(01-21-2015 08:51 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  KSU does have a collection of sports where there is a lot of money to be saved...it's called football. I'm not buying that this is a fund-raising leverage ploy; it will never raise enough to make a meaningful difference in the long run. I think it's a dead-serious evaluation of where they want to go in light of the changing landscape (although a bit premature, IMO). MAC membership is not the bottom line be-all end-all, millions of dollars that could be saved or spent instead on academics is the bottom line.

Never thought I'd agree with a Zipper head but I do on this point. KSU is wasting nearly
50% of its athletic budget on football and at some point it will stop. Our new Pres comes from VCU where they don't play football at all. She gets it!

MAC could drop down to FCS and still play two Big Ten teams each and pocket a million per game. Every one of those would be on TV. We would then get multiple teams into the FCS playoffs which are televised on espn2 which is more coverage than what the MAC is getting at the FBS level. We get back to Saturday only games at the FCS level. Since none of the MAC bowls are vs a power five conferences what are we really losing. MAC top teams would have a real good shot at contending for the FCS national title.

If MAC is really committed to FBS level, then demand a game every Saturday afternoon on ESPN2 for both football and basketball. Just like the American has with ESPN and CUSA has with Fox sports. I don't understand how the MAC commissioner can't get at least that in the negotiations. We are either treated as equal to those peer conferences or we drop down to FCS and play for a title on that level.

If you're not adding NDSU or Illinois state Youngstown etc, Combine the mvfc and Mac and Fcs playoffs would be crazy exciting

(01-21-2015 10:56 PM)Old School Flash Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 08:51 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  KSU does have a collection of sports where there is a lot of money to be saved...it's called football. I'm not buying that this is a fund-raising leverage ploy; it will never raise enough to make a meaningful difference in the long run. I think it's a dead-serious evaluation of where they want to go in light of the changing landscape (although a bit premature, IMO). MAC membership is not the bottom line be-all end-all, millions of dollars that could be saved or spent instead on academics is the bottom line.

Never thought I'd agree with a Zipper head but I do on this point. KSU is wasting nearly
50% of its athletic budget on football and at some point it will stop. Our new Pres comes from VCU where they don't play football at all. She gets it!

Horizon League for Kent, Old School Flash?

The options have always been clear: Play FBS football in the MAC or drop football and go to the Horizon League (going FCS is usually a worse option and I doubt Kent would even give it a second thought.).

This is very, very premature talk, but if Kent drops football, presumably the MAC goes out and add a new #12 (they'd have to). Then all of the "let's add school X threads become relevant" as the MAC would 'expand' from 11 to 12.

I was asked to participate in the survey. The questions were thoughtful and direct. My only regret is that we didn't do this honest analysis sooner. Far too early to speculate. At this point, everything is on the table, but nothing is out the door.

(01-22-2015 03:47 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 10:56 PM)Old School Flash Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 08:51 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  KSU does have a collection of sports where there is a lot of money to be saved...it's called football. I'm not buying that this is a fund-raising leverage ploy; it will never raise enough to make a meaningful difference in the long run. I think it's a dead-serious evaluation of where they want to go in light of the changing landscape (although a bit premature, IMO). MAC membership is not the bottom line be-all end-all, millions of dollars that could be saved or spent instead on academics is the bottom line.

Never thought I'd agree with a Zipper head but I do on this point. KSU is wasting nearly
50% of its athletic budget on football and at some point it will stop. Our new Pres comes from VCU where they don't play football at all. She gets it!

Horizon League for Kent, Old School Flash?

The options have always been clear: Play FBS football in the MAC or drop football and go to the Horizon League (going FCS is usually a worse option and I doubt Kent would even give it a second thought.).

This is very, very premature talk, but if Kent drops football, presumably the MAC goes out and add a new #12 (they'd have to). Then all of the "let's add school X threads become relevant" as the MAC would 'expand' from 11 to 12.

Yes, I think the Horizon League is a logical option. Most of those schools don't play football and are close to Kent geographically. I think the Horizon and MAC are
about the same as far a the quaily of basketball that they play.

(01-22-2015 03:47 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 10:56 PM)Old School Flash Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 08:51 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  KSU does have a collection of sports where there is a lot of money to be saved...it's called football. I'm not buying that this is a fund-raising leverage ploy; it will never raise enough to make a meaningful difference in the long run. I think it's a dead-serious evaluation of where they want to go in light of the changing landscape (although a bit premature, IMO). MAC membership is not the bottom line be-all end-all, millions of dollars that could be saved or spent instead on academics is the bottom line.

Never thought I'd agree with a Zipper head but I do on this point. KSU is wasting nearly
50% of its athletic budget on football and at some point it will stop. Our new Pres comes from VCU where they don't play football at all. She gets it!

Horizon League for Kent, Old School Flash?

The options have always been clear: Play FBS football in the MAC or drop football and go to the Horizon League (going FCS is usually a worse option and I doubt Kent would even give it a second thought.).

This is very, very premature talk, but if Kent drops football, presumably the MAC goes out and add a new #12 (they'd have to). Then all of the "let's add school X threads become relevant" as the MAC would 'expand' from 11 to 12.

Yes, I think the Horizon League is a logical option. Most of those schools don't play football and are close to Kent geographically. I think the Horizon and MAC are
about the same as far a the quaily of basketball that they play.

(01-22-2015 08:08 AM)Old School Flash Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 03:47 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 10:56 PM)Old School Flash Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 08:51 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  KSU does have a collection of sports where there is a lot of money to be saved...it's called football. I'm not buying that this is a fund-raising leverage ploy; it will never raise enough to make a meaningful difference in the long run. I think it's a dead-serious evaluation of where they want to go in light of the changing landscape (although a bit premature, IMO). MAC membership is not the bottom line be-all end-all, millions of dollars that could be saved or spent instead on academics is the bottom line.

Never thought I'd agree with a Zipper head but I do on this point. KSU is wasting nearly
50% of its athletic budget on football and at some point it will stop. Our new Pres comes from VCU where they don't play football at all. She gets it!

Horizon League for Kent, Old School Flash?

The options have always been clear: Play FBS football in the MAC or drop football and go to the Horizon League (going FCS is usually a worse option and I doubt Kent would even give it a second thought.).

This is very, very premature talk, but if Kent drops football, presumably the MAC goes out and add a new #12 (they'd have to). Then all of the "let's add school X threads become relevant" as the MAC would 'expand' from 11 to 12.

Yes, I think the Horizon League is a logical option. Most of those schools don't play football and are close to Kent geographically. I think the Horizon and MAC are
about the same as far a the quaily of basketball that they play.

To me, the biggest question is: How much does football cost and how much revenue is attributable to football? (do it with and without figuring the costs of scholarships which are not direct expenses. Room and board, books, etc. are).

Until I know that for say KSU, EMU, etc. I don't feel competent to discuss the matter in an enlightened manner.

(01-22-2015 11:54 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 08:08 AM)Old School Flash Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 03:47 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 10:56 PM)Old School Flash Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 08:51 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  KSU does have a collection of sports where there is a lot of money to be saved...it's called football. I'm not buying that this is a fund-raising leverage ploy; it will never raise enough to make a meaningful difference in the long run. I think it's a dead-serious evaluation of where they want to go in light of the changing landscape (although a bit premature, IMO). MAC membership is not the bottom line be-all end-all, millions of dollars that could be saved or spent instead on academics is the bottom line.

Never thought I'd agree with a Zipper head but I do on this point. KSU is wasting nearly
50% of its athletic budget on football and at some point it will stop. Our new Pres comes from VCU where they don't play football at all. She gets it!

Horizon League for Kent, Old School Flash?

The options have always been clear: Play FBS football in the MAC or drop football and go to the Horizon League (going FCS is usually a worse option and I doubt Kent would even give it a second thought.).

This is very, very premature talk, but if Kent drops football, presumably the MAC goes out and add a new #12 (they'd have to). Then all of the "let's add school X threads become relevant" as the MAC would 'expand' from 11 to 12.

Yes, I think the Horizon League is a logical option. Most of those schools don't play football and are close to Kent geographically. I think the Horizon and MAC are
about the same as far a the quaily of basketball that they play.

To me, the biggest question is: How much does football cost and how much revenue is attributable to football? (do it with and without figuring the costs of scholarships which are not direct expenses. Room and board, books, etc. are).

Until I know that for say KSU, EMU, etc. I don't feel competent to discuss the matter in an enlightened manner.

Football cost most MAC schools about 40% or so of their total athletic budget (in KSU's case that's about $9MM or so). Revenue generated isnt even close to half of these costs. They only get about $1MM or so from gate receipts and virtually nothing from merchandise sales. They do get some shared TV $, bowls, etc. and a little from local sponsors but not much. Football financially is a huge debt source for all MAC programs. With 85 Scholly's and the large staff required, tons of equipment, etc. not pretty from simply a financial situation.

(01-22-2015 06:40 PM)Old School Flash Wrote:  Football cost most MAC schools about 40% or so of their total athletic budget (in KSU's case that's about $9MM or so). Revenue generated isnt even close to half of these costs. They only get about $1MM or so from gate receipts and virtually nothing from merchandise sales. They do get some shared TV $, bowls, etc. and a little from local sponsors but not much. Football financially is a huge debt source for all MAC programs. With 85 Scholly's and the large staff required, tons of equipment, etc. not pretty from simply a financial situation.

I think the cost benefit has got to be hard for most schools to quantify. At Ohio, while we've traditionally been more of a basketball school, football is the sport that brings a large contingent of alumni back to campus (homecoming), and keeps them connected to the University. Does that translate to more donations to the athletic department? Does that translate to more donations to University academic programs? Really, I don't know. For Ohio, I don't think we would ever drop football. Move down to FCS? I think that is more of a possibility.

(01-22-2015 06:40 PM)Old School Flash Wrote:  Football cost most MAC schools about 40% or so of their total athletic budget (in KSU's case that's about $9MM or so). Revenue generated isnt even close to half of these costs. They only get about $1MM or so from gate receipts and virtually nothing from merchandise sales. They do get some shared TV $, bowls, etc. and a little from local sponsors but not much. Football financially is a huge debt source for all MAC programs.

I'm thinking you meant to say deficit source ~ the deficits are only debt sources if they are not covered annually.

Quote: With 85 Scholly's and the large staff required, tons of equipment, etc. not pretty from simply a financial situation.

Pretty much every FBS except the elite making the surpluses and spending the money to drive the arms races for facilities, coach and AC salaries and etc. has made the calculation that the cost of covering the deficit is worth it in terms of the marketing benefit.

It makes sense to periodically review such a strategic decision comparing costs and benefits that are not directly commensurate, but the normal course of such strategic reviews is to confirm the basic strategic choice and point out some ways to improve things at the margin.

(01-21-2015 12:13 PM)axeme Wrote:  Who would conduct an outside study of the athletic department and ask them to not examine one or more of the sports? That would be stupid and probably incompetent.

Too many "the sky is falling" thinkers around here.

I would like to know which universities are NOT carefully examining the feasibility of what their athletics are trying to accomplish with their available funds. Those are the universities I'd be worried about.

Bingo.

(01-23-2015 01:49 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 06:40 PM)Old School Flash Wrote:  Football cost most MAC schools about 40% or so of their total athletic budget (in KSU's case that's about $9MM or so). Revenue generated isnt even close to half of these costs. They only get about $1MM or so from gate receipts and virtually nothing from merchandise sales. They do get some shared TV $, bowls, etc. and a little from local sponsors but not much. Football financially is a huge debt source for all MAC programs.

I'm thinking you meant to say deficit source ~ the deficits are only debt sources if they are not covered annually.

Quote: With 85 Scholly's and the large staff required, tons of equipment, etc. not pretty from simply a financial situation.

Pretty much every FBS except the elite making the surpluses and spending the money to drive the arms races for facilities, coach and AC salaries and etc. has made the calculation that the cost of covering the deficit is worth it in terms of the marketing benefit.

It makes sense to periodically review such a strategic decision comparing costs and benefits that are not directly commensurate, but the normal course of such strategic reviews is to confirm the basic strategic choice and point out some ways to improve things at the margin.

(01-21-2015 12:13 PM)axeme Wrote:  Who would conduct an outside study of the athletic department and ask them to not examine one or more of the sports? That would be stupid and probably incompetent.

Too many "the sky is falling" thinkers around here.

I would like to know which universities are NOT carefully examining the feasibility of what their athletics are trying to accomplish with their available funds. Those are the universities I'd be worried about.

Bingo.

I clearly understand that KSU spending this $$ for the study doesn't sbsolutely mean that program cuts are imminent. The "arms race" of FBS schools has accelerated and looks as if it will continue ((full cost of attendance). With that said, I believe there will be significant changes coming for athletics at KSU and probably many other mid majors. Just my opinion.

(01-23-2015 07:31 AM)Old School Flash Wrote:  I clearly understand that KSU spending this $$ for the study doesn't sbsolutely mean that program cuts are imminent. The "arms race" of FBS schools has accelerated and looks as if it will continue ((full cost of attendance). With that said, I believe there will be significant changes coming for athletics at KSU and probably many other mid majors.

Full cost of attendance means that the increased revenue from the MAC from the CFP distribution and the increased media revenue will mostly be eaten up by the cost of full attendance scholarships unless Kent State increases its sports scholarship endowments.

But not getting any appreciable net revenue bump from new revenues, due to new costs, is not the same as having to face the new costs without new revenues available to cover them.

(01-20-2015 05:01 PM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 03:03 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I hate consulting firms.

me too, last consulting firm CMU had resulted in Dan Enos as head fb coach

CMU recently used the same consulting firm for an athletics program review of its own: http://collegiatesportsassociates.com/consulting/

As I learned when I came to D.C. decades ago: "More (money) coming in and more (money) going out..." Salaries and expenses are both much higher here than most places in the country.

E.g., on the + side of the ledger: EMU is getting 1.25M for a road game at Missouri in 2016. This might be say 50% higher than our previous high dollar amount. And, of course, ESPN and CFP monies are maybe 1.25 - 1.5M per year more than in previous years.

On the expense side: Maybe 1M per academic year for total cost of attendance, a major new expenditure.

Still MAC schools should be far, far ahead financially of where they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Twenty years ago MAC paid for the production of television games (very few, folks may remember). Television was an expense item, not a revenue item. We're not getting rich from ESPN but we have all home FB game televised/webcast and are getting 750K. Twenty years ago we had less than 10 television games which we footed the production expenses.

I'd suggest MAC schools are better shape, bottom line, on football today than say 20 years ago.

If a MAC school can't afford football today, it isn't because of football expenditures are killing it, it is more likely because of university budget issues more related to what is happening within state government. My guess...

I assume most know that the financial spouts have been turned off in Lansing, Columbus, etc.

A wee update from the ABJ:

http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/kent...s-1.573698

(01-24-2015 06:04 AM)emu steve Wrote:  As I learned when I came to D.C. decades ago: "More (money) coming in and more (money) going out..." Salaries and expenses are both much higher here than most places in the country.

E.g., on the + side of the ledger: EMU is getting 1.25M for a road game at Missouri in 2016. This might be say 50% higher than our previous high dollar amount. And, of course, ESPN and CFP monies are maybe 1.25 - 1.5M per year more than in previous years.

On the expense side: Maybe 1M per academic year for total cost of attendance, a major new expenditure.

Still MAC schools should be far, far ahead financially of where they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Twenty years ago MAC paid for the production of television games (very few, folks may remember). Television was an expense item, not a revenue item. We're not getting rich from ESPN but we have all home FB game televised/webcast and are getting 750K. Twenty years ago we had less than 10 television games which we footed the production expenses.

I'd suggest MAC schools are better shape, bottom line, on football today than say 20 years ago.

If a MAC school can't afford football today, it isn't because of football expenditures are killing it, it is more likely because of university budget issues more related to what is happening within state government. My guess...

I assume most know that the financial spouts have been turned off in Lansing, Columbus, etc.

1. How long until students refuse to keep paying for athletics that most of them don't care about?

2. How long until all of the P5 schools follow Ohio State and stop playing MAC schools in football?

"KENT: A consulting firm is not recommending that Kent State cut any sports programs, but it says the university needs to boost private donations for athletics and has concluded that Dix Stadium and the MAC Center “are tired and outdated.”"

So basically this consulting firm was hired to say that Kent St needs to update their Football stadium and Basketball arena.

(03-12-2015 11:39 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  "KENT: A consulting firm is not recommending that Kent State cut any sports programs, but it says the university needs to boost private donations for athletics and has concluded that Dix Stadium and the MAC Center “are tired and outdated.”"

So basically this consulting firm was hired to say that Kent St needs to update their Football stadium and Basketball arena.

I want summa dat money. Easy cash.

(03-12-2015 12:08 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:39 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  "KENT: A consulting firm is not recommending that Kent State cut any sports programs, but it says the university needs to boost private donations for athletics and has concluded that Dix Stadium and the MAC Center “are tired and outdated.”"

So basically this consulting firm was hired to say that Kent St needs to update their Football stadium and Basketball arena.

I want summa dat money. Easy cash.

Yeah, I could have told them that.