|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 17, 2022 9:31:03 GMT -6
For whatever it's worth, someone posted on the MAC message board Friday: "Since 2012 the MAC is just 17-41 in bowl games. No one is close to this abysmal record in college football". Let's do a bit of math here. Approximately $10 million cost over revenue per year for each MAC football program. 10 years. 12 football programs. Total cost to students: $1.2 billion dollars. That comes to $70 million per bowl win. It's facts like this that keep me posting in this football forum. MAC football is so unbelievably stupid and wasteful that it provides a huge, slow-moving and irresistible target for me. And you football supporting morons need to be constantly reminded that your idiotic pastime is brought to you by huge totals of student fees every year. If you look at it a better way is to say it is 20 mil per bowl appearance. Nobody said we were in it for the glory of winning every game. Each appearance has some value to offset that?
Those benefits whatever they are plus all the other benefits of having a MAC FB team unfortunately are not easily measured in terms of positive cash flow to the universities.
But it is clear bowl appearances contribute to the net deficit however you look at it. Your point is relevant to whether there is a benefit to FBS membership at least. FBS may benefit by getting MAC teams more money lucrative games. Suppose that adds to revenue as much as 2mil a year per team it might hypothetically add up to 200mil+ of the deficit. It may add to the value of the TV package(direct revenue plus some good will).
The Presidents of the MAC schools have to analyze whether all those benefits add up to enough to justify student fees.
Being realistic we are not going to lower student fees and they will be spent on a smaller deficit on FCS FB or any other sports to replace FSB FB, or to other items now judged not as important for funding.
It's not completely clear what the value has been historically.
What is clear is the cost of FB is escalating and funding is not. So that is more the question than past losses which apparently the Presidents judge to be best use of student fees. Can they find MORE money to support increased expense for FB.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Dec 17, 2022 9:49:57 GMT -6
For whatever it's worth, someone posted on the MAC message board Friday: "Since 2012 the MAC is just 17-41 in bowl games. No one is close to this abysmal record in college football". Let's do a bit of math here. Approximately $10 million cost over revenue per year for each MAC football program. 10 years. 12 football programs. Total cost to students: $1.2 billion dollars. That comes to $70 million per bowl win. It's facts like this that keep me posting in this football forum. MAC football is so unbelievably stupid and wasteful that it provides a huge, slow-moving and irresistible target for me. And you football supporting morons need to be constantly reminded that your idiotic pastime is brought to you by huge totals of student fees every year. This is why i have argued that we at a minimum drop down a division or even go Ivy League by not offering scholarships. I would still go to the games. I would love to go back to playing Indiana State, Illinois State, Youngstown State, etc. every year. If the MAC is not willing to join in this effort let's do it ourselves. We are not a D1 program, the MAC is not a D1 conference. Being a want-to-be at this cost is silly. There are enough good lower division teams within easy driving distance to get back to Saturday only games and enjoy. We don't need ESPN to telecast our games, we can do it on the internet ourselves - we used to do it and we can do it again. Anyway, that's all you get with ESPN+ anyway! I agree - let's stop playing the silly game and do what is right for our students and Alumni and move on...
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 17, 2022 9:55:04 GMT -6
The MAC membership is great for all other sports, and for comparison of the schools outside sports. They are the most similar institutions for us to look at.
Presidents use MAC salaries and comparison of academic programs to argue for our budget, for example.
In sports we may be stuck until enough MAC presidents decide to change FB.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Dec 17, 2022 10:22:59 GMT -6
One additional thing, I would strongly encourage the MAC to pursue Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee to join the MAC. They are both in a weak, ten team conference once all the realignment is completed in the next few years. They would strengthen the MAC in football and especially in basketball. Same general region. Same student population and facilities. Good fit for them and us.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Dec 17, 2022 10:36:55 GMT -6
One additional thing, I would strongly encourage the MAC to pursue Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee to join the MAC. They are both in a weak, ten team conference once all the realignment is completed in the next few years. They would strengthen the MAC in football and especially in basketball. Same general region. Same student population and facilities. Good fit for them and us. We did pursue them last year Middle TN said no
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Dec 17, 2022 10:48:58 GMT -6
One additional thing, I would strongly encourage the MAC to pursue Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee to join the MAC. They are both in a weak, ten team conference once all the realignment is completed in the next few years. They would strengthen the MAC in football and especially in basketball. Same general region. Same student population and facilities. Good fit for them and us. We did pursue them last year Middle TN said no True, but it appears it has as much to do with the payment they would receive from the conference as a result of the departure fees by those teams leaving the conference. This should be resolved soon. Western really wanted out, we wanted both schools - we need to help resolve the issue and make it happen or be leaped frog by another conference.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Dec 17, 2022 11:04:41 GMT -6
For whatever it's worth, someone posted on the MAC message board Friday: "Since 2012 the MAC is just 17-41 in bowl games. No one is close to this abysmal record in college football". Let's do a bit of math here. Approximately $10 million cost over revenue per year for each MAC football program. 10 years. 12 football programs. Total cost to students: $1.2 billion dollars. That comes to $70 million per bowl win. It's facts like this that keep me posting in this football forum. MAC football is so unbelievably stupid and wasteful that it provides a huge, slow-moving and irresistible target for me. And you football supporting morons need to be constantly reminded that your idiotic pastime is brought to you by huge totals of student fees every year. My only question would be what happens to all or part of that $1.2 billion once football is dropped or reduced to a lower level of competition. Does the university just stop charging that? Or would they find some other pet project to funnel that money into?
|
|
|
Post by sdacardinal on Dec 17, 2022 11:07:03 GMT -6
Playing DePauw, St. Joseph, Indiana State, Butler, provided great rivalries. In 1959 Ball state rallied from 16 points behind to defeat DePauw. Then there was Butler in 1957 that drew 10,000 fans for the first time in the 9000 seat capacity Ball Athletic Field across from the hospital. The 1959 team had a 6-2 record and were ICC (Indiana Collegiate Conference) champs. The sweetest victory for me was in 1967 in the first game in the new stadium beating the shit out of Butler 65-7. Yes I would also go to those games if we dropped down a division. Even spend some money in bringing St. Joseph back to life. I think they were the Pumas.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 17, 2022 11:16:52 GMT -6
Let's do a bit of math here. Approximately $10 million cost over revenue per year for each MAC football program...you football supporting morons need to be constantly reminded that your idiotic pastime is brought to you by huge totals of student fees every year. My only question would be what happens to all or part of that $1.2 billion once football is dropped or reduced to a lower level of competition. Does the university just stop charging that? Or would they find some other pet project to funnel that money into? That's what was arguing above. The question is would they spend it on other sports or something else. I doubt you ever reduce fees. They are frozen now, and inflation is eating us up. Tuition, fees are sticky to increase.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 17, 2022 11:22:39 GMT -6
So...your argument is that there is no point in eliminating 1.2 billion in wasteful spending because MAC administrations are too dysfunctional to use the savings in a useful way? Or...what?
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 17, 2022 11:28:23 GMT -6
As one example, think of all the new Diversity/Inclusivity/Equity administration positions that could be created to do the vital task of...uh, something...with that 1.2 billion.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 17, 2022 11:52:05 GMT -6
So...your argument is that there is no point in eliminating 1.2 billion in wasteful spending because MAC administrations are too dysfunctional to use the savings in a useful way? Or...what? No. 1.The money is not all wasteful. 2. Hard to tell if ANY use of the money is better. Most of it is a matter of taste... 3. The money will be spent. Student fees won't be reduced. 4. The best argument for leaving FBS is the inflation of expenses. That is not going away.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Dec 17, 2022 12:47:36 GMT -6
So...your argument is that there is no point in eliminating 1.2 billion in wasteful spending because MAC administrations are too dysfunctional to use the savings in a useful way? Or...what? I would say this ... If the universities are going to refund or stop charging students/parents all or part of that $1.2 billion, drop/downgrade football today. If the universities are going to drop/downgrade football but keep charging student/parents that $1.2 billion, I'd like to know what they're going to use it for. There are likely better uses; there also are likely worse uses? And each person likely will have their own ideas of what "better" or "worse" might be.
|
|
|
Post by redfeather on Dec 17, 2022 14:04:34 GMT -6
For whatever it's worth, someone posted on the MAC message board Friday: "Since 2012 the MAC is just 17-41 in bowl games. No one is close to this abysmal record in college football". Which is what we’ve witness for decades and that’s that the MAC is truly the worst D1 college football collectively.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 17, 2022 15:45:56 GMT -6
So...your argument is that there is no point in eliminating 1.2 billion in wasteful spending because MAC administrations are too dysfunctional to use the savings in a useful way? Or...what? If the universities are going to drop/downgrade football but keep charging student/parents that $1.2 billion, I'd like to know what they're going to use it for. There are likely better uses; there also are likely worse uses? And each person likely will have their own ideas of what "better" or "worse" might be. As long as fees are fixed as they are now, every year inflation eats at the fees, and with that in mind they will not cut fees.
Yoiu are dead right nobody will agree easily what is better use, that's what the BOT is supposed to do with every budget.
|
|