(01-19-2018 08:55 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 07:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 07:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Most damning thing...is only 5 fans cared to comment under the article after 10 hours.

lol...Not a good sign.

As far as moving to FCS---the MAC offers its members one nice advantage. Its very cost efficient. Travel costs are minimal...and there is a hidden advantage---the members are all pretty frugal. So, there isnt much of an arms race as the facilities are fairly similar and coaching salaries remain very reasonable across the league. Honestly, with relatively low expenses for FBS---a media payout of nearly a million and another million coming in from the CFP payout--Im not sure if moving to FCS even saves any money for the the typical MAC school.

63 vs 85 scholies....

Lower coaching salary structure

Plus they can find more FCS athletes within 6 hours to play for them than FBS so that would cut down on travel expenses.

Of course ticket pricing would be less...but they don't sell that many anyway.

If FCS was a better deal schools would be dropping down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Other than NMSU, ULM and a few MAC schools, why would anyone move down? Even in the MAC where a few schools probably should be FCS, if not D-II, they have a bus league. You might say Coastal Carolina should drop but they just moved up.

(01-20-2018 03:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, if you're not in the AAC or MWC then you have zero chance of becoming a Power conference school within the next 10 years. Even those schools, like my USF, have a much lower than 50% chance of making that jump.

For those lower-tier G5 schools, FBS football is just a giant money suck and drain on students and academics, with nothing but unproven, ephemeral "marketing" value that status-driven admins tout with no evidence to support it.

I mean think about the argument: "If UT-SA didn't have FBS football, nobody would know who we are!"

As if 'anyone' knows who they are right now.

Students who want to attend a school like UTSA will find out about it, they found out about USF and UCF long before we had football. It's fools gold being chased.

I'd say that's true of college athletics in general. If you're not a P5 level program, you're not making money. I'd hazard a guess that there are 20 non-P5 basketball programs that make money for their schools.

No question, even for the upper-level of G5, like USF and Memphis, football is a gamble, you're betting you're going to get moved up to P5.

If someone were to tell me USF will never reach P5 and the current situation is as good as it will get, I would withdraw all student fees/funding and make it sink or swim.

(01-20-2018 05:43 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 08:55 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 07:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 07:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Most damning thing...is only 5 fans cared to comment under the article after 10 hours.

lol...Not a good sign.

As far as moving to FCS---the MAC offers its members one nice advantage. Its very cost efficient. Travel costs are minimal...and there is a hidden advantage---the members are all pretty frugal. So, there isnt much of an arms race as the facilities are fairly similar and coaching salaries remain very reasonable across the league. Honestly, with relatively low expenses for FBS---a media payout of nearly a million and another million coming in from the CFP payout--Im not sure if moving to FCS even saves any money for the the typical MAC school.

63 vs 85 scholies....

Lower coaching salary structure

Plus they can find more FCS athletes within 6 hours to play for them than FBS so that would cut down on travel expenses.

Of course ticket pricing would be less...but they don't sell that many anyway.

If FCS was a better deal schools would be dropping down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Other than NMSU, ULM and a few MAC schools, why would anyone move down? Even in the MAC where a few schools probably should be FCS, if not D-II, they have a bus league. You might say Coastal Carolina should drop but they just moved up.

In truth, FCS is a better deal than FBS, for most G5 schools. Meaning FBS runs up greater red ink, when we factor in the soaking of students for fees.

The reason schools remain in FBS anyway is because they see it as investing in the dream of becoming a P5 school, and cashing in. You can only do that from an FBS base, not from FCS. It's worth it to lose $60 million more in G5/FBS over the next 10 years than you would have had you been FCS, if at the end of those 10 years you join the SEC or PAC.

For most, this is unrealistic (meaning it isn't happening), meaning they should drop down to FCS.

(01-19-2018 10:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  UB is IMO a classic case of an FBS "striver" that has squandered millions chasing the Impossible Dream. What is football attendance, around 17,000 per game?

Look at this example of wasted money:

http://www.ubspectrum.com/article/2016/0...home-games

At places like UB - and in fairness, at many other G5 schools as well - they go through the motions of having a "big time" football program in terms of hotels and travel and the like, without the football-generated revenue to support it. It's like "well, Alabama and LSU put their teams up at a local hotel before a home game, so we will too!", never mind that Alabama football actually generates revenue to pay for that.

It's a quasi-potemkin village largely paid for by student transfer fees.

For a school like Buffalo it's one thing but many found themselves just on the outside of the rope at just the wrong time. And unlike basketball, it's almost impossible to earn your way up.

(01-20-2018 05:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 03:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, if you're not in the AAC or MWC then you have zero chance of becoming a Power conference school within the next 10 years. Even those schools, like my USF, have a much lower than 50% chance of making that jump.

For those lower-tier G5 schools, FBS football is just a giant money suck and drain on students and academics, with nothing but unproven, ephemeral "marketing" value that status-driven admins tout with no evidence to support it.

I mean think about the argument: "If UT-SA didn't have FBS football, nobody would know who we are!"

As if 'anyone' knows who they are right now.

Students who want to attend a school like UTSA will find out about it, they found out about USF and UCF long before we had football. It's fools gold being chased.

I'd say that's true of college athletics in general. If you're not a P5 level program, you're not making money. I'd hazard a guess that there are 20 non-P5 basketball programs that make money for their schools.

No question, even for the upper-level of G5, like USF and Memphis, football is a gamble, you're betting you're going to get moved up to P5.

If someone were to tell me USF will never reach P5 and the current situation is as good as it will get, I would withdraw all student fees/funding and make it sink or swim.

Quo,
Your school doesn't even have a stadium! How are you an upper "G5"---when almost every other G5 school has a stadium and gets more fans in the stands than USF. I'd say the football experiment at USF would be a total absolute colossal failure if not for the incredible lottery BCS big east period. A lotto ticket that lasted for 8 years; and brought you to the current situation. 5,000 actual fan average at your games with a gigantic student poplulation to boot. Translation: USF students, grads etc just are not that into football. USF tried. It's not working...as of now at least.

(01-20-2018 06:02 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 10:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  UB is IMO a classic case of an FBS "striver" that has squandered millions chasing the Impossible Dream. What is football attendance, around 17,000 per game?

Look at this example of wasted money:

http://www.ubspectrum.com/article/2016/0...home-games

At places like UB - and in fairness, at many other G5 schools as well - they go through the motions of having a "big time" football program in terms of hotels and travel and the like, without the football-generated revenue to support it. It's like "well, Alabama and LSU put their teams up at a local hotel before a home game, so we will too!", never mind that Alabama football actually generates revenue to pay for that.

It's a quasi-potemkin village largely paid for by student transfer fees.

For a school like Buffalo it's one thing but many found themselves just on the outside of the rope at just the wrong time. And unlike basketball, it's almost impossible to earn your way up.

I wonder, how many hoops programs have really 'earned their way up'? Even a high-ranked program like Wichita State doesn't have any power or money. They have wins on the court, but that's it.

(01-20-2018 07:38 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 05:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 03:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, if you're not in the AAC or MWC then you have zero chance of becoming a Power conference school within the next 10 years. Even those schools, like my USF, have a much lower than 50% chance of making that jump.

For those lower-tier G5 schools, FBS football is just a giant money suck and drain on students and academics, with nothing but unproven, ephemeral "marketing" value that status-driven admins tout with no evidence to support it.

I mean think about the argument: "If UT-SA didn't have FBS football, nobody would know who we are!"

As if 'anyone' knows who they are right now.

Students who want to attend a school like UTSA will find out about it, they found out about USF and UCF long before we had football. It's fools gold being chased.

I'd say that's true of college athletics in general. If you're not a P5 level program, you're not making money. I'd hazard a guess that there are 20 non-P5 basketball programs that make money for their schools.

No question, even for the upper-level of G5, like USF and Memphis, football is a gamble, you're betting you're going to get moved up to P5.

If someone were to tell me USF will never reach P5 and the current situation is as good as it will get, I would withdraw all student fees/funding and make it sink or swim.

Quo,
Your school doesn't even have a stadium! How are you an upper "G5"---when almost every other G5 school has a stadium and gets more fans in the stands than USF.

USF is clearly an upper G5, arguably right at the top. We're the only G5 that has finished in the AP top 25 the past two seasons.

Heck, in the CFP era, only three G5 programs have finished ranked in the final AP top 25 twice: Boise, USF, and Memphis, and Memphis finished #25 both times they made it.

And, whether you like it or not, the official NCAA attendance stats show that we are in the top 5 of G5 attendance. For 2016, the only schools I know that out-drew us were Houston and ECU. Maybe a couple others, but we are clearly near the very top among sixty-five G5 teams. And no, don't give me any nonsense about "butts in the seats" unless you have those same figure for other schools. Totally bogus to compare USF "butts in seats" numbers to official attendance of other schools. Has to be either official vs official, or butts vs butts. And since what we have for both is official vs official, that's what we compare.

Yes, I'd like an on-campus stadium, but we do play in a state of the art NFL stadium, recruits don't mind that.

USF is clearly at or near the top of the G5 heap. Buffalo? Way, way down the list.

(01-20-2018 07:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 07:38 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Quo,
Your school doesn't even have a stadium! How are you an upper "G5"---when almost every other G5 school has a stadium and gets more fans in the stands than USF.

USF is clearly an upper G5, arguably right at the top. We're the only G5 that has finished in the AP top 25 the past two seasons.

Heck, in the CFP era, only three G5 programs have finished ranked in the final AP top 25 twice: Boise, USF, and Memphis, and Memphis finished #25 both times they made it.

And, whether you like it or not, the official NCAA attendance stats show that we are in the top 5 of G5 attendance. For 2016, the only schools I know that out-drew us were Houston and ECU. Maybe a couple others, but we are clearly near the very top among sixty-five G5 teams. And no, don't give me any nonsense about "butts in the seats" unless you have those same figure for other schools. Totally bogus to compare USF "butts in seats" numbers to official attendance of other schools. Has to be either official vs official, or butts vs butts. And since what we have for both is official vs official, that's what we compare.

Yes, I'd like an on-campus stadium, but we do play in a state of the art NFL stadium, recruits don't mind that.

USF is clearly at or near the top of the G5 heap. Buffalo? Way, way down the list.

Speaking of on-campus stadiums, has there been any further discussion of USF pursuing that? I haven't seen anything on that in a while.

(01-20-2018 08:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 07:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 07:38 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Quo,
Your school doesn't even have a stadium! How are you an upper "G5"---when almost every other G5 school has a stadium and gets more fans in the stands than USF.

USF is clearly an upper G5, arguably right at the top. We're the only G5 that has finished in the AP top 25 the past two seasons.

Heck, in the CFP era, only three G5 programs have finished ranked in the final AP top 25 twice: Boise, USF, and Memphis, and Memphis finished #25 both times they made it.

And, whether you like it or not, the official NCAA attendance stats show that we are in the top 5 of G5 attendance. For 2016, the only schools I know that out-drew us were Houston and ECU. Maybe a couple others, but we are clearly near the very top among sixty-five G5 teams. And no, don't give me any nonsense about "butts in the seats" unless you have those same figure for other schools. Totally bogus to compare USF "butts in seats" numbers to official attendance of other schools. Has to be either official vs official, or butts vs butts. And since what we have for both is official vs official, that's what we compare.

Yes, I'd like an on-campus stadium, but we do play in a state of the art NFL stadium, recruits don't mind that.

USF is clearly at or near the top of the G5 heap. Buffalo? Way, way down the list.

Speaking of on-campus stadiums, has there been any further discussion of USF pursuing that? I haven't seen anything on that in a while.

The latest word from our admins was about five months ago, we've actually advanced to the point of producing a 41-page "conceptual study" (LOL). IOW's, a long way away but there is some signs of movement:

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/college/u...um/2333026

Buffalo has basically had a 30 year failure of sport outside of the Bills and Sabres.

From building a too big AAA stadium in an attempt to get a MLB franchise during the FL/AZ/CO expansion years to hosting the 1993 World University Games which expanded the UB Stadium and campus, nothing has worked.

No need to double down yet again.

(01-20-2018 01:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 12:55 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The article pointed out a fundamental truth which is common with UMass and UConn, that Basketball has more gate than Football. This seems to be a theme in the Northeast with Football.

College Football just doesn't do it in this region. It's mostly a waste of money and resources.

Well that article could just as well be about San Jose St sports, which havent resonated at all in the Bay Area.

And people who are paid way more than anyone on here to analyze and make decisions have determined that it IS worth the amount spent.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-20-2018 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 12:55 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The article pointed out a fundamental truth which is common with UMass and UConn, that Basketball has more gate than Football. This seems to be a theme in the Northeast with Football.

College Football just doesn't do it in this region. It's mostly a waste of money and resources.

To Buffalo's credit, they tried. They made the "NY Bulls" push and all that. Nothing wrong with that, nothing ventured nothing gained. But, the experiment failed, it showed that there is no demand for what Buffalo was pushing for.

So, time to ratchet back to something more realistic. MAC membership, as others have noted, is the ideal fit, but it also means losing millions every year in student fees.

You're don't have an FBS program to make money. It's a marketing cost center.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-20-2018 08:38 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Buffalo has basically had a 30 year failure of sport outside of the Bills and Sabres.

From building a too big AAA stadium in an attempt to get a MLB franchise during the FL/AZ/CO expansion years to hosting the 1993 World University Games which expanded the UB Stadium and campus, nothing has worked.

No need to double down yet again.

Buffalo has twice hosted the World Juniors (U20) Hockey Championships. That attracts major attention from north of the border.

(01-20-2018 05:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 03:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, if you're not in the AAC or MWC then you have zero chance of becoming a Power conference school within the next 10 years. Even those schools, like my USF, have a much lower than 50% chance of making that jump.

For those lower-tier G5 schools, FBS football is just a giant money suck and drain on students and academics, with nothing but unproven, ephemeral "marketing" value that status-driven admins tout with no evidence to support it.

I mean think about the argument: "If UT-SA didn't have FBS football, nobody would know who we are!"

As if 'anyone' knows who they are right now.

Students who want to attend a school like UTSA will find out about it, they found out about USF and UCF long before we had football. It's fools gold being chased.

I'd say that's true of college athletics in general. If you're not a P5 level program, you're not making money. I'd hazard a guess that there are 20 non-P5 basketball programs that make money for their schools.

No question, even for the upper-level of G5, like USF and Memphis, football is a gamble, you're betting you're going to get moved up to P5.

If someone were to tell me USF will never reach P5 and the current situation is as good as it will get, I would withdraw all student fees/funding and make it sink or swim.

You're talking about those schools because they are FBS. Period.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-20-2018 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 06:02 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 10:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  UB is IMO a classic case of an FBS "striver" that has squandered millions chasing the Impossible Dream. What is football attendance, around 17,000 per game?

Look at this example of wasted money:

http://www.ubspectrum.com/article/2016/0...home-games

At places like UB - and in fairness, at many other G5 schools as well - they go through the motions of having a "big time" football program in terms of hotels and travel and the like, without the football-generated revenue to support it. It's like "well, Alabama and LSU put their teams up at a local hotel before a home game, so we will too!", never mind that Alabama football actually generates revenue to pay for that.

It's a quasi-potemkin village largely paid for by student transfer fees.

For a school like Buffalo it's one thing but many found themselves just on the outside of the rope at just the wrong time. And unlike basketball, it's almost impossible to earn your way up.

I wonder, how many hoops programs have really 'earned their way up'? Even a high-ranked program like Wichita State doesn't have any power or money. They have wins on the court, but that's it.

How many are just lucky to be with the right set of schools at the right time? Where would Wake Forest be today if they didn't just happen to be in the ACC? Probably with their would be peers Wofford, Furman and, formerly, Davidson and Elon in the Socon or in the Big South. Same for Duke. They'd just be some random private and not peer if they hadn't been grouped with North Carolina decades ago. Kinda like Michigan and EMU but with a private school.

With rare exception, you don't earn your way up, you're grandfathered in. Large state flagships and land grants are usually an exception. And even when a few earn their way in, timing and bad luck show them the door, like Houston and UConn.

You guys have your goals all wrong

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-20-2018 11:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:52 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 08:02 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 07:20 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Yeah, basically if the AAC is ever in a position where they're making calls to UB to try to backfill, then things are bad enough in Arescoland that the AAC is not an upgrade from the MAC.

Even in the situation that would appear most friendly to Buffalo’s chances, with the AAC losing all four of SMU, Houston, USF, and UCF, the American has to expand back into Texas to keep Navy. Navy staying probably dictates two of Rice, North Texas, and UTSA. Cincinnati and probably UConn and ECU as well would want the American to reload in Florida, so that means FAU and FIU. None of those choices scream basketball success, and aside from keeping Navy and Cincinnati football around, do much for P6 status either. Wichita State would probably rather see the American add UAB and UMass over FAU and FIU. If Tulsa get If Tulsa gets sucked into the remnants of the Big 12 with SMU and Houston, Wichita State probably starts looking elsewhere, and maybe tries to convince UConn to approach the Big East as a package with them.
If the Texas schools leave and Navy bolts, then UConn and UMass have another ally in football independence.

If Buffalo wants in the American at that point, they better hope Temple goes to bat for them, but Temple would likely be Buffalo’s only conference opponent in driving distance. What’s left of the American probably slices out the relevant parts of C-USA to build around East Carolina and Tulane:

Tulane, Southern Miss, WKU, Memphis/MTSU, Cincinnati/UAB
East Carolina, Temple, Old Dominion, USF/FIU, UCF/FAU

To me, if you're not in the AAC or MWC then you have zero chance of becoming a Power conference school within the next 10 years. Even those schools, like my USF, have a much lower than 50% chance of making that jump.

For those lower-tier G5 schools, FBS football is just a giant money suck and drain on students and academics, with nothing but unproven, ephemeral "marketing" value that status-driven admins tout with no evidence to support it.

I mean think about the argument: "If UT-SA didn't have FBS football, nobody would know who we are!"

As if 'anyone' knows who they are right now.

Students who want to attend a school like UTSA will find out about it, they found out about USF and UCF long before we had football. It's fools gold being chased.

Having high profile athletics does wonders for a school and its visability. How many people know about Tufts, Emory, Rochester and Dallas? A couple of those have some level of notoriety but nothing like those who have high level athletics.

Being FBS doesn't necessarily mean you have "high profile" athletics. Heck, USF has finished in the AP top 25 and won bowl games the past two years, and I wouldn't say we are 'high profile', so if we aren't UTSA certainly isn't. And that's the situation of much of FBS.

Plus, all four of those schools you mention are thriving, they all turn away applicants every year, and three of them are elite, in the top 30 or 35 universities in the country. So those are bad examples, as they are all far better off than 95% of all schools that have FBS football, even better off than the big majority that have truly "high profile" athletics.

But they still struggle with visibility to some degree. Applications ALWAYS skyrocket when some unheralded school makes a run or two in a major sport. It's the Flute effect, which has done wonders for Gonzaga and George Mason to name a couple. It's not everything but it does help tremendously. The only places it didn't help was perhaps Harvard, Penn and Princeton. It probably hurt them to some degree because of the kind of student they're trying to attract.

And over time it does help, especially if sustained. It's free publicity.

(01-20-2018 08:49 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 01:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 12:55 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The article pointed out a fundamental truth which is common with UMass and UConn, that Basketball has more gate than Football. This seems to be a theme in the Northeast with Football.

College Football just doesn't do it in this region. It's mostly a waste of money and resources.

Well that article could just as well be about San Jose St sports, which havent resonated at all in the Bay Area.

And people who are paid way more than anyone on here to analyze and make decisions have determined that it IS worth the amount spent.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

San Jose State is a commuter school in the Bay Area's spread out, wanna-be major city. If San Francisco State had D-1 sports, they may do better.

(01-20-2018 09:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 08:49 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 01:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 12:55 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The article pointed out a fundamental truth which is common with UMass and UConn, that Basketball has more gate than Football. This seems to be a theme in the Northeast with Football.

College Football just doesn't do it in this region. It's mostly a waste of money and resources.

Well that article could just as well be about San Jose St sports, which havent resonated at all in the Bay Area.

And people who are paid way more than anyone on here to analyze and make decisions have determined that it IS worth the amount spent.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

San Jose State is a commuter school in the Bay Area's spread out, wanna-be major city. If San Francisco State had D-1 sports, they may do better.

...And yet they will never drop down...hmmmm

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-20-2018 08:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 08:38 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Buffalo has basically had a 30 year failure of sport outside of the Bills and Sabres.

From building a too big AAA stadium in an attempt to get a MLB franchise during the FL/AZ/CO expansion years to hosting the 1993 World University Games which expanded the UB Stadium and campus, nothing has worked.

No need to double down yet again.

Buffalo has twice hosted the World Juniors (U20) Hockey Championships. That attracts major attention from north of the border.

They had to improve the indoor arena situation in the 90's. They failed with everything else which didn't account for the Sabres. Buffalo is cold, so folks attend indoor $hit. Yet they build lots of outdoor $hit for 1993 Universdad.