) recruitment.
5. UMass? Maybe. Stadium work would be needed, unless they're playing at Fitton Field instead.
6. App State? Maybe.
7. UNH? No.
8. Richmond: No (see "First Market Stadium")
9. URI: No.
10. Maine? No.
11. JMU? Maybe.
12. W&M? No.

Of course, the longshots would be an Old Dominion, a Georgia State, a Charlotte. But there are really too many "Maybe"s and not enough obvious choices to make this work for a while longer.

[T-Dog]

App is in North Carolina, so being in a northeastern based conference would be a nightmare.

I can only see App jumping to FBS if they join a conference that's mainly local (Carolinas, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia). And that's still a big IF.

[mainejeff]

The best chance for a Northeastern based FBS conference would be the Northeastern publics:

Maine
UNH
UMass
URI
Albany
Stony Brook
Delaware
Towson

Most of them don't have the money, vision, and/or motivation to make that commitment.

[furman94]

Agreed. Having App in a Northeastern Conference would be stupid. It'd be like adding Colgate to the Socon

[The Moody1]

Agreed. Having App in a Northeastern Conference would be stupid. It'd be like adding Colgate to the Socon

Or Stony Brook to the Big South. :D

[Jackman]

People are way too hung up on travel. App State and UMass may be on different planets culturally, but geographically a conference stretching between those two schools would be the smallest in FBS, at least until you remove Temple from the MAC. And any increased travel costs in football compared to current FCS conference alignments would be more than covered by the difference in the guarantee amounts a FBS team receives for road games vs. a FCS team. You don't put together bus leagues in FBS, that's pointless, you go for market spread to increase the value of your television rights.

But I personally believe a successful new FBS conference would need to be an east coast conference stretching from Massachusetts to Florida, not a northeast conference. It would be wise to wait on Old Dominion, Georgia State and maybe Charlotte. All of us would want/need new stadiums though, except for the FBSers and Georgia State. That's the big impediment. Most of the CAA members already have MAC/Sun Belt-sized budgets for football.

[Tim James]

An Eastern based FBS Conference is a bad idea because it would be very weak and probably be the worst FBS conference year after year. An eastern based FCS conference with Maine, UNH, UMass, Northeastern, URI, C. CT St., Hofstra, Albany, Stony Brook would be middle of the pack in FCS in terms of strength.

[Seawolf97]

Looking ahead a decade who knows? September 2019 may well see a new conference in FCS for the North East and a modified Big East -Football/ Basketball arrangement. Given the
current economic picture may not play out until 2010 or 2011 it is really impossible to predict. We may see some teams drop football or some new start ups. Realistically 5 years may be as far out as you may want to look with some accuracy.

[Smendy]

Great feedback folks. Thanks to all that responded xthumbsupx

Hoya, excellent points. I agree with the idea that Army & Navy might want to remain independent so they could pick and chose their opponents. That makes a lot of sense. And you are correct about Villanova. They don't want to ruin what they have with Big East basketball just to move to mid-major FBS.

I'm thinking in the same way as Jackman here. While I figure this Conference should be based mostly in the Northeast, it needs to stretch down to Florida -- and maybe inwards to the midwest a bit -- to be truly viable, in terms of talent. I agree that the Northeastern schools alone aren't good enough.

When you think about, the Big East has South Florida, Louisville and Cincy, so the old regional conferences coud be a thing of the past -- at least in the Northeast.

Two quick points: If Stoneybrook would be viable, that would be great, as it would give the conference a presence close to NYC.....Also, with the Big 10 possibly looking for a 12th team, Pitt could leave. That means a Massachussets, for example, could use this as a stepping stone to the Big East?

[Touchdown Yosef]

People are way too hung up on travel. App State and UMass may be on different planets culturally, but geographically a conference stretching between those two schools would be the smallest in FBS, at least until you remove Temple from the MAC. And any increased travel costs in football compared to current FCS conference alignments would be more than covered by the difference in the guarantee amounts a FBS team receives for road games vs. a FCS team. You don't put together bus leagues in FBS, that's pointless, you go for market spread to increase the value of your television rights.

But I personally believe a successful new FBS conference would need to be an east coast conference stretching from Massachusetts to Florida, not a northeast conference. It would be wise to wait on Old Dominion, Georgia State and maybe Charlotte. All of us would want/need new stadiums though, except for the FBSers and Georgia State. That's the big impediment. Most of the CAA members already have MAC/Sun Belt-sized budgets for football.

I understand your point, and with football it wouldn't be too big of a deal but when traveling field hockey and the like it would be much harder and more expensive.

[Saint3333]

You guys are starting too far north:

ASU
Delaware
Georgia St.
GSU
JMU
ODU
UNCC

Need 1-2 more CAA or SoCon (Richmond or Furman) to step up, which would be long shots.

Oh course this wouldn't be until 2015 due to the new guys on the block.

[jmufan999]

has there ever been a brand new conference made up of all former FCS teams? if it's happened before, i've never heard of it. i'm going to make a thread about a related topic soon, so i won't say much more. just curious if there is precedent for such a move.

[AppStFan76]

[QUOTE=Jackman;1347002]People are way too hung up on travel. App State and UMass may be on different planets culturally, but geographically a conference stretching between those two schools would be the smallest in FBS...[QUOTE]

I would think that Carloina/NCSU/Duke would be some of the "geographicaly" closest conference rivalries!

[JohnStOnge]

And any increased travel costs in football compared to current FCS conference alignments would be more than covered by the difference in the guarantee amounts a FBS team receives for road games vs. a FCS team. .

There's that questionable premise about moving to I-A and now FCS necessarily meaning a better financial bottom line again. I was in an internet conversation yesterday about this and this is what I wrote on the subject:

"According to the IPDES Gender Equity reports filed by the two schools for the period 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008, Louisiana Tech's football program net (revenues minus expenditures) for that FY was -$1,450,405 (note the minus sign) and its overall athletic deparment net was +$25,060 while McNeese State's football program net was +$172,196 (note the plus sign) and its overall athletic department net was +$192,909. ULL's numbers were football program $0, total athletic department +$217,243. ULM's were $0 and $0. IPDES data have weaknesses (as suggested by those "0" balances...something fishy there), but I've followed that sort of thing over the years including looking at Louisiana Legislative Audtior reports. There just isn't a whole lot of evidence that lower tier I-A/FBS schools typically enjoy a net financial advantage by doing what they're doing. In fact, when I've compared using IPDES reports in the past I've found that the median bottom line for schools with I-AA football programs was higher than the median bottom line for all non BCS I-As (I did it before they changed the terminology to 'FBS')."

As noted, there is some error associated with using IPDES report. But when you take a large number of schools and make a comparison then the I-AA/FCS schools have a better athletic department median bottom line than the non BCS I-A/FBS schools do, it should at least give you pause and lead you to question the premise that a FCS institution is likely to be better off, or even to break even, by moving to FBS.

[Jackman]

has there ever been a brand new conference made up of all former FCS teams? if it's happened before, i've never heard of it. i'm going to make a thread about a related topic soon, so i won't say much more. just curious if there is precedent for such a move.

Not counting the brief period when the NCAA attempted to force the MAC into FCS, none of the current Sun Belt Football members were playing FBS football when the subdivisions were created in 1978 (except maybe Louisiana-Lafayette?). But they didn't move to FBS as a group, it was more or less one-at-a-time until they had the critical mass to form a conference.

[Redwyn]

The best chance for a Northeastern based FBS conference would be the Northeastern publics:

Maine
UNH
UMass
URI
Albany
Stony Brook
Delaware
Towson

Most of them don't have the money, vision, and/or motivation to make that commitment.

Unless Stony Brook ups and changes conferences (not advisable given they can't even do well in the slightly above average AE), it would need Albany, UNH, and Maine to join them if an FBS move was pushed. These schools have similar financial situations, student demographics, and the conference ties are crucial. Of the rest, Delaware and U Mass are most likely to move as well, but probably only if a Big East slot opens. It's a tough spot, considering the only other AE school that could possibly push football is BU, and that's...um...NOT...going to happen.

[ur2k]

What would be the benefit of doing this? It seems to me that this proposed conference would enter the FBS pecking order right behind the MAC and Sunbelt. How is that better than FCS? All these schools would be competing for the international bowl.

It could benefit schools on an individual basis to move up to FBS, but would it work for a whole conference?

[JohnStOnge]

Ok. I just looked at IDPES reports for the 2007 - 2008 year. I compared the bottom lines of current Southland Conference schools to bottom lines of former I-AA Southland Conference schools now playing in FBS (Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, Louisiana Monroe, North Texas Troy). In this case, the median reported football program loss for the former Southland I-AAs is a little less than that for the current Southland FCS programs. It's -$315,615 vs. -457,550. However, the reported median overall athletic department net for the current Southland FCS programs, at +$131,360, is notably better than that, $0, of the former Southland I-AAs now fielding FBS football programs.

Now, ever since the NCAA looked at IPDES reports years ago and concluded that lower tier I-As were losing close to a million more per year on average than I-AAs were, a lot of overall athletic department balances of $0 started showing up. My belief is that nobody wants to show an overall athletic department loss now. In this case, one of the eight current Southland schools with FCS football programs shows an overall athletic department net of $0 while four of the five former Southland schools now with FBS programs do. To me, in spite of the problems associated with the reports, any reasonable person would conclude that the athletic departments of the current Southland schools generally did better financially than those of the former Southland schools now with FBS programs did.

Another way to look at it is this: If you were to randomly select one current Southland FCS school and one former Southland FBS school, there would be an 85% chance that the Southland FCS school would have a better overall athletic department bottom line, a 10% chance that both would have a $0 balance, and a 5% chance that the former Southland FBS school would have a better overall athletic department bottom line.

The difference between the median amount spent by former Southland/current FBS schools and the median amount spent by Southland/current FCS schools on their athletic departments is $5.2 million. Looking at that, you can easily see that it's not likely that "guarantee" games with FBS schools could make up the difference. Even if each former Southland/current FBS would've played five games against BCS league opponents and gotten $1 for each game, each would've fallen short of "making up" for the additional expense because 1) $5 million is less than $5.2 million and 2) the net would be less than $1 million per guarantee game anyway due to travel expenses.

And my bet would be that the picture would look even more "in favor" of the current FCS Southland schools if completely reliable comparisons were made. Again, that $0 balance stuff raises suspiscion and you've got 80% of the former Southland/Current FBS schools doing that vs. 12.5% of the Southland/Current FCS schools.

[Jackman]

There's that questionable premise about moving to I-A and now FCS necessarily meaning a better financial bottom line again. I was in an internet conversation yesterday about this and this is what I wrote on the subject:

"According to the IPDES Gender Equity reports filed by the two schools for the period 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008, Louisiana Tech's football program net (revenues minus expenditures) for that FY was -$1,450,405 (note the minus sign) and its overall athletic deparment net was +$25,060 while McNeese State's football program net was +$172,196 (note the plus sign) and its overall athletic department net was +$192,909. ULL's numbers were football program $0, total athletic department +$217,243. ULM's were $0 and $0. IPDES data have weaknesses (as suggested by those "0" balances...something fishy there), but I've followed that sort of thing over the years including looking at Louisiana Legislative Audtior reports. There just isn't a whole lot of evidence that lower tier I-A/FBS schools typically enjoy a net financial advantage by doing what they're doing. In fact, when I've compared using IPDES reports in the past I've found that the median bottom line for schools with I-AA football programs was higher than the median bottom line for all non BCS I-As (I did it before they changed the terminology to 'FBS')."

As noted, there is some error associated with using IPDES report. But when you take a large number of schools and make a comparison then the I-AA/FCS schools have a better athletic department median bottom line than the non BCS I-A/FBS schools do, it should at least give you pause and lead you to question the premise that a FCS institution is likely to be better off, or even to break even, by moving to FBS.
I'm only talking about FCS programs that are already spending FBS-sized amounts on football, not the median FCS member. The FCS members that are playing true cost containment football, such as the ones in the PFL, are likely better off in FCS. But most of the FCS members who are challenging for at-large spots in the FCS Playoffs are playing "revenue containment" football, meaning all the cost of bottom tier FBS football but with FCS revenue limitations.

It's like if your local AAA-level minor league baseball franchise had the same operating costs as the Kansas City Royals. There's a formula out there for running a successful and profitable minor league franchise, but not if you're spending Major League money. But that is what UMass and most CAA members are doing. Every FBS study that UMass conducts leads to the same conclusion: we should either move up (FBS), or move down (lower budget FCS). High level FCS doesn't make financial sense. That's not to say that there is a gold mine awaiting at FBS, but if UMass didn't change a thing about its football program other than adding enough scholarships for FBS, it would almost be guaranteed to lose less money than it currently does even if not a single additional person bought a ticket, if ticket prices weren't raised a single cent, and if not a single cent of additional TV revenue was brought in. The guarantee games alone cover the difference. That of course is ignoring the stadium issue and the lack of any suitable conference affiliation, which are much larger discussions and UMass-specific. But I think the basic premise is very sound: if a FBS program and a FCS program are spending the same amount on football, the FBS program will be better off financially because they have access to better revenue streams. Both are likely money losers, but the FBS program will lose less money. Now, if the plan to move up to FBS involves tripling your existing budget, as I suspect it might at the median FCS school, that's different. The math won't necessarily work for that.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

You guys are starting too far north:

ASU
Delaware
Georgia St.
GSU
JMU
ODU
UNCC

Need 1-2 more CAA or SoCon (Richmond or Furman) to step up, which would be long shots.

Oh course this wouldn't be until 2015 due to the new guys on the block.

UNC Charlotte is starting up soon and so is Kennesaw State. We could consider them.

I think it's more likely that another southeastern-based conference will form. With ODU and GSTate starting up I think there will be enough. Scoff all you want, but the southeast is football central.

GSU
G. State
App. State
JMU
Delaware
ODU
Kennesaw State?
UNC Charlotte?
William and Mary?

We can call it the Georgia-Virginia Conference with three teams from each state in it

[CollegeSportsInfo]

The idea of a new eastern conference is one that has come up often by the fans in the 9 years I've had a conference realignment website.

It's interesting that it's the same schools that come up every time, with minor changes. Army and Navy used to be thrown in but when both canned CUSA (Army left, Navy declined) to remain indys, they were left out.

But what I often see is a collection of schools in the general region that would be a #2 option for the region, like the A10 is for basketball outside the Big East.

Schools often mentioned:

Buffalo
UMass
Temple
Delaware
JMU
Marshall
ECU
Charlotte
App St.
WKU

Of course, Army, Navy, would top the list with Georgia St. an option. Regardless, this would be a bad basketball conference and not very attractive all together.

It would almost have a better look if you could add UCF, FIU, FAU and another CAA football school and lose Marshall, etc:

Buffalo
UMass
Temple
Delaware
JMU
ECU
Charlotte
UCF
FAU
FIU

[CollegeSportsInfo]

You guys are starting too far north:

ASU
Delaware
Georgia St.
GSU
JMU
ODU
UNCC

Need 1-2 more CAA or SoCon (Richmond or Furman) to step up, which would be long shots.

Oh course this wouldn't be until 2015 due to the new guys on the block.

I hear ya. I've looked at some of the old SoCon schools who have upgraded and potential SoCon upgrades as well as some others and you could have a solid FBs conference that could be the #3 in the region after the SEC and ACC. Probably a better situation than one with northern schools.


Delaware
JMU
ODU
ECU
App St
Charlotte
Marshall
WKU
Georgia Southern
UCF
FAU
FIU

Could appease the eastern 3 CUSA schools (Marshall, ECU, and UCF... the ones who are less comfortable with the new Texas based CUSA)

[CollegeSportsInfo]

There's that questionable premise about moving to I-A and now FCS necessarily meaning a better financial bottom line again. I was in an internet conversation yesterday about this and this is what I wrote on the subject:

"According to the IPDES Gender Equity reports filed by the two schools for the period 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008, Louisiana Tech's football program net (revenues minus expenditures) for that FY was -$1,450,405 (note the minus sign) and its overall athletic deparment net was +$25,060 while McNeese State's football program net was +$172,196 (note the plus sign) and its overall athletic department net was +$192,909. ULL's numbers were football program $0, total athletic department +$217,243. ULM's were $0 and $0. IPDES data have weaknesses (as suggested by those "0" balances...something fishy there), but I've followed that sort of thing over the years including looking at Louisiana Legislative Audtior reports. There just isn't a whole lot of evidence that lower tier I-A/FBS schools typically enjoy a net financial advantage by doing what they're doing. In fact, when I've compared using IPDES reports in the past I've found that the median bottom line for schools with I-AA football programs was higher than the median bottom line for all non BCS I-As (I did it before they changed the terminology to 'FBS')."

As noted, there is some error associated with using IPDES report. But when you take a large number of schools and make a comparison then the I-AA/FCS schools have a better athletic department median bottom line than the non BCS I-A/FBS schools do, it should at least give you pause and lead you to question the premise that a FCS institution is likely to be better off, or even to break even, by moving to FBS.

Yes, opportunity is big. LA Tech in CUSA with regional rivals would likely generate positive money. But with their closest "rival" being New Mexico St in the WAC, it's a money pit.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm only talking about FCS programs that are already spending FBS-sized amounts on football, not the median FCS member. The FCS members that are playing true cost containment football, such as the ones in the PFL, are likely better off in FCS. But most of the FCS members who are challenging for at-large spots in the FCS Playoffs are playing "revenue containment" football, meaning all the cost of bottom tier FBS football but with FCS revenue limitations.

The statement about FCS teams at what you call the "revenue contaimnet" level incurring all the cost of bottom tier FBS programs just isn't true as a general matter. For instance, if you look at the first post of this thread and split the programs listed up as to whether or not they are already in FBS or are currently FCS, you see that the ones that are already FBS generally spend substantially more on their football programs. I couldn't find a report for Navy and don't think there is one. However, the median annual football program expenditure for the other four current FBS programs listed is $6.3 million while the median annual football program expenditure for the FCS programs listed is $3.9 million.

This thread is not the first place I've seen the claim that the only difference is the cost of 22 additional scholarships. There are minimum overall sports scholarships requirements that aren't there in FCS as well as a need for a lot of additional expenditure on facilities. Some of the FCS schools in the list at the top of this thread do spend a lot of money both on their football programs and on their overall athletics programs for FCS schools. But you'd be wise to bet that all of those schools would be spending substantially more on both their football programs and their overall athletic programs if they move to FBS.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's another one:

I think it's fair to compare FCS leagues to nearby minor FBS leagues, as I think costs may vary by region. In that vein, according to the schools' IPDES reports, MAC schools spent an annual median of $4.6 million on their football programs while Colonial Athletic Association teams spent a median of $3.6 million on their football programs and Missouri Valley Conference teams with football programs spent a median of $2.2 million. So the median expenditure of the MAC was about 28% higher than that of the CAA and about 109% higher than that of the Gateway.

But let's look at what that higher expenditure means with respect to the level of competition within which each conference functions. The CAA and MVC are top tier FCS conferences. The MAC is an AWFUL FBS conference that is now competing with the Sun Belt for the distinction of being worst. If a FBS league wants to reach even the middle of the pack in terms of FBS conferences it's going to have a whole lot higher median expenditure on its football programs than the MAC does. Mountain West schools spend a median of $8.0 million on their football teams in order to maintain their position as what is usually the 7th strongest of 12 FBS leagues.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

Somewhere down the road I think that an all sports conference with football will evolve with a core of:

James Madison
Old Dominion
East Carolina
Appalachian State
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
Marshall

A very logical extension could be Jacksonville State and Middle Tenn. If Charlotte gets their program off the ground, I believe they would be a natural for this league. I've always thought that Youngstown State should be in the MAC, but if that never happens, this alignment could be their next best option.

Would Buffalo and/or Temple find this new group to be a preferable home? Could UMass muster the financial support to join this group if the football was at the FBS level? How many of these Northern teams would it take for Delaware to give this league serious consideration? From what I've read from their posters over the years, I'm not sure they would consider it.

Buffalo
Youngstown
Temple
UMass
Old Dominion
JMU

East Carolina
App State
Charlotte
GaSoU
GaStU
Jacksonville State

OR a more likely scenario might be

JMU
Marshall
Charlotte (or YSU if the 49ers don't get their program going)
App State
ECU
ODU

GaSoU
GaStU
Jax State
Troy
Middle TN
Western KY

Personally, I think this scenario has the most legs. More Southeastern than eastern, but like-minded schools with some history and similar aspirations. Twelve teams for a championship game, decent travel partners for other sports. JMHO, but this evolution would please the heck out of the higher aspiration football schools in the CAA and SoCon, would stabilize the SoCon as a primarily private institution league, would pare the CAA Football League down which would please multitudes, should allow the football schools in the Northeast to begin an all sports conference with football affiliation, etc. Of course, the NCAA rules for obtaining an AQ will probably hinder any such logical re-organization from occurring. xrolleyesx

Could the CAA sponsor two leagues, this proposed one plus one with non-football schools, along with America East or the A-10 sponsoring the NE Football school league? I'm assuming non football schools in America East would join the CAA non football schools in the second CAA sponsored league. Or the CAA sponsors both football based leagues and the non football schools go to America East or a revised A-10 after football splits the Big East driving the Catholic schools together and maybe the midwestern schools into a more regional configuration.

[Seawolf97]

Forming a new conference of 7 or 8 like minded schools at the FCS or FBS level is next to impossible. The politics and financials needed for either football only or all sports would take 3 -5 years just to iron out. I really cant see it happening. Individual schools or programs moving up yes, 8 entire programs no.

[BearsCountry]

Basically either the CAA, America East, Big South, A-10 or somebody would have to morph into a FBS league and it would take awhile. CAA would have the best shot realistically.

[Jackman]

I have a spreadsheet with the data you're referencing, JohnStOnge. Keep in mind that the MAC as a whole last year jumped up about $800k each from what they reported the previous two years, while the CAA had only a small bump with some members even going downward. My best guess is that all of the MAC agreed to increase their football expenditures once they received their new $13 million deal with ESPN. Meanwhile, the CAA lost its deal with CN8 (which was for pocket change to begin with) and is now only on the Comcast SportsBackwaterNet channels.

I agree that every program which transitions from FCS to FBS incurs more added expenses than just the added scholarships, but the point is that most of it is optional. Footballs, helmets and shoulder pads still cost the same. The increase to the salaries of the coaching staff is probably the hardest to avoid. Facilities upgrades are something that most schools feel are worth the investment, but not strictly necessary. You don't have to gamble that money on big expenditures and then cross your fingers that the big FBS payday will come, you can wait until after you transition to see what you have, particularly if you're in a conference full of other members in the same boat as you. It doesn't have to be the USF strategy of BCS or bust.

And lastly I agree and I suspect almost everybody here would agree that the FCS playoffs are vastly preferable to some bottom tier Toilet Bowl game. But there's a bigger picture. UMass like most universities is caught in a budget crunch, and as a result the athletic department had to eliminate our ski teams and very nearly eliminated our baseball team. If our football program was losing $800k less than it's currently losing, such as by playing a second guarantee game (not a problem for a FBS program), that would have wiped out the entire budget shortfall. So what if the choice isn't just between a top level FCS team vs. a bottom level FBS team? What if it's the choice between a top level FCS team vs. a bottom level FBS team plus a baseball team plus a men's and women's ski team (or your regional equivalent)? There's also the matter currently facing Eastern Washington, namely anxiety over their football team possibly getting cut. That's a regular occurrence in FCS, but has never happened in FBS since the subdivisions were created. FCS programs are apparently considered expendable. So what if the choice is between a top level FCS program vs. a bottom level FBS program plus a baseball team plus men's and women's ski teams plus not having to worry about some college administrator abruptly pulling the plug on your favorite sports team? And getting your games televised on ESPN instead of Comcast SportsBackwater (I'm not going to type the whole list out again)? Even at the bottom of FBS, the benefits start to add up.

Most of us are paying a premium to stay in FCS for the chance at the vanity of claiming a FCS Championship, and, particularly at the FCS programs that aren't profitable (i.e. nearly all of them), is that really fair to the players on the other underfunded sports teams, the students paying large athletic fee surcharges on their tuition bills, and the taxpayers supporting public universities with FCS football programs? And how can we hold up the championship trophy for this artificially created cost-containment subdivision with a straight face when we're intentionally increasing our overall financial losses? It's almost cheating to do this to the schools that actually need to be in FCS and are playing true small budget football. I wonder if all those MAAC programs would still exist if us heavyweights weren't around hogging all the playoff spots. If we're going to intentionally lower the bar by being in FCS, then we should also all agree to cap budgets at a level that makes financial sense. If we don't want to be artificially limited, then we should be in FBS. What does Delaware think it's proving by carrying a $5.2 million football budget in FCS? What is the CAA proving by having the largest average budget? Yeah, congrats, when all the football programs spending more than us aren't allowed to play in our subdivision, we tend to get half the at large bids to the playoffs. Who are we fooling with that? Our national champion Richmond spent more money on football than the MAC Champion Buffalo, with significantly less revenue. And this is Buffalo we're talking about, the poster child of how not to move to FBS. So what does that say about Richmond and those of us with similar FCS programs, that we're losing more money on football than Buffalo? We should move up or move down.

[JohnStOnge]

Our national champion Richmond spent more money on football than the MAC Champion Buffalo, with significantly less revenue. And this is Buffalo we're talking about, the poster child of how not to move to FBS. So what does that say about Richmond and those of us with similar FCS programs, that we're losing more money on football than Buffalo? We should move up or move down.

What I'm looking at, covering the period 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008 for both schools, shows Buffalo at -$2.5 million for its football program and Richmond at $0. I'm suspicious of the $0 things. But, still, I'm not seeing evidence in the IPDES reports that Buffalo did better in its football program than Richmond did for that period. Of course, we'll have to wait for the 2008 - 2009 reports to see about the current fiscal year.


Besides, the point is this: Even though the CAA does spend way more money per program on its football programs than other FCS leagues do, there is NO way you're going to field a league that is competetive in the context of FBS spending what the CAA spends on football programs. I mean, sure, they could form a FBS league and beat each other but they'll be killed in non conference play unless they substantially increase their expenditures. Buffalo won an awful FBS conference but the Bulls were 2-3 in non conference play with the wins over 5-7 UTEP and 3-9 Army. They finished one game over 0.500 at 8-6, and that's the only winning season Buffalo has had as a I-A/FBS program.

The main thing is: If you think that having a competetive FBS football program doesn't cost substantially more than having a competetive FCS football program does, you're kidding yourself. Buffalo had one "wonderful" year. But if you look at the "average" ratings at http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare.htm, that zenith year had them rated at around the 64th best among 120 FBS teams. They were still in the lower half.

[Smendy]

I'm only talking about FCS programs that are already spending FBS-sized amounts on football, not the median FCS member. The FCS members that are playing true cost containment football, such as the ones in the PFL, are likely better off in FCS. But most of the FCS members who are challenging for at-large spots in the FCS Playoffs are playing "revenue containment" football, meaning all the cost of bottom tier FBS football but with FCS revenue limitations.

It's like if your local AAA-level minor league baseball franchise had the same operating costs as the Kansas City Royals. There's a formula out there for running a successful and profitable minor league franchise, but not if you're spending Major League money. But that is what UMass and most CAA members are doing. Every FBS study that UMass conducts leads to the same conclusion: we should either move up (FBS), or move down (lower budget FCS). High level FCS doesn't make financial sense. That's not to say that there is a gold mine awaiting at FBS, but if UMass didn't change a thing about its football program other than adding enough scholarships for FBS, it would almost be guaranteed to lose less money than it currently does even if not a single additional person bought a ticket, if ticket prices weren't raised a single cent, and if not a single cent of additional TV revenue was brought in. The guarantee games alone cover the difference. That of course is ignoring the stadium issue and the lack of any suitable conference affiliation, which are much larger discussions and UMass-specific. But I think the basic premise is very sound: if a FBS program and a FCS program are spending the same amount on football, the FBS program will be better off financially because they have access to better revenue streams. Both are likely money losers, but the FBS program will lose less money. Now, if the plan to move up to FBS involves tripling your existing budget, as I suspect it might at the median FCS school, that's different. The math won't necessarily work for that.

Jackman, Connecticut is the best example of program just going nowhere at the 1-AA level, both on the field and financially, and they got a huge boost moving up. Sure they did go to the Big East, but many predicted devastation if they tried to compete in the Big East in football -- thought they'd be Temple-like for many years.

I think Massachussets, Delaware and Richmond are ready to become FBS mid-majors. Really, the only reason these programs should be worried is the "Idaho effect"....While everyone focuses on South Florida, Boise State and Connecticut, that have had great success, nobody wants to be another Idaho -- which went from a 1-AA powerhouse to a FBS laughing stock/mickey mouse program. One can even say Marshall has regressed since moving up, outside of the few glory years with Pennington and Leftwich.

P.S: Couple quick points -- this thread keeps getting better, lots of great input. CollegeSportsInfo has added a lot of great stuff to this thread, as have many people....Also, I forgot to mention that Liberty is school that should probably be included in this discussion.

[Jackman]

The reported revenue numbers are total nonsense, they include things like student fees and institutional contributions as "revenue" generated by the football team, that's how the ledgers always end up perfectly balanced at $0. The reported operating costs in comparison should be much more reliable, other than the occasional passing off of athletic facilities maintenance costs as general infrastructure costs not specific to athletics and things of similar ambiguous nature.

For revenue, look at Richmond's home attendance vs. Buffalo's home attendance, Richmond's ticket prices and parking charges vs. Buffalo's ticket prices and parking charges, the CAA's TV deal vs. the MAC's TV deal, etc. Unless Richmond sold an incredible amount of hats and t-shirts after winning the championship, they couldn't possibly have generated more revenue (from sources traditionally considered revenue) than Buffalo, and that's not counting Buffalo's bowl money.

Not that this is really about Richmond. Richmond is building a 9,000 seat stadium without expansion possibilities, so they're going to be in FCS for a long, long time. But they'd be better off in a FCS that caps everyone's football budget at $2 million. $4.5 million for a football team that draws about 6,000 fans per game is lunacy. But the CAA South has set upon this arms race, and if we want to consistently compete for championships the rest of us will probably have to match their pace. How stupidly big do the numbers have to get before we drop the charade and play at the level with revenue potential? I bet we could have Utah/Boise State-sized football budgets (Delaware is most of the way there) and some people would still say, "oh no, we can't move to FBS, there's no point, we won't be able to compete, the BCS is unfair," etc. What we're doing simply doesn't make sense. This isn't sustainable.

[JohnStOnge]

Jack, I'm not seeing anything that changes my opinion that your outlook is based on what I think is the false premise that schools that have lower level FBS programs do better financially overall than schools that have upper level FCS programs do.

Let's take the MAC/CAA comparison. If you take their overall athletic department bottom lines, both have a lot of those suspscious "$0" nets. Seven of the 12 CAA programs have that and eight of the 13 MAC programs have that. If you take the average, the CAA has an average net of +$222,358 and the MAC has an average net of +$198,964 (reported, I should say, we can never know what the real story is with those "$0" balances). There are some big time basketball programs among the CAA schools so let's allow for that. But, still, there isn't any evidence that the MAC schools are generally doing better financially.

[ur2k]

Our national champion Richmond spent more money on football than the MAC Champion Buffalo, with significantly less revenue. And this is Buffalo we're talking about, the poster child of how not to move to FBS. So what does that say about Richmond and those of us with similar FCS programs, that we're losing more money on football than Buffalo? We should move up or move down.

What does it say? Are you saying Buffalo is in a better position b/c they supposedly spent less money than UR? Did they have a more successful season b/c they got to play in the international bowl and lose to UCONN? While Richmond got to play in a playoff to win the championship at the FCS level.

I really don't get your point. I personally don't see the benefit of moving up to the FBS if its going to be at the level of the MAC or the Sunbelt.

[AppMan]

You guys are starting too far north:

ASU
Delaware
Georgia St.
GSU
JMU
ODU
UNCC

Need 1-2 more CAA or SoCon (Richmond or Furman) to step up, which would be long shots.

Oh course this wouldn't be until 2015 due to the new guys on the block.

That looks familiar. Better be careful there Saint, you'll be labeled as a malcontent by you-know-who for suggesting ASU move up to FBS.

[AppMan]

Somewhere down the road I think that an all sports conference with football will evolve with a core of:

James Madison
Old Dominion
East Carolina
Appalachian State
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
Marshall

A very logical extension could be Jacksonville State and Middle Tenn. If Charlotte gets their program off the ground, I believe they would be a natural for this league. I've always thought that Youngstown State should be in the MAC, but if that never happens, this alignment could be their next best option.

Would Buffalo and/or Temple find this new group to be a preferable home? Could UMass muster the financial support to join this group if the football was at the FBS level? How many of these Northern teams would it take for Delaware to give this league serious consideration? From what I've read from their posters over the years, I'm not sure they would consider it.

Buffalo
Youngstown
Temple
UMass
Old Dominion
JMU

East Carolina
App State
Charlotte
GaSoU
GaStU
Jacksonville State

OR a more likely scenario might be

JMU
Marshall
Charlotte (or YSU if the 49ers don't get their program going)
App State
ECU
ODU

GaSoU
GaStU
Jax State
Troy
Middle TN
Western KY

Personally, I think this scenario has the most legs. More Southeastern than eastern, but like-minded schools with some history and similar aspirations. Twelve teams for a championship game, decent travel partners for other sports. JMHO, but this evolution would please the heck out of the higher aspiration football schools in the CAA and SoCon, would stabilize the SoCon as a primarily private institution league, would pare the CAA Football League down which would please multitudes, should allow the football schools in the Northeast to begin an all sports conference with football affiliation, etc. Of course, the NCAA rules for obtaining an AQ will probably hinder any such logical re-organization from occurring. xrolleyesx

Could the CAA sponsor two leagues, this proposed one plus one with non-football schools, along with America East or the A-10 sponsoring the NE Football school league? I'm assuming non football schools in America East would join the CAA non football schools in the second CAA sponsored league. Or the CAA sponsors both football based leagues and the non football schools go to America East or a revised A-10 after football splits the Big East driving the Catholic schools together and maybe the midwestern schools into a more regional configuration.

ECU wouldn't go for something like that and I think Marshall would be of the same mindset. If a new conference comes to life it will be almost certainly be a group of current FCS schools along with start up programs ODU, Georgia State, and Charlotte, or a core group of CUSA schools (ECU, Marshall, UCF, UAB, Memphis, So Miss) with a few FCS guys tossed in.

[catdaddy2402]

There's also the matter currently facing Eastern Washington, namely anxiety over their football team possibly getting cut. That's a regular occurrence in FCS, but has never happened in FBS since the subdivisions were created.

Fullerton, Long Beach St, Pacific, and Wichita State would beg to disagree.

[AppMan]

Jackman, Connecticut is the best example of program just going nowhere at the 1-AA level, both on the field and financially, and they got a huge boost moving up. Sure they did go to the Big East, but many predicted devastation if they tried to compete in the Big East in football -- thought they'd be Temple-like for many years.

I think Massachussets, Delaware and Richmond are ready to become FBS mid-majors. Really, the only reason these programs should be worried is the "Idaho effect"....While everyone focuses on South Florida, Boise State and Connecticut, that have had great success, nobody wants to be another Idaho -- which went from a 1-AA powerhouse to a FBS laughing stock/mickey mouse program. One can even say Marshall has regressed since moving up, outside of the few glory years with Pennington and Leftwich.

P.S: Couple quick points -- this thread keeps getting better, lots of great input. CollegeSportsInfo has added a lot of great stuff to this thread, as have many people....Also, I forgot to mention that Liberty is school that should probably be included in this discussion.

You can forget Richmond as a FBS Mid-Major.

[Wildcat80]

What does it say? Are you saying Buffalo is in a better position b/c they supposedly spent less money than UR? Did they have a more successful season b/c they got to play in the international bowl and lose to UCONN? While Richmond got to play in a playoff to win the championship at the FCS level.

I really don't get your point. I personally don't see the benefit of moving up to the FBS if its going to be at the level of the MAC or the Sunbelt.

Isn't a big difference TUITION? Richmond charges Ivy league type rates while I'm sure SUNY Buffalo is much less. $20,000 tuition difference or more over 85 schollies is alot of money. In any case no way does UR move up with a new 9000 seat stadium. There are a few building stadiums that could do it--all it takes is alumni support--ASU, Del, JMU.

[DFW HOYA]

In any case no way does UR move up with a new 9000 seat stadium. There are a few building stadiums that could do it--all it takes is alumni support--ASU, Del, JMU.

In some cases it takes a lot more more than alumni support.

[andy7171]

Jackman, Connecticut is the best example of program just going nowhere at the 1-AA level, both on the field and financially, and they got a huge boost moving up. Sure they did go to the Big East, but many predicted devastation if they tried to compete in the Big East in football -- thought they'd be Temple-like for many years.

I think Massachussets, Delaware and Richmond are ready to become FBS mid-majors. Really, the only reason these programs should be worried is the "Idaho effect"....While everyone focuses on South Florida, Boise State and Connecticut, that have had great success, nobody wants to be another Idaho -- which went from a 1-AA powerhouse to a FBS laughing stock/mickey mouse program. One can even say Marshall has regressed since moving up, outside of the few glory years with Pennington and Leftwich.

P.S: Couple quick points -- this thread keeps getting better, lots of great input. CollegeSportsInfo has added a lot of great stuff to this thread, as have many people....Also, I forgot to mention that Liberty is school that should probably be included in this discussion.

xconfusedx

Not with the new on campus stadium being capped at under 10K seats.

xconfusedx

[89Hen]

Our national champion Richmond spent more money on football than the MAC Champion Buffalo, with significantly less revenue. And this is Buffalo we're talking about, the poster child of how not to move to FBS. So what does that say about Richmond and those of us with similar FCS programs, that we're losing more money on football than Buffalo? We should move up or move down.
Richmong Tuition and Fees $38,850
Buffalo Tuition and Fees In-state: $6,285, Out-of-state: $12,545

You should clarify what spending on football really entails. xpeacex

[bostonspider]

Also one of the reasons that UR can often claim to have football net out, is that all the football scholarships are fully endowed, so the interest from those endowments can be counted as "revenue". But yes UR's football budget is definitely inflated by our huge tuition and room and board. All in, UR is about $45,000, so that times 63 scholarships is over $2.8M.

[Smendy]

xconfusedx

Not with the new on campus stadium being capped at under 10K seats.

xconfusedx

Folks, Richmond isn't the fictional "Mayberry" (tiny town USA), it's a fairly big city*. In time, would there not be a chance of a new stadium or current stadium expansion, if possible?

Were there is a will, there is a way......Connecticut had a tiny on-campus stadium, but got a new one built near Hartford. For a mid-major conference a new stadium could be half the size the place Connecticut built.

I guess I was making some wild projections, knowing full well some stadium situations would need to a change a bit to make this work xpeacex


*Estimated population of 1,212,977 for the Richmond Metropolitan Area

[DFW HOYA]

Folks, Richmond isn't the fictional "Mayberry" (tiny town USA), it's a fairly big city*. In time, would there not be a chance of a new stadium or current stadium expansion, if possible?

Were there is a will, there is a way......Connecticut had a tiny on-campus stadium, but got a new one built near Hartford. For a mid-major conference a new stadium could be half the size the place Connecticut built.

First Market Stadium is not going to expand; within a few years, City Stadium (UR Stadium) will be torn down anyway. Short of playing at the Diamond (and what an odd setup that would be), the city of Richmond is not building a new stadium for the Spiders.

Connecticut moved out of Storrs' Memorial Stadium only through the confluence of an eager governor, a generous legislature, and millions in unspent stadium funds after an NFL team turned down an offer to move there. No other I-AA school could have such an opportunity.

[Dane96]

Folks, Richmond isn't the fictional "Mayberry" (tiny town USA), it's a fairly big city*. In time, would there not be a chance of a new stadium or current stadium expansion, if possible?

Were there is a will, there is a way......Connecticut had a tiny on-campus stadium, but got a new one built near Hartford. For a mid-major conference a new stadium could be half the size the place Connecticut built.

I guess I was making some wild projections, knowing full well some stadium situations would need to a change a bit to make this work xpeacex


*Estimated population of 1,212,977 for the Richmond Metropolitan Area

The only reason UCONN got that stadium is because the Pats didnt come into town.

[ur2k]

Folks, Richmond isn't the fictional "Mayberry" (tiny town USA), it's a fairly big city*. In time, would there not be a chance of a new stadium or current stadium expansion, if possible?

Were there is a will, there is a way......Connecticut had a tiny on-campus stadium, but got a new one built near Hartford. For a mid-major conference a new stadium could be half the size the place Connecticut built.

I guess I was making some wild projections, knowing full well some stadium situations would need to a change a bit to make this work xpeacex


*Estimated population of 1,212,977 for the Richmond Metropolitan Area

You are correct in the size of the Richmond metro area. UR is a small private school in a state with a lot of other colleges that play D-I sports, including 2 that play at the BCS level. So I don't think the comparison with UCONN applies here.

The city of Richmond won't ever build UR a stadium - ever. They can't get their stuff together to build a new minor league baseball park. The $25 million for the new UR football stadium was raised privately. Plus UR doesn't feel the need to move up to FBS for the sake of moving up. We have a very good all around sports program, a high level FCS program in the best conference, play b-ball in arguably the best non-BCS conference and are on the rise. What would we gain in moving unless we somehow go straight into the ACC or the Big East.

[89Hen]

Were there is a will, there is a way......Connecticut had a tiny on-campus stadium, but got a new one built near Hartford. For a mid-major conference a new stadium could be half the size the place Connecticut built.
Apples and oranges. Big East football was unique to UConn. No other I-AA has ever had a BCS conference to which to move when making the jump.

[89Hen]

You are correct in the size of the Richmond metro area. UR is a small private school in a state with a lot of other colleges that play D-I sports, including 2 that play at the BCS level.
xnodx UVA and VT are the big boys in VA. UConn was the big boy in CT.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

The only reason UCONN got that stadium is because the Pats didnt come into town.

Not completely true. Lew Perkins, the former AD, did a great selling job telling folks that going I-A in football was essential to protect the basketball program. He told CT that the basketball program needed to be in a conference with high level football to maintain the high level of play it had reached. He sold CT that the conferences with high level hoop and piggy would be the power brokers within the NCAA. Once UConn Nation heard the holy grail (hoop) might be jeopardized, I-A football was on the fast track.

FWIW, I don't recall any money officially appropriated by the legislature for Kraft and the Patriots. After Perkins did his selling job, United Technologies donated land for Rentschler Field and the legislature appropriated $93 Million for the stadium and the on campus training center. To this day I've never seen money appropriated and a project completed so quickly as Rentschler Field. xoopsx :o :o

[aceinthehole]

Not completely true. Lew Perkins, the former AD, did a great selling job telling folks that going I-A in football was essential to protect the basketball program. He told CT that the basketball program needed to be in a conference with high level football to maintain the high level of play it had reached. He sold CT that the conferences with high level hoop and piggy would be the power brokers within the NCAA. Once UConn Nation heard the holy grail (hoop) might be jeopardized, I-A football was on the fast track.

FWIW, I don't recall any money officially appropriated by the legislature for Kraft and the Patriots. After Perkins did his selling job, United Technologies donated land for Rentschler Field and the legislature appropriated $93 Million for the stadium and the on campus training center. To this day I've never seen money appropriated and a project completed so quickly as Rentschler Field. xoopsx :o :o

Exactly right! Although the NFL stadium warmed up the idea, the UConn plan wasn't born from it. The Kraft plan was just that - a plan, no money was ever appropriated.

At the risk (potential threat) of becoming irrelevenat in basketball, the state swiftly appropriated $93 million for a stadium, which was far less than the proposed financing for the NFL stadium. UT donated the land and the rest is history.

UConn owned the governor and legislature and the state was flush with $$$. And in the fact that there was a spot in a BCS conference, and it was a no brainer. Although I hate UConn for other reasons, this plan was too good to pass up. The economy and timing was perfect.

[carney2]

Most of the schools mentioned in this thread have no more business being mentioned in the same sentence with the term FBS than they would have challenging Cal Tech and MIT to a science fair competition. This is ridiculous.

[Appfan_in_CAAland]

Most of the schools mentioned in this thread have no more business being mentioned in the same sentence with the term FBS than they would have challenging Cal Tech and MIT to a science fair competition. This is ridiculous.

I agree. App State, JMU, and Delaware are the only eastern FCS schools even close to being in a position to go FBS.

[mainejeff]

I agree. App State, JMU, and Delaware are the only eastern FCS schools even close to being in a position to go FBS.

ODU can be added to that list soon.

[AppMan]

Apples and oranges. Big East football was unique to UConn. No other I-AA has ever had a BCS conference to which to move when making the jump.

What about South Florida?

[CRAZY_DANE]

Looking ahead a decade who knows? September 2019 may well see a new conference in FCS for the North East and a modified Big East -Football/ Basketball arrangement. Given the
current economic picture may not play out until 2010 or 2011 it is really impossible to predict. We may see some teams drop football or some new start ups. Realistically 5 years may be as far out as you may want to look with some accuracy.

Very true.

20 years ago there wasn't one D1 SUNY school. Today there are 4. Even the progress of the past 10 years is amazing.

10 years is a long way out. There is no reason to think that a NE FBS conference wouldn't make sense in 2019.

[89Hen]

What about South Florida?
Nope. I-AA in 1997, I-A Independent in 2001, C-USA in 2003, BE in 2005

[JohnStOnge]

Nope. I-AA in 1997, I-A Independent in 2001, C-USA in 2003, BE in 2005

Correct. South Florida kind of got lucky. Some dominos fell and they ended up being where there's no way they could've been sure of being. UConn knew when it left I-AA that its football program was going to be in a BCS conference after a short transitional period.

[AppMan]

Nope. I-AA in 1997, I-A Independent in 2001, C-USA in 2003, BE in 2005

The 2 years in CUSA slipped my mind. Even so, it has been a rapid rise for the Bulls program.

[Jackman]

Most of the schools mentioned in this thread have no more business being mentioned in the same sentence with the term FBS than they would have challenging Cal Tech and MIT to a science fair competition. This is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous about it? Anyone can play FBS football, all it takes is financing.

And I'd take MIT up on that challenge too. I'd expect to lose most of the time, but the important thing is to compete. Or maybe we should deny the existence of modern science and compete in a subdivision of schools that only use the Earth-Air-Fire-Water theory of primary elements.

[Jackman]

Jack, I'm not seeing anything that changes my opinion that your outlook is based on what I think is the false premise that schools that have lower level FBS programs do better financially overall than schools that have upper level FCS programs do.

Let's take the MAC/CAA comparison. If you take their overall athletic department bottom lines, both have a lot of those suspscious "$0" nets. Seven of the 12 CAA programs have that and eight of the 13 MAC programs have that. If you take the average, the CAA has an average net of +$222,358 and the MAC has an average net of +$198,964 (reported, I should say, we can never know what the real story is with those "$0" balances). There are some big time basketball programs among the CAA schools so let's allow for that. But, still, there isn't any evidence that the MAC schools are generally doing better financially.

Those reported revenue numbers aren't reliable, for reasons previously explained. My rule of thumb:

The schools reporting losses are losing money;
The schools reporting $0 balances are losing money;
The schools reporting small profits are losing money; and
The schools reporting large profits are losing money half the time.

Guessing how much they're actually losing is a shot in the dark. I don't think there's any value in comparing reported revenue figures unless one school is many, many millions of dollars ahead of the other, and then all I would say with confidence is that it's probably ahead by some unknown amount. And for purposes of this discussion, you certainly wouldn't compare non-football revenue. What does Villanova's Big East basketball revenue have to do with how CAA Football compares to MAC Football?

What we can say with confidence is that the MAC has a better TV deal than the CAA, has higher average attendance than the CAA, has higher average ticket prices than the CAA, plays more games against FBS opponents and receives higher average guarantee payments than the CAA, and receives more revenue from bowls than the CAA receives from the playoffs (generally a money loser). So if operating costs between the MAC and CAA are close, it is extremely unlikely that MAC football loses more money than CAA football. If you don't think that's the case, where is the CAA's extra revenue coming from? Do CAA fans eat an enormous amount more stadium hot dogs than MAC fans? I'd doubt that.

Now, what you get for your money at top level FCS vs. bottom level FBS is a whole other discussion, but let's start with the premise that top level FCS costs more money (i.e. loses more money) than bottom level FBS. And that's not something I pulled out of my butt, that's what UMass's FBS studies concluded as well.

So if there's agreement that top level FCS probably loses more money than bottom level FBS, then the only reason to be top level FCS is to compete for FCS Championship trophies. So how much is that trophy worth? If you knew for certain that X amount of dollars would get you a championship, how much would you want your university to spend? Because based on what I've seen of UMass's previous losses, I would guess that Richmond lost $3 million+ on that trophy. Is it worth it? Maybe for a first-ever championship. I wouldn't trade UMass's national championship in 1998 for a New Orleans Bowl appearance. But what about a second one? Personally, I'm ready to move on, particularly since spending all that money doesn't guarantee us anything anyway. I think it's time to stop or at least reduce the bleeding, make ourselves less of a burden financially and provide ourselves with some added protection against being cut entirely. And if that doesn't involve reclassifying to FBS, then we should all just agree to cut back and adopt a NFL style cap. Because it doesn't cost this much to play football, it just costs this much to win (under the current conditions).

[ur2k]

Jackman, since money seems to be the driver in your arguments against the FCS. Would you propose that UMASS eliminates most sports (maybe minus basketball since it may generate revenue) since most of them 'lose' money for the University?

[89Hen]

Correct. South Florida kind of got lucky. Some dominos fell and they ended up being where there's no way they could've been sure of being. UConn knew when it left I-AA that its football program was going to be in a BCS conference after a short transitional period.


The 2 years in CUSA slipped my mind. Even so, it has been a rapid rise for the Bulls program.
It was more or less a leap of faith for USF when they started football and as JSO said, everything broke their way.

The other thing to keep in mind is that they were never truly a I-AA. They, like FAU and FIU had no interest in being a I-AA, it's just that they wanted to start a football program and they were already DI for other sports. I-AA was merely a stepping stone. xpeacex

[henfan]

Jackman, since money seems to be the driver in your arguments against the FCS. Would you propose that UMASS eliminates most sports (maybe minus basketball since it may generate revenue) since most of them 'lose' money for the University?

Yup. And going one step further, UM will begin eliminating any department or related venture that doesn't produce net revenue. Afterall, the school exists solely to generate profits for its shareholders. Oh, wait, no; that's not it's mission.;)

[JohnStOnge]

Those reported revenue numbers aren't reliable...

Guessing how much they're actually losing is a shot in the dark. I don't think there's any value in comparing reported revenue figures unless one school is many, many millions of dollars ahead of the other, and then all I would say with confidence is that it's probably ahead by some unknown amount.

I agree that the numbers aren't reliable for individual comparisons. However, when you look at large groups it's reasonable to assume that the reporting error and inconsistency is somewhat randomly distributed. So if you compare the median net of all FCS schools from playoff conferences, for example, to the median net of the minor FBS conference schools (MAC, Sun Belt, WAC), the results should be considered informative.


And for purposes of this discussion, you certainly wouldn't compare non-football revenue. What does Villanova's Big East basketball revenue have to do with how CAA Football compares to MAC Football?

The case with a school like Villanova is in a particular category: It's a school with a minor football program and a major basketball program. However, in general, moving from FCS to FBS in football means adding sports and scholarships throughout the athletic program. In many cases it also means additional travel costs for all of those sports teams.

For example: McNeese State, ULL, ULM, and Louisiana Tech were all once in the same conference. Now McNeese, now in FCS reports spending $4.6 million on sports other than football. ULL reports spending $7.4 million on sports other than football, ULM reports spending $5.1 million, and Louisiana Tech reports spending $8.2 million more.

Now, ULM is relatively close. But the point is that if you look at the overall picture involving FCS and FBS you will find that FBS schools typically spend a LOT more on sports other than football. You can't legitimately leave that out of the equation.


Now, what you get for your money at top level FCS vs. bottom level FBS is a whole other discussion, but let's start with the premise that top level FCS costs more money (i.e. loses more money) than bottom level FBS. And that's not something I pulled out of my butt, that's what UMass's FBS studies concluded as well.

No, let's not start with that premise. You say UMass FBS studies concluded that. An NCAA study that I think led to a lot of the IPDES error we've been discussing concluded the opposite. Plus, in my own state, I've looked at legislative auditor's reports. The general picture is the same as one gets from looking at the overall IPDES reports: The bottom line is that the non BCS I-As in Louisiana lost more than the I-AAs in Louisiana did. It was basically the same picture as the previously referenced NCAA report. Non BCS I-As had more revenues but, on average, that was not enough to offset the additional expenses.


So if there's agreement that top level FCS probably loses more money than bottom level FBS....

Again, there is not agreement there.

Another thing I noticed is that you focused on "operating expenses." Regardless of any inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies, it's clear that looking only at "operating" expenses grossly understates cost.

[Jackman]

Jackman, since money seems to be the driver in your arguments against the FCS. Would you propose that UMASS eliminates most sports (maybe minus basketball since it may generate revenue) since most of them 'lose' money for the University?
What I'm getting at is more of a value analysis. Almost every sport in every athletic department around the country loses money, but in most cases the conclusion is that the expenditures ultimately add value to the university overall. You might not be a fan of Women's Rugby, but if Women's Rugby teams only cost $10 to operate, you'd probably want your university to sponsor a varsity team. Even if it loses every single dollar invested in it, who cares, right? But if Women's Rugby teams cost $1 billion to operate, you'd probably say no, even if it was a national championship team. So logically, if $10 is a 'yes', and $1 billion is a 'no', there must be some number between $10 and $1 billion where 'yes' becomes 'no'. I think we need think about what that number is.

Football has the added complication of two separate but similar on-field products: FCS and FBS. If FCS cost $10 and FBS cost $1 billion, I think it would be a no-brainer which one to choose, but that's not the reality. There is evidence to suggest that the numbers are fairly close, and that after taking into account average revenue at the two levels, FBS can cost less. But there are still aspects of having a top level FCS program that can be more intangibly valuable than bottom level FBS to some people, such as a more realistic chance for a national championship. My question is, what's the dollar value of that? Because my guess is, if top level FCS cost $1 billion more than bottom level FBS, you'd say move to FBS even if you prefer FCS. So what's the cut off point? What's your price?

I don't know my limit exactly, but I've come to the conclusion that if FBS becomes cheaper than FCS by an amount greater than the entire baseball budget, I'm over it. Especially when we're on the brink of cutting sports for lack of money.

[Jackman]

No, let's not start with that premise.

Look, I'm not under the delusion that those numbers provide a 100% accurate representation of the real costs, but unfortunately they're all we've got. Unless some ADs care to join in the discussion here and we've been assured that they've all been injected with truth serum, this is the only way to say anything meaningful on the subject.

I personally believe that, over time, those reported operating costs have become more standardized and useful as a means to compare one school to another, though remaining unreliable if you want to know the true cost of football. I remember a few years ago when UMass made media headlines for losing the most amount of money on football in all of FCS. That happened because, unlike other schools, we didn't include student fees under the "revenue" column. Since then we've gotten our asses in line and have been using all the same tricks that everyone else uses on those reports to make their numbers look better. There have been no more negative articles, even though nothing about our football program has changed since then.

What costs do you think the bottom level FBS programs are hiding that the top level FCS programs aren't? Because if anything we have more incentive to hide costs than they do. If they have bad losses, they get negative publicity. If we have bad losses, they take away our football team. And there's no damn way we'll get it back.

[AppMan]

It was more or less a leap of faith for USF when they started football and as JSO said, everything broke their way.

The other thing to keep in mind is that they were never truly a I-AA. They, like FAU and FIU had no interest in being a I-AA, it's just that they wanted to start a football program and they were already DI for other sports. I-AA was merely a stepping stone. xpeacex

Even so, they played 4 years at the 1-aa level before moving on.