Why do we need to start this thread with Marshall. They are in CUSA in a small market ,low endowment with a poor academic reputation. Let us concentrate on our conference the AAC!

Quote:A look at athletics expenses from federal government filings (Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act) for 2013-14 in the American Athletic Conference and Mid-American Conference:

American Athletic Conference
School Expenses
Connecticut $71,114,794
SMU $49,657,375
USF $48,383,928
UCF $46,869,573
Memphis $45,956,125
Cincinnati $43,162,181
Houston $39,475,225
Temple $38,600,086
East Carolina $37,598,766
Tulsa $33,974,933
Tulane $32,059,604

Notes:
*East Carolina, Tulane and Tulsa played 2013-14 as Conference USA members before moving to the AAC.

I'm curious to see this years figures, particularly since the ones quoted in the article are last years. I'm more than a little surprised at #1s expenses and also that Cincy is in the middle of the pack. And before anyone jumps on me from any of those schools, I'm merely surprised it takes that much money to run UConn's Athletics and that it only takes that much money to run Cincy's.

BTW...for data nerds the website quoted in the article is a treasure trove of money, numbers, and all kinds of statistics on ALL sports. Highly recommend.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

A valid critique of Cincinnati's athletic budget and pattern is that it attempts to be a major program with a MAC mindset and funding.

If UC really wants to move up, its athletic department must grow drastically. UConn is much more representative of a Power program.

That being said, Quo is right...$50 MM is unsustainable at the AAC level.

American Athletic Conference
School -------------- Expenses
Connecticut ------- $71,114,794
SMU --------------- $49,657,375
USF ---------------- $48,383,928
UCF ---------------- $46,869,573
Memphis ---------- $45,956,125
Cincinnati --------- $43,162,181
Houston ----------- $39,475,225
Temple -------------$38,600,086
East Carolina ----- $37,598,766
Tulsa -------------- $33,974,933
Tulane ------------ $32,059,604

Budget size doesn't predict program success. UC football has, for the past several years, been rated as one of the best values in college football.

[quote='bullsbucsfan426' pid='11783242' dateline='1424313684']
He's trying to make a case that visiting FIU and FAU is somehow better than visiting USF and UCF? Really?

Long term, while I realize Marshall does recruit well, that's not going to last. And frankly, the AAC schools have far more potential for growth than CUSA. We might not have the flagship teams, but we do have the 2nd tier ones that will almost certainly be able to compete against the middle of P5 conferences like the ACC in OOC games (see ECU beating VT, I think Memphis could handle any of the carolina schools). All the schools in the CUSA are 3rd tier schools. We have larger stadiums, stronger budgets, more financial flexibility, and most importantly, we command larger payouts and better scheduling from the Power 5. FSU would never visit FAU or FIU, at most they would schedule them for a payday game. On the other hand, FSU is visiting Tampa next year. We may not beat them, but we'll get recruits in the house for that, and even if most of the fans are Noles, if USF is good enough we'll have a large enough contingent of our own.
[/quote

"we have larger stadiums'"---?. Sorry but who's "we" USF doesn't have a stadium. Neither does Temple. I think some of the fans on their high horse when calling other schools in CUSA 3rd tier when they themselves are "4th tier" in their states.

(02-21-2015 07:42 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  [quote='bullsbucsfan426' pid='11783242' dateline='1424313684']
He's trying to make a case that visiting FIU and FAU is somehow better than visiting USF and UCF? Really?

Long term, while I realize Marshall does recruit well, that's not going to last. And frankly, the AAC schools have far more potential for growth than CUSA. We might not have the flagship teams, but we do have the 2nd tier ones that will almost certainly be able to compete against the middle of P5 conferences like the ACC in OOC games (see ECU beating VT, I think Memphis could handle any of the carolina schools). All the schools in the CUSA are 3rd tier schools. We have larger stadiums, stronger budgets, more financial flexibility, and most importantly, we command larger payouts and better scheduling from the Power 5. FSU would never visit FAU or FIU, at most they would schedule them for a payday game. On the other hand, FSU is visiting Tampa next year. We may not beat them, but we'll get recruits in the house for that, and even if most of the fans are Noles, if USF is good enough we'll have a large enough contingent of our own.
[/quote

"we have larger stadiums'"---?. Sorry but who's "we" USF doesn't have a stadium. Neither does Temple. I think some of the fans on their high horse when calling other schools in CUSA 3rd tier when they themselves are "4th tier" in their states.

Er, he was talking about the AAC and C-USA overall, as conferences, he didn't say each AAC school had a larger stadium than each C-USA school. And on average, AAC stadiums are larger than C-USA stadiums.

But if you want to talk specific schools, would it make you feel better if he had said USF 'plays' in a larger stadium? Sheesh!

(02-18-2015 09:41 PM)bullsbucsfan426 Wrote:  FSU would never visit FAU or FIU, at most they would schedule them for a payday game. On the other hand, FSU is visiting Tampa next year. We may not beat them, but we'll get recruits in the house for that, and even if most of the fans are Noles, if USF is good enough we'll have a large enough contingent of our own.

In fairness to FAU/FIU, a possible explanation for this is that while FSU does get to visit the Miami area once every two years (when it plays Miami down there), and thus regularly gets to waive the FSU recruiting flag in that area, and give their Miami-area fans a chance to see them without needing to play an FAU or FIU, the same is not true with the Tampa area, so playing USF in Tampa makes sense for them.

Florida is a huge state, and Tallahassee is relatively isolated in the panhandle. It's 250 miles from FSU to the rich Tampa Bay recruiting area, so playing us in Tampa stadium is good for recruiting, and throws a nice bone to FSU's big Tampa Bay alumni base.

I think Marshall is in a great spot with CUSA. They are in a position to dominate it and have plenty of close regional games for their fans to attend. People harp on who they accept or don't accept but they are doing what they have to do to win and stay relevant. They know the formula for finishing a season ranked and will probably stick with it. For a CUSA team it is going to take a minimum of 11 wins to be ranked.

(02-21-2015 08:12 AM)ShoreBuc Wrote:  I think Marshall is in a great spot with CUSA. They are in a position to dominate it and have plenty of close regional games for their fans to attend. People harp on who they accept or don't accept but they are doing what they have to do to win and stay relevant. They know the formula for finishing a season ranked and will probably stick with it. For a CUSA team it is going to take a minimum of 11 wins to be ranked.

Yes, let's face it: If any of us were Marshall, we'd be pursuing the exact same strategy. For a school with such a low ceiling in terms of resources and fan support, and with no realistic chance of ever joining a P5 conference, the optimal strategy for maximizing relevance is to do what they are doing, schedule so as to win 11+ games. Much better for them to go 12-1 or 13-0 versus a very soft schedule than to go 9-4 playing 3-4 good P5 teams.

(02-21-2015 05:26 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  A valid critique of Cincinnati's athletic budget and pattern is that it attempts to be a major program with a MAC mindset and funding.

These annual expenses normally do not show special projects (i.e. like UC's $90 Million Stadium renovation project).

Programs are still spending $$$ outside these figures, and in some cases, like UC, tens of millions of $$$ for special athletic projects.

I'm pretty sure ECU's projected expenses is still like $38M

(02-21-2015 08:24 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 05:26 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  A valid critique of Cincinnati's athletic budget and pattern is that it attempts to be a major program with a MAC mindset and funding.

These annual expenses normally do not show special projects (i.e. like UC's $90 Million Stadium renovation project).

Programs are still spending $$$ outside these figures, and in some cases, like UC, tens of millions of $$$ for special athletic projects.

this

and in addition, I have a different take on UC's expenses. UC is very wise with spending and our athletic department actually turns a profit, which many athletic departments don't do.

But to look at our expense line Jerry and say what you said isn't fair...as the poster said, it doesn't factor in the $80 mil rennovation/upgrade to Nippert Stadium or the $70 mil renovation of 5/3rd arena that is forthcoming.
Just sayin.

(02-20-2015 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:54 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 12:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:42 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  And to think there's no "someone backed out of a scheduling agreement" nonsense this time. This is all on them.

They could have played the Patriots this past season, and their schedule still would have been one of the worst in all of football. (Including FBS, FCS, junior colleges, high school, and peewee leagues.)

FWIW, Sagarin had Marshall playing the 124th toughest schedule this past season. Memphis was 120.

Sagarin Ratings are bogus. I mean he has Illinois State a 1AA with the 111 schedule better than Memphis and Marshall if you believe that one you need to have another drink LOL

Well, two other BCS computers are similar. Colley-matrix has Marshall 116, Memphis 105 while Anderson/Hester has Marshall 102, Memphis 100.

Consensus seems to be both played dreadful schedules, with Marshall's a smidge worse.

Its an absolutely absurd comparison. You can only control out of confer and Memphis played at UCLA and at ole Miss.

(02-21-2015 10:05 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:54 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 12:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They could have played the Patriots this past season, and their schedule still would have been one of the worst in all of football. (Including FBS, FCS, junior colleges, high school, and peewee leagues.)

FWIW, Sagarin had Marshall playing the 124th toughest schedule this past season. Memphis was 120.

Sagarin Ratings are bogus. I mean he has Illinois State a 1AA with the 111 schedule better than Memphis and Marshall if you believe that one you need to have another drink LOL

Well, two other BCS computers are similar. Colley-matrix has Marshall 116, Memphis 105 while Anderson/Hester has Marshall 102, Memphis 100.

Consensus seems to be both played dreadful schedules, with Marshall's a smidge worse.

Its an absolutely absurd comparison. You can only control out of confer and Memphis played at UCLA and at ole Miss.

Control has nothing to do with how tough a schedule is. A school can try to have a tough schedule and it can turn out to be soft, and vice-versa.

And heck, you don't even really have control over how tough your OOC schedule is. For example, we play FSU this year. Right now that looks like a very tough game because FSU has been a top team the last few years. Looks like we had the right intentions, we stepped up and scheduled a P5 powerhouse to boost our schedule. Kudos to us! But what if FSU collapses and goes 5-7 this year? Is everyone else just supposed to pretend that because their name is FSU they actually were good and rate our schedule highly even though FSU actually sucked? Nonsensical. Despite our good intentions, if they end up 5-7, playing FSU means we played a soft game, not a tough one.

A schedule is what it is despite intentions. You never know how tough a schedule was until the season plays out.

And objectively, Memphis and Marshall played very similar schedules this year, despite what intentions each had when they made their schedules.

(02-21-2015 09:19 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 08:24 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 05:26 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  A valid critique of Cincinnati's athletic budget and pattern is that it attempts to be a major program with a MAC mindset and funding.

These annual expenses normally do not show special projects (i.e. like UC's $90 Million Stadium renovation project).

Programs are still spending $$$ outside these figures, and in some cases, like UC, tens of millions of $$$ for special athletic projects.

this

and in addition, I have a different take on UC's expenses. UC is very wise with spending and our athletic department actually turns a profit, which many athletic departments don't do.

But to look at our expense line Jerry and say what you said isn't fair...as the poster said, it doesn't factor in the $80 mil rennovation/upgrade to Nippert Stadium or the $70 mil renovation of 5/3rd arena that is forthcoming.
Just sayin.

No, but it has more to do with coaching salaries and other budget items. And this is where UC still has growing to do. Especially where coaching salaries are about to go through the roof. It will be a HUGE challenge to keep pace with competitive salaries. This is likely the new "arms race" regardless of what happens with FCoA.

I'm not trying to slam UC's budgeting, but one of the major hurdles in realignment that has been a knock on UC is our relatively small athletic budget that would not compare well to others in the "Power" world.

FWIW on the capitol improvements, look how long it took to get major projects (Varsity Village, Sheakley, Nippert, and now 5/3 in progress. NO they shouldn't count towards that "bottom line" since they are irregular expenses/projects. But here again, UC struggles in comparison with other major programs in getting these capitol improvements in. Yes, it's because we have not had the resources in the past, and yes, it's improving. But we still have a long way to go. But I do like the fact that UC is "making hay while the sun shines," because there are dark clouds on the horizon.

(02-21-2015 10:05 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:54 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 12:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They could have played the Patriots this past season, and their schedule still would have been one of the worst in all of football. (Including FBS, FCS, junior colleges, high school, and peewee leagues.)

FWIW, Sagarin had Marshall playing the 124th toughest schedule this past season. Memphis was 120.

Sagarin Ratings are bogus. I mean he has Illinois State a 1AA with the 111 schedule better than Memphis and Marshall if you believe that one you need to have another drink LOL

Well, two other BCS computers are similar. Colley-matrix has Marshall 116, Memphis 105 while Anderson/Hester has Marshall 102, Memphis 100.

Consensus seems to be both played dreadful schedules, with Marshall's a smidge worse.

Its an absolutely absurd comparison. You can only control out of confer and Memphis played at UCLA and at ole Miss.

I disagree with this for two reasons:

1. You can schedule a team OOC and at the point they are scheduled, they could be good, ranked whatever, and by the time the year rolls around that you play them they may suck for a multitude of reasons. The door swings both ways and you can schedule a team you think should be a nice scalp and by the time you play them they are ranked and have it going on. Point is, it's not something you can really control.

2. UC wants to schedule a lot of OOC P5's but we can't get a lot of them to play us. For some reason it works out for UCF, Memphis, USF, Tulsa, UH, etc. but we struggle getting games against good P5 teams. It think a lot of it is, we have been pretty good the past eight years or so and now, losing to UC at Nippert, a very real possibility, is not something P5's want to do since we have the G5 designation.


At any rate, you can't really control OOC games like you are saying.

(02-21-2015 12:26 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 10:05 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:54 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, Sagarin had Marshall playing the 124th toughest schedule this past season. Memphis was 120.

Sagarin Ratings are bogus. I mean he has Illinois State a 1AA with the 111 schedule better than Memphis and Marshall if you believe that one you need to have another drink LOL

Well, two other BCS computers are similar. Colley-matrix has Marshall 116, Memphis 105 while Anderson/Hester has Marshall 102, Memphis 100.

Consensus seems to be both played dreadful schedules, with Marshall's a smidge worse.

Its an absolutely absurd comparison. You can only control out of confer and Memphis played at UCLA and at ole Miss.

I disagree with this for two reasons:

1. You can schedule a team OOC and at the point they are scheduled, they could be good, ranked whatever, and by the time the year rolls around that you play them they may suck for a multitude of reasons. The door swings both ways and you can schedule a team you think should be a nice scalp and by the time you play them they are ranked and have it going on. Point is, it's not something you can really control.

2. UC wants to schedule a lot of OOC P5's but we can't get a lot of them to play us. For some reason it works out for UCF, Memphis, USF, Tulsa, UH, etc. but we struggle getting games against good P5 teams. It think a lot of it is, we have been pretty good the past eight years or so and now, losing to UC at Nippert, a very real possibility, is not something P5's want to do since we have the G5 designation.


At any rate, you can't really control OOC games like you are saying.

Ucf has trouble as well. That's why we are playing furman. They want neutral site games now and that's what Boise is doing. I am sure our home winning percentage at brighthouse doesn't help. It gets pretty loud

(02-21-2015 12:26 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 10:05 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:54 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, Sagarin had Marshall playing the 124th toughest schedule this past season. Memphis was 120.

Sagarin Ratings are bogus. I mean he has Illinois State a 1AA with the 111 schedule better than Memphis and Marshall if you believe that one you need to have another drink LOL

Well, two other BCS computers are similar. Colley-matrix has Marshall 116, Memphis 105 while Anderson/Hester has Marshall 102, Memphis 100.

Consensus seems to be both played dreadful schedules, with Marshall's a smidge worse.

Its an absolutely absurd comparison. You can only control out of confer and Memphis played at UCLA and at ole Miss.

I disagree with this for two reasons:

1. You can schedule a team OOC and at the point they are scheduled, they could be good, ranked whatever, and by the time the year rolls around that you play them they may suck for a multitude of reasons. The door swings both ways and you can schedule a team you think should be a nice scalp and by the time you play them they are ranked and have it going on. Point is, it's not something you can really control.

2. UC wants to schedule a lot of OOC P5's but we can't get a lot of them to play us. For some reason it works out for UCF, Memphis, USF, Tulsa, UH, etc. but we struggle getting games against good P5 teams. It think a lot of it is, we have been pretty good the past eight years or so and now, losing to UC at Nippert, a very real possibility, is not something P5's want to do since we have the G5 designation.


At any rate, you can't really control OOC games like you are saying.

Number 2 is a cop out. ECU consistently beats "P5" teams, yet we stil, play at least 3 a year.

(02-21-2015 01:28 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 12:26 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 10:05 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 03:54 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Sagarin Ratings are bogus. I mean he has Illinois State a 1AA with the 111 schedule better than Memphis and Marshall if you believe that one you need to have another drink LOL

Well, two other BCS computers are similar. Colley-matrix has Marshall 116, Memphis 105 while Anderson/Hester has Marshall 102, Memphis 100.

Consensus seems to be both played dreadful schedules, with Marshall's a smidge worse.

Its an absolutely absurd comparison. You can only control out of confer and Memphis played at UCLA and at ole Miss.

I disagree with this for two reasons:

1. You can schedule a team OOC and at the point they are scheduled, they could be good, ranked whatever, and by the time the year rolls around that you play them they may suck for a multitude of reasons. The door swings both ways and you can schedule a team you think should be a nice scalp and by the time you play them they are ranked and have it going on. Point is, it's not something you can really control.

2. UC wants to schedule a lot of OOC P5's but we can't get a lot of them to play us. For some reason it works out for UCF, Memphis, USF, Tulsa, UH, etc. but we struggle getting games against good P5 teams. It think a lot of it is, we have been pretty good the past eight years or so and now, losing to UC at Nippert, a very real possibility, is not something P5's want to do since we have the G5 designation.


At any rate, you can't really control OOC games like you are saying.

Number 2 is a cop out. ECU consistently beats "P5" teams, yet we stil, play at least 3 a year.

How is it a cop out???? UC has asked UK, IU, and a bunch of other regional schools to play us and we hear "no thanks" or we hear "yes, 1 and done, no return game to Cincy" which we say no to. The exception is Michigan, but we agreed to a one and one with them because we got a home and home in hoops out of it. UGA wanted a one and done in football and we said no.

(02-21-2015 12:26 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  2. UC wants to schedule a lot of OOC P5's but we can't get a lot of them to play us. For some reason it works out for UCF, Memphis, USF, Tulsa, UH, etc.

Can't speak for the others, but in our case, I imagine we can attract P5 teams to Tampa because (a) we have sucked the last few years so probably look like an easy road win, and (b) there is obvious appeal to coming down to Tampa for recruiting purposes, and as a quasi-treat for their players.