|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 24, 2024 8:37:51 GMT -6
Oh for f---- sake. There is no inexorable world force that dictates MAC students need to pay $10 million a year in fees to prop up their schools' idiotic "Division 1" football programs. That's what we are talking about here. Looks pretty inexorable for now. But assume the MAC had an epiphany, the possible alternative FB, is not going to save enough to eliminate student fees, not to mention the alternative other good uses for the fees which guarantee they will remain. Give it up Sherm. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jan 24, 2024 10:16:12 GMT -6
I've stated many, many times that I don't expect it to change, although it easily could if MAC administrations ever made student welfare their priority in the matter.
In the meantime, "Division 1" MAC football remains a big, fat, lumbering, indefensible and utterly irresistible target for sarcasm.
By the way, I note that "completely eliminating student fees" is one of your typically stupid and dishonest straw men that nobody else ever brought up. The discussion is following the original post and subject about the athletic subsidy part of the fees.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 24, 2024 11:40:19 GMT -6
I've stated many, many times that I don't expect it to change, although it easily could if MAC administrations ever made student welfare their priority in the matter. In the meantime, "Division 1" MAC football remains a big, fat, lumbering, indefensible and utterly irresistible target for sarcasm. By the way, I note that "completely eliminating student fees" is one of your typically stupid and dishonest straw men that nobody else ever brought up. The discussion is following the original post and subject about the athletic subsidy part of the fees. Argue all you want about D1 FB subsidy, it is extremely unlikely we save much money moving down in FB. Even dropping FB altogether surely would result in moving the money to other sports. And there is good argument that would be justifiable use.
It is a senseless hypothetical to imagine no student fees going to athletics at all. Or that we're talking thousands of dollars for each student in savings.
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Jan 24, 2024 14:00:46 GMT -6
I've stated many, many times that I don't expect it to change, although it easily could if MAC administrations ever made student welfare their priority in the matter. In the meantime, "Division 1" MAC football remains a big, fat, lumbering, indefensible and utterly irresistible target for sarcasm. By the way, I note that "completely eliminating student fees" is one of your typically stupid and dishonest straw men that nobody else ever brought up. The discussion is following the original post and subject about the athletic subsidy part of the fees. Argue all you want about D1 FB subsidy, it is extremely unlikely we save much money moving down in FB. Even dropping FB altogether surely would result in moving the money to other sports. And there is good argument that would be justifiable use.
It is a senseless hypothetical to imagine no student fees going to athletics at all. Or that we're talking thousands of dollars for each student in savings.
I could put together a spreadsheet that would quickly prove you wrong on this. A move down to FCS would eliminate 22 full-ride football scholarships, another 22 women's Title IX scholarships, football budget reductions, and budget reductions of the sports eliminated as a result of the 22 women's sports scholarships. If we dropped football altogether plus all or part of the associated 85 women's Title IX scholarships and subsequent budgets, you're talking about a roughly $15 million annual "savings". Even if we reinvested $5 million of that in the remaining sports (which would do wonders for the sports we SHOULD and COULD be competitive in), it would still reduce our annual athletic budget by $10 million. And $15 million may very well be conservative given BSU doesn't publish real football numbers and all associated costs (with virtually zero revenues relative to expenses). Football's impact on the overall athletic budget is 50% or more, especially when you factor in Title IX. A-10, MVC, and Big East members were smart to either avoid, divest of, or greatly reduce football spending. Football has been a huge black hole in MAC budgets for AT LEAST the last 20 years. They just keep throwing more and more money at it, and they've thrown donor naming money at it in terms of facilities and naming rights that would now cause extreme embarrassment if they dropped down or dumped the sport altogether. But here's what will happen...MAC schools will continue to pour $10-15+ million per year into football until they absolutely can't do it anymore. Good money chasing bad like an addicted gambler. That day is coming... |
|
|
|
Post by DickHunsaker on Jan 24, 2024 15:13:09 GMT -6
There is also the "prestige" factor of having a D1 program as well. Though in the MAC it hasn't counted for much in a number of years.
|
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Jan 24, 2024 15:32:35 GMT -6
Excuse my ignorance on this, but are scholarships really an expense or are they unrealized revenue?
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Jan 24, 2024 15:36:58 GMT -6
Excuse my ignorance on this, but are scholarships really an expense or are they unrealized revenue? Oh, they're definitely an expense. Somebody pays for it. Also, don't forget about room and board. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 24, 2024 15:38:03 GMT -6
Argue all you want about D1 FB subsidy, it is extremely unlikely we save much money moving down in FB. Even dropping FB altogether surely would result in moving the money to other sports. And there is good argument that would be justifiable use.
It is a senseless hypothetical to imagine no student fees going to athletics at all. Or that we're talking thousands of dollars for each student in savings.
I could put together a spreadsheet that would quickly prove you wrong on this. A move down to FCS would eliminate 22 full-ride football scholarships, another 22 women's Title IX scholarships, football budget reductions, and budget reductions of the sports eliminated as a result of the 22 women's sports scholarships. If we dropped football altogether plus all or part of the associated 85 women's Title IX scholarships and subsequent budgets, you're talking about a roughly $15 million annual "savings". Even if we reinvested $5 million of that in the remaining sports (which would do wonders for the sports we SHOULD and COULD be competitive in), it would still reduce our annual athletic budget by $10 million. And $15 million may very well be conservative given BSU doesn't publish real football numbers and all associated costs (with virtually zero revenues relative to expenses). Football's impact on the overall athletic budget is 50% or more, especially when you factor in Title IX. A-10, MVC, and Big East members were smart to either avoid, divest of, or greatly reduce football spending. Football has been a huge black hole in MAC budgets for AT LEAST the last 20 years. They just keep throwing more and more money at it, and they've thrown donor naming money at it in terms of facilities and naming rights that would now cause extreme embarrassment if they dropped down or dumped the sport altogether. But here's what will happen...MAC schools will continue to pour $10-15+ million per year into football until they absolutely can't do it anymore. Good money chasing bad like an addicted gambler. That day is coming... My point is we are currently stuck in the MAC with no chance to make any change in FB at all.
If we did make a change we would be extremely likely to still have FCS FB and dropping 20 scholarships for men has some savings. It does not likely mean dropping the same number of women's scholarships, though. We would also lose revenue from the money games so the cost savings are offset partially by revenue loss.
I agree there would be savings, say net, 3-5 million. The biggest saving would be to get off the escalator of cost increase every year to stay in FBS.
I'd guess there is a very good chance we would reallocate all that money to other sports, men and women. But there are plenty of other student fee financed programs that could use more funding. The idea we'd cut student fees substantially is wishful thinking by the General.
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Jan 24, 2024 15:44:26 GMT -6
I could put together a spreadsheet that would quickly prove you wrong on this. A move down to FCS would eliminate 22 full-ride football scholarships, another 22 women's Title IX scholarships, football budget reductions, and budget reductions of the sports eliminated as a result of the 22 women's sports scholarships. If we dropped football altogether plus all or part of the associated 85 women's Title IX scholarships and subsequent budgets, you're talking about a roughly $15 million annual "savings". Even if we reinvested $5 million of that in the remaining sports (which would do wonders for the sports we SHOULD and COULD be competitive in), it would still reduce our annual athletic budget by $10 million. And $15 million may very well be conservative given BSU doesn't publish real football numbers and all associated costs (with virtually zero revenues relative to expenses). Football's impact on the overall athletic budget is 50% or more, especially when you factor in Title IX. A-10, MVC, and Big East members were smart to either avoid, divest of, or greatly reduce football spending. Football has been a huge black hole in MAC budgets for AT LEAST the last 20 years. They just keep throwing more and more money at it, and they've thrown donor naming money at it in terms of facilities and naming rights that would now cause extreme embarrassment if they dropped down or dumped the sport altogether. But here's what will happen...MAC schools will continue to pour $10-15+ million per year into football until they absolutely can't do it anymore. Good money chasing bad like an addicted gambler. That day is coming... My point is we are currently stuck in the MAC with no chance to make any change in FB at all.
If we did make a change we would be extremely likely to still have FCS FB and dropping 20 scholarships for men has some savings. It does not likely mean dropping the same number of women's scholarships, though. We would also lose revenue from the money games so the cost savings are offset partially by revenue loss.
I agree there would be savings, say net, 3-5 million. The biggest saving would be to get off the escalator of cost increase every year to stay in FBS.
I'd guess there is a very good chance we would reallocate all that money to other sports, men and women. But there are plenty of other student fee financed programs that could use more funding. The idea we'd cut student fees substantially is wishful thinking by the General.
We are "stuck" in the MAC by choice. In other words, we're "stuck" in the MAC because of our lack of creativity or originality. Another way of saying it is that we're not really stuck at all. We will just ride this titanic all the way to the bottom of the ocean, burning in excess of another $100 million+ unnecessarily like we have been doing for 2+ decades until it is no longer feasible. Football will either end or be dramatically reduced at some point out of necessity. It's just not sustainable. And let me add: If we cut football schollies you can bet we will cut women's schollies too. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 24, 2024 15:57:58 GMT -6
Excuse my ignorance on this, but are scholarships really an expense or are they unrealized revenue? This is a good question, the part about what the real cost of a scholarship athlete is.
They are on the budget, and many in FB are out of state, so at high cost. But scholarship money is as you suggest "funny money." We very likely don't increase real costs to the university very much by adding an athlete, other than maybe room and board. An empty dorm room being filled or an extra classroom seat occupied are almost cost free. So it could be even greater paper savings to go down to FCS especially if it meant reduction in recruiting out of state.
The athletic budget as General and CallingBS would probably agree is not the total actually spent by the university on athletics, too...Facilities is a big unknown component of support. How much would that change?
Lots of issues make accounting unclear. Equipment and staff are high in FB. Travel is not on the same shoestring other sports are. I think CallingBS would have a hard time building a spreadsheet. Or, pro forma, predicting what the changes would be. Seeing the AD address the matter of his annual budget request in meetings is not very illuminating either. Talking to coaches in other sports who compare their spending to FB is pretty interesting, but not very well quantified. It's a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 24, 2024 16:00:06 GMT -6
There is also the "prestige" factor of having a D1 program as well. Though in the MAC it hasn't counted for much in a number of years. That is always cited as impressing alumni, and seeing the national reporting of FBS FB with our university named may have some greater value in branding.
Although it's not exactly a case of our excellence making headlines...
|
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Jan 24, 2024 17:44:28 GMT -6
Does anybody know what the breaking point was for Idaho when they dropped from WAC football? I think the WAC disbanded as a football conference, so then they joined the Sun Belt briefly before the Sun Belt dropped them too? Then they ended up in FCS Big Sky. Was their transition mostly due to being a geographic outlier, budget concerns, combination of both? Was their football financial situation similar to ours?
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jan 25, 2024 7:25:08 GMT -6
There is also the "prestige" factor of having a D1 program as well. Though in the MAC it hasn't counted for much in a number of years. That is always cited as impressing alumni, and seeing the national reporting of FBS FB with our university named may have some greater value in branding.
Although it's not exactly a case of our excellence making headlines...
I see various fellow alumni from time to time. Some fairly regularly. Trying to remember the last time any one of them brought up BSU football. Also wondering what percentage of BSU alumni could name one player on the roster. I think those few in the miniscule fanbase have a very inflated perception of overall alumni interest level. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 25, 2024 9:10:37 GMT -6
That is always cited as impressing alumni, and seeing the national reporting of FBS FB with our university named may have some greater value in branding.
Although it's not exactly a case of our excellence making headlines...
I see various fellow alumni from time to time. Some fairly regularly. Trying to remember the last time any one of them brought up BSU football. Also wondering what percentage of BSU alumni could name one player on the roster. I think those few in the miniscule fanbase have a very inflated perception of overall alumni interest level. It's not being a fan, it's just seeing BSU mentioned or even just scores reported, I think. FB also is an "event" so a fair number return for a game even if not regular fans. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jan 25, 2024 9:21:30 GMT -6
Does anybody know what the breaking point was for Idaho when they dropped from WAC football? I think the WAC disbanded as a football conference, so then they joined the Sun Belt briefly before the Sun Belt dropped them too? Then they ended up in FCS Big Sky. Was their transition mostly due to being a geographic outlier, budget concerns, combination of both? Was their football financial situation similar to ours? High travel costs, low rights fees, low attendance, and an undergraduate enrollment under 7000. |
|
