|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 28, 2019 11:00:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Sept 28, 2019 11:09:11 GMT -6
Thought Sherm might love that article.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Sept 28, 2019 11:23:22 GMT -6
Thought Sherm might love that article. I was hoping no one would post it we know whats coming now... Way to go oomh
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Sept 29, 2019 6:32:42 GMT -6
This article appears to be "subscriber only" and obviously I'm not going to pay for SP content.
My main curiosity would be to see how dishonest the BSU people would be willing to get. I seriously doubt they face up to anything near the actual loss figure in a public statement.
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Sept 29, 2019 7:09:10 GMT -6
This article appears to be "subscriber only" and obviously I'm not going to pay for SP content. My main curiosity would be to see how dishonest the BSU people would be willing to get. I seriously doubt they face up to anything near the actual loss figure in a public statement. You need to familiarize yourself with incognito browser
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 29, 2019 8:21:18 GMT -6
This article appears to be "subscriber only" and obviously I'm not going to pay for SP content. My main curiosity would be to see how dishonest the BSU people would be willing to get. I seriously doubt they face up to anything near the actual loss figure in a public statement. I am surprised too that the front page headline story on a local paper isn't available on its website for free.
The simple dollars and cents cost figures are relatively honest. All athletics programs have costs that are not included in the official budget to some degree. There is a little deception in touting the value of the MAC TV contract which is of course bigger than it would be without FB, and that revenue is touted as the largest of any sport. That is by a narrow margin, and relative to BB revenue versus expense not very impressive, with a vague mention in the article about wishing FB was similar to BB in that respect.
The benefits side is not very clearly justified in the article.
The general justification for an athletic program at all is that it creates good will externally, it's an advertising expense and that there is value to students generally as well as to the participants.
It's vague how to put a dollar and cent value on those benefits. Which is also true clear across all college sports.
The main point .of the article seems to be we have some good will from FB, and some positives, including decent performance academically.
The other talking point is basically that since everyone else does it, it's not as bad as it looks, must be OK.
Some facts cited apparently to provide that perspective include that nearly every MAC team loses money on FB. That in most cases FB is the biggest single part of the athletic budget for all programs (for us 25%). Most lose about the same 5 mil a year, use student fees to cover that loss. In our case that would about 40% of student fees "revenues" allocated to athletics go to FB.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Sept 29, 2019 9:52:30 GMT -6
They didn’t do a good job clearly justifying the worth of football.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Sept 29, 2019 10:09:52 GMT -6
I took it as yes football is not justified but we are going to keep doing it
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Sept 29, 2019 10:11:17 GMT -6
I took it as yes football is not justified but we are going to keep doing it Agree.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 29, 2019 10:17:29 GMT -6
They didn’t do a good job clearly justifying the worth of football. I took it as yes football is not justified but we are going to keep doing it Yeah, definitely the message. In many ways it just raised the question of whether FB makes sense in the MAC. Or whether we make sense in the MAC doing what everyone else does.
I understand you can't quantify everything. But if you believe an athletic program is valuable which I do, the question is how big a budget is justified. What could we do with a smaller budget without MAC FB? One of the arguments there is that being in the MAC has some value for other sports and the athletic program in those sports.
Another conference without FB or at a lower level would have savings but also some increased costs and the MAC is the "natural" conference for us. Good reason to be in the MAC on several grounds, and I suspect the justification right now is that there is no really good alternative.
Except, maybe the MAC conference and all institutions in it making changes. But will that happen? Ironically right now we and most conference schools are subsidizing the few MAC schools who may be able to justify having FBS football. Ohio, Toledo, Buffalo, NIU and maybe a few others may have reason to want FB, but they need a conference affiliation that serves that end and is good in all other sports. They are lucky to have us on that grounds.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Sept 29, 2019 10:30:08 GMT -6
I was surprised they didn’t very clearly and strongly state that the MAC is our best fit and where we belong and to stay in we have to have football. If we drop football we’d have to find a new league, presumably a lower level one with institutions we don’t share many similarities with. But they didn’t really strongly go that route.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Sept 29, 2019 11:06:04 GMT -6
Sounds like all the same ridiculous stuff that's been rehashed a million times.
"The benefits side is not very clearly justified" because, of course, the benefits don't remotely justify the huge cost, and an honest, straight-forward evaluation would necessarily look awful. And, by the way, the situation is fundamentally the same at ALL mac schools. They all lose a boatload of money. In fact, I think it's possible more that more football "success", as it's defined in the mac, leads to a worse financial situation. Going to the sort of bowls that are realistic targets for the mac is just another additional money loss. And if lightening strikes, as it did for NIU and the Orange Bowl some years back, then you can REALLY lose some big money due to the tickets that have to be eaten due to the tiny size of the fanbase willing to travel. (And you also get the pleasure of being openly insulted by the bowl officials at bowl activities, because THEY DON'T WANT YOU THERE.)
Amazingly enough, 00 sums up the situation pretty well and succinctly: "The other talking point is basically that since everyone else does it, it's not as bad as it looks, must be OK."
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Sept 29, 2019 11:12:06 GMT -6
Your not wrong sherm you never have been. Nothing is going to change though until the NCAA gets their way and the MAC,Sunbelt and other like conferences are just gobbled up and all of us have to drop down or cease to exist
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 29, 2019 12:07:03 GMT -6
In fact, I think it's possible more that more football "success", as it's defined in the mac, leads to a worse financial situation. Going to the sort of bowls that are realistic targets for the mac is just another additional money loss. And if lightening strikes, as it did for NIU and the Orange Bowl some years back, then you can REALLY lose some big money due to the tickets that have to be eaten due to the tiny size of the fanbase willing to travel. (And you also get the pleasure of being openly insulted by the bowl officials at bowl activities, because THEY DON'T WANT YOU THERE.) I'll quibble a little bit. A bowl appearance does lose money, although a major bowl gets some hefty TV revenue, and even a major bowl will be a close call on the books.
But. A bowl, especially a major bowl does give you that good will and advertising. If you could go every year to a bowl, I suspect most Presidents would love that, and have an argument FB monetary loss was justified.
If you are a conference power, and occasionally got a real bowl game, then your odds are better for moving to a bigger conference and being subsidized by a TV contract and bigger crowds. But that is hard, and not likely to happen. NIU and WMU experience flirting for a season or two with ranking and glory seem to have proved that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 16:09:41 GMT -6
This article appears to be "subscriber only" and obviously I'm not going to pay for SP content. My main curiosity would be to see how dishonest the BSU people would be willing to get. I seriously doubt they face up to anything near the actual loss figure in a public statement. You need to familiarize yourself with incognito browser I tried that and still no luck
|
|