(04-19-2016 07:25 AM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  There are only 5 schools in this conference that deserve to be FBS. The rest of you should be ashamed imo. Chasing the FBS dream at the expense of your students subsidizing the program is a shame.

Only 5 schools that deserve to be here are:

Marshall
So Miss
La Tech
UTEP
UTSA

Our students voted for the fee increase so..................

(04-19-2016 07:25 AM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  The rest of you should be ashamed imo. Chasing the FBS dream at the expense of your students subsidizing the program is a shame.

God you're life is pathetic, unless you're at 0% you really have no room to talk. How long has Marshall been playing football and they are still taking student fees?

(04-19-2016 07:25 AM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  There are only 5 schools in this conference that deserve to be FBS. The rest of you should be ashamed imo. Chasing the FBS dream at the expense of your students subsidizing the program is a shame.

Only 5 schools that deserve to be here are:

Marshall
So Miss
La Tech
UTEP
UTSA

Considering Virginia and Tennessee are the only states that require student athletic few disclosure, don't you think it's possible programs from other states are deflating their actual subsidy? So, until these other states adopt a similar law, get off the high horse.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...ssee_N.htm

I like it that we are the second least subsidized program in the league. Schools that have 65%-70% or more should be ashamed.

(04-19-2016 07:44 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  I like it that we are the second least subsidized program in the league. Schools that have 65%-70% or more should be ashamed.

Again, this is a fallacy. No one at Marshall can say with any certainty what their true subsidy is since they aren't held to a legal standard for athletic fee disclosure.

(04-18-2016 04:19 PM)BKTopper Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 08:58 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  Its shocking to me how the lower end of the the list is where most of the competitive Football programs are. That's amazing.

Or smack dab in the middle of the list

I said most not all.

(04-18-2016 10:17 PM)Bwebb009 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:43 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 06:09 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I would say La Tech, So Miss, and Marshall are getting the most bang for their buck.

I agree. In this conference at least, there seems to be an inverse relationship between athletic budget size and athletic success.

Lol, when is the last time you guys beat us in something? Has it been longer than year since your last win against ODU?

You are right. I can't dispute the fact that you guys have had our number the last two seasons, but in that period of time, how many bowl games did you guys play in?

(04-19-2016 08:05 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 10:17 PM)Bwebb009 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:43 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 06:09 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I would say La Tech, So Miss, and Marshall are getting the most bang for their buck.

I agree. In this conference at least, there seems to be an inverse relationship between athletic budget size and athletic success.

Lol, when is the last time you guys beat us in something? Has it been longer than year since your last win against ODU?

You are right. I can't dispute the fact that you guys have had our number the last two seasons, but in that period of time, how many bowl games did you guys play in?

We were not bowl eligible 2014 the first year of our CUSA play with a 6-6 record and last season yes we were not good and didn't make a bowl. To be frank how many seasons of FBS football did LT play and how many bowls did it get to?

(04-19-2016 08:05 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 10:17 PM)Bwebb009 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:43 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 06:09 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I would say La Tech, So Miss, and Marshall are getting the most bang for their buck.

I agree. In this conference at least, there seems to be an inverse relationship between athletic budget size and athletic success.

Lol, when is the last time you guys beat us in something? Has it been longer than year since your last win against ODU?

You are right. I can't dispute the fact that you guys have had our number the last two seasons, but in that period of time, how many bowl games did you guys play in?

To be fair, they would have in 2014, but they weren't allowed to per NCAA rules.

Not that I really care about whose budget is what, who subsidizes the least and the most, but its interesting where the budgets would be for schools that do not subsidize nearly as much, all of a sudden start doing it and where would that put their budget? Take Marshall and USM for instance, give them what ODU subsidizes, same percentage, where would that put them? Guessing this hasn't been discussed much, only the current state of things.

If you take subsidies away from all schools, how do you rank then?

I know I know, it doesn't matter, but it is interesting.

Guess I am a noob at some of this, how do you give rep points on here?

(04-19-2016 07:25 AM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  There are only 5 schools in this conference that deserve to be FBS. The rest of you should be ashamed imo. Chasing the FBS dream at the expense of your students subsidizing the program is a shame.

Only 5 schools that deserve to be here are:

Marshall
So Miss
La Tech
UTEP
UTSA

I dont get your logic... According to USA Today Report
UTEP student contribution $5.9M
Marshall $4.1M
USM $6.0M
UTSA $12.0M
La Tech $0

UAB $5.5M

Marshall has 13K students ($315/Student), UAB 17K ($323/student), USM ($415/Student), UTSA ($400/student), UTEP ($245/student)
.....
Maybe you need to redo your math or maybe Marshall doesn't belong either.

(04-19-2016 08:24 AM)12thmonarch Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 08:05 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 10:17 PM)Bwebb009 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:43 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 06:09 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I would say La Tech, So Miss, and Marshall are getting the most bang for their buck.

I agree. In this conference at least, there seems to be an inverse relationship between athletic budget size and athletic success.

Lol, when is the last time you guys beat us in something? Has it been longer than year since your last win against ODU?

You are right. I can't dispute the fact that you guys have had our number the last two seasons, but in that period of time, how many bowl games did you guys play in?

We were not bowl eligible 2014 the first year of our CUSA play with a 6-6 record and last season yes we were not good and didn't make a bowl. To be frank how many seasons of FBS football did LT play and how many bowls did it get to?

Well, Frank we have been FBS since 88 but didnt get into a Conference with bowls until 2001. We have had 6 bowls in that period. We have had a multitude of seasons that went unrewarded over that period of time. You should consider yourselves lucky to have the success we have had over our history in football.

(04-19-2016 08:46 AM)herdinva Wrote:  Guess I am a noob at some of this, how do you give rep points on here?

Have to have 500 posts.

(04-19-2016 08:24 AM)12thmonarch Wrote:  We were not bowl eligible 2014 the first year of our CUSA play with a 6-6 record and last season yes we were not good and didn't make a bowl. To be frank how many seasons of FBS football did LT play and how many bowls did it get to?

Louisiana Tech made it's first bowl game in 1990, after joining the 1A ranks in 1988. That year, there were 19 bowl games for 107 teams, so 35.5% of teams made a bowl game. By 2000, there were 25 bowl games for 116 teams, which meant 43% of teams made a bowl game. Now there are 40 bowl games for 127 teams, meaning 63% of teams will make a bowl game. So it's just a teensie bit easier to make a bowl game now than it has been.

But to answer your question, we have been to 6 bowls since 1988, and have had 8 other seasons with a record of .500 or better that we did not go to a bowl game.

(04-19-2016 08:48 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 08:24 AM)12thmonarch Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 08:05 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 10:17 PM)Bwebb009 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:43 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  I agree. In this conference at least, there seems to be an inverse relationship between athletic budget size and athletic success.

Lol, when is the last time you guys beat us in something? Has it been longer than year since your last win against ODU?

You are right. I can't dispute the fact that you guys have had our number the last two seasons, but in that period of time, how many bowl games did you guys play in?

We were not bowl eligible 2014 the first year of our CUSA play with a 6-6 record and last season yes we were not good and didn't make a bowl. To be frank how many seasons of FBS football did LT play and how many bowls did it get to?

Well, Frank we have been FBS since 88 but didnt get into a Conference with bowls until 2001. We have had 6 bowls in that period. We have had a multitude of seasons that went unrewarded over that period of time. You should consider yourselves lucky to have the success we have had over our history in football.

Wow alright Lucky

When over 60% of your budget is paid for with student fees, you should not be in FBS.

I don't care if that wads your panties up to be honest. Its the truth.

Every state should have laws against this. No one should be subsidizing over 50% of their budget.


These numbers just show what we have all known. Most of you do not have the fan support to justify playing FBS football.......SIMPLE AS THAT!

(04-19-2016 09:13 AM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  When over 60% of your budget is paid for with student fees, you should not be in FBS.

I don't care if that wads your panties up to be honest. Its the truth.

Every state should have laws against this. No one should be subsidizing over 50% of their budget.


These numbers just show what we have all known. Most of you do not have the fan support to justify playing FBS football.......SIMPLE AS THAT!

Well, I'd argue that schools shouldn't be subsidizing ANY of the athletic budget, but I get it, you picked an arbitrary number so it's okay for Marshall to have a subsidy, but not others.

There is no accounting standard for how you factor the subsidy in. When the NCAA creates a set of universal standards, then I'll take the numbers more seriously.

Go sort that list by conference. The rest of you are subsidizing the same amount as FCS schools. This is not a knock, these are the facts.

Out of the G5 schools, there are only a few that deserve to be FBS. All of the AAC and Mountain West deserve to be FBS.

Actually looking at these numbers only verifies that the AAC and Mountain West are above CUSA.

Marshall
So Miss
La Tech
UTEP
UTSA

Arkansas State
Louisiana

Toledo

Possibly: Bowling Green

Louisiana- Monroe has low subsidy %, but they also have a very low budget of only $12.9 million.


FCS schools that deserve a chance to move up based on these numbers:

North Dakota
Montana
William and Mary
Northern Iowa
North Dakota State


Non Football Schools that could add FBS football:

Wichita State subsidizes less than 28% of their $26.6 million budget.

(04-19-2016 09:13 AM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  When over 60% of your budget is paid for with student fees, you should not be in FBS.

I don't care if that wads your panties up to be honest. Its the truth.

Every state should have laws against this. No one should be subsidizing over 50% of their budget.


These numbers just show what we have all known. Most of you do not have the fan support to justify playing FBS football.......SIMPLE AS THAT!

These numbers are not reliable. And until other states follow Tennessee's and Virginia's lead and require all subsidies to be fully reported, meaning no athletic funds being hidden or drawn from the general fund, these budget numbers can be manipulated and aren't an apple-to-apple comparison.