(11-30-2014 04:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:24 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:14 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Another sport perhaps wouldnt need a 100million dollar investment. Stadium etc..

They have women's cross-country and track. They could add that for men easily. Anything else would be difficult. There aren't many close-by men's volleyball or wrestling programs.

They only need one more men's sport, and could (will?) easily cut a few women's sports as well.

I believe they can only cut one sport for women if they want to stay in D-I. They can, however, reduce the # of scholarships they give. As a non-football playing school, they no longer are required to offer a minimum of 200 scholarships.

Currently UAB has 17 total men's and women's sports teams, including football. I think the minimum for D1 membership is 14?

UAB has the following women's sports with no male equivalent: volleyball, rifle, bowling, cross country, track and sand volleyball. Let's assume football is cut and men's track and/or cross country are added. UAB could then cut two or three of the above women's sports and still remain Title IX compliant. And that is what I think will happen. Rifle and bowling are likely going away. They could cut volleyball as well but I don't see them doing it.

(11-30-2014 04:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I wonder if the announcement is not just killing UAB football, but killing UAB athletics. To stay Division I, they'd have to start another men's sport to replace football. If you're cutting football to save money, you can't turn around and add wrestling or track, can you? So are they looking at Division II or III? Either of those is a money-losing proposition.

It's a "lose less money" proposition. If you assume that donations to the athletic department were negligible already and will still be negligible going forward, then it's pretty much all expenses and very little revenue in any event.

UAB's athletic budget in 2013-14 was about $30.4 million, per the Department of Education's Equity in Athletics database, http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

For the same year, examples of expenses reported by some no-football D-I schools in the south: East Tennessee State, $7.9 million; Belmont, $12.3 million; Florida Gulf Coast, $11.0 million; University of North Florida, $10.0 million.

Even taking the high end of that, they'd spend $18 million/year less as a D-I no-football program, and the only significant lost revenue is whatever the annual CUSA distribution is. Even if CUSA pays out $2 million/year, they're still cutting their losses by $16 million/year.

IMO, those numbers only work for schools that wouldn't lose much in the way of annual donations if they drop FBS football. If a school dropping football would lose $10 million/year from upset donors (whether that's athletic donations or university donations), it's probably not worth the move.

The problem is that those same numbers show $30M in revenue, $8M generated by football. It's nearly impossible to untangle what is and isn't football revenue or athletic revenue, but the USA Today numbers from a few years ago just popped up and showed UAB running a $10M or so athletic deficit overall. I looked at Alabama State's athletic budget, and they're running a $10M or so deficit on a $15M program.

The only way to show cutting football as a big money-saver is to only count the savings and ignore the lost revenues.

Basically, outside of maybe 50 schools, athletics doesn't produce enough revenue to support athletics. A few dozen football programs, a few dozen basketball programs are exceptions. You subsidize athletics to stay in the game and hope for a George Mason/Boise State/Florida Gulf Coast type jackpot.

I don't think you save much money going from Arkansas State's setup to UA-Little Rock's structure. (No offense to either school, just wanted a southern football/no-football same-state comparison).

something I kind of wonder is there a block of UAB fans that want to go back to how it used to be with UAB basketball being in the forefront of the university?

For shame Alabama BOT. A lot of people going to be getting royally screwed because the large state university board is filled with egotistical dicks.

I wonder if UMass is on the replacement list.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../19702899/

DONE DEAL and CUSA WILL NOT KEEP THEM with no football.

It's a bad situation all the way around. I feel most for the kids though. Hopefully the NCAA will let them transfer without restrictions.

(11-30-2014 04:55 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I wonder if the announcement is not just killing UAB football, but killing UAB athletics. To stay Division I, they'd have to start another men's sport to replace football. If you're cutting football to save money, you can't turn around and add wrestling or track, can you? So are they looking at Division II or III? Either of those is a money-losing proposition.

It's a "lose less money" proposition. If you assume that donations to the athletic department were negligible already and will still be negligible going forward, then it's pretty much all expenses and very little revenue in any event.

UAB's athletic budget in 2013-14 was about $30.4 million, per the Department of Education's Equity in Athletics database, http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

For the same year, examples of expenses reported by some no-football D-I schools in the south: East Tennessee State, $7.9 million; Belmont, $12.3 million; Florida Gulf Coast, $11.0 million; University of North Florida, $10.0 million.

Even taking the high end of that, they'd spend $18 million/year less as a D-I no-football program, and the only significant lost revenue is whatever the annual CUSA distribution is. Even if CUSA pays out $2 million/year, they're still cutting their losses by $16 million/year.

IMO, those numbers only work for schools that wouldn't lose much in the way of annual donations if they drop FBS football. If a school dropping football would lose $10 million/year from upset donors (whether that's athletic donations or university donations), it's probably not worth the move.

The problem is that those same numbers show $30M in revenue, $8M generated by football. It's nearly impossible to untangle what is and isn't football revenue or athletic revenue, but the USA Today numbers from a few years ago just popped up and showed UAB running a $10M or so athletic deficit overall. I looked at Alabama State's athletic budget, and they're running a $10M or so deficit on a $15M program.

The only way to show cutting football as a big money-saver is to only count the savings and ignore the lost revenues.

Basically, outside of maybe 50 schools, athletics doesn't produce enough revenue to support athletics. A few dozen football programs, a few dozen basketball programs are exceptions. You subsidize athletics to stay in the game and hope for a George Mason/Boise State/Florida Gulf Coast type jackpot.

I don't think you save much money going from Arkansas State's setup to UA-Little Rock's structure. (No offense to either school, just wanted a southern football/no-football same-state comparison).

Alabama State is an HBCU that plays FCS football. I would agree that moving to FCS is not likely to save money and might even be a net loss.

But having no football program should be a substantial savings unless the school would lose millions per year in donations as a result of dropping football. That's why I compared UAB's budget to the budget of no-football schools.

UALR, by the way, reported annual expenses of $8.6 million on athletics, and as an urban state university campus in a state where an SEC team sucks up all the football attention, might be a good parallel for UAB.

(11-30-2014 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:55 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I wonder if the announcement is not just killing UAB football, but killing UAB athletics. To stay Division I, they'd have to start another men's sport to replace football. If you're cutting football to save money, you can't turn around and add wrestling or track, can you? So are they looking at Division II or III? Either of those is a money-losing proposition.

It's a "lose less money" proposition. If you assume that donations to the athletic department were negligible already and will still be negligible going forward, then it's pretty much all expenses and very little revenue in any event.

UAB's athletic budget in 2013-14 was about $30.4 million, per the Department of Education's Equity in Athletics database, http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

For the same year, examples of expenses reported by some no-football D-I schools in the south: East Tennessee State, $7.9 million; Belmont, $12.3 million; Florida Gulf Coast, $11.0 million; University of North Florida, $10.0 million.

Even taking the high end of that, they'd spend $18 million/year less as a D-I no-football program, and the only significant lost revenue is whatever the annual CUSA distribution is. Even if CUSA pays out $2 million/year, they're still cutting their losses by $16 million/year.

IMO, those numbers only work for schools that wouldn't lose much in the way of annual donations if they drop FBS football. If a school dropping football would lose $10 million/year from upset donors (whether that's athletic donations or university donations), it's probably not worth the move.

The problem is that those same numbers show $30M in revenue, $8M generated by football. It's nearly impossible to untangle what is and isn't football revenue or athletic revenue, but the USA Today numbers from a few years ago just popped up and showed UAB running a $10M or so athletic deficit overall. I looked at Alabama State's athletic budget, and they're running a $10M or so deficit on a $15M program.

The only way to show cutting football as a big money-saver is to only count the savings and ignore the lost revenues.

Basically, outside of maybe 50 schools, athletics doesn't produce enough revenue to support athletics. A few dozen football programs, a few dozen basketball programs are exceptions. You subsidize athletics to stay in the game and hope for a George Mason/Boise State/Florida Gulf Coast type jackpot.

I don't think you save much money going from Arkansas State's setup to UA-Little Rock's structure. (No offense to either school, just wanted a southern football/no-football same-state comparison).

Alabama State is an HBCU that plays FCS football. I would agree that moving to FCS is not likely to save money and might even be a net loss.

But having no football program should be a substantial savings unless the school would lose millions per year in donations as a result of dropping football. That's why I compared UAB's budget to the budget of no-football schools.

UALR, by the way, reported annual expenses of $8.6 million on athletics, and as an urban state university campus in a state where an SEC team sucks up all the football attention, might be a good parallel for UAB.

So UALR is most likely talking about an $8M annual athletics deficit.

If the administration isn't buying the "football/athletics is the front porch of the university" theory, and is opposed to a $10M or so annual subsidy to keep athetics part of the undergrad student-life experience, then the green-eyeshade move to make is to take the horse behind the barn and shoot it, not to amputate a leg.

(11-30-2014 05:08 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  I wonder if UMass is on the replacement list.

I'm sure UMass will talk to CUSA about membership. CUSA I believe will demand all sports and that might be too much for UMass to agree to. Then again the leadership of UMass might say to itself we struck out with the AAC and CUSA is the next best thing.

The more I think about it, the more I think UMass could probably get into CUSA if it wanted. They like big enrollments, big names, big markets ideally.

Then UAB could take UMass's spot in the Atlantic 10....the only problem is its tough to imagine a program on its death bed getting accepted into a conference full of striving upward programs. UAB might even drop out of Division 1 all together and play at a lower level like Huntsville.

(11-30-2014 05:25 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:55 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I wonder if the announcement is not just killing UAB football, but killing UAB athletics. To stay Division I, they'd have to start another men's sport to replace football. If you're cutting football to save money, you can't turn around and add wrestling or track, can you? So are they looking at Division II or III? Either of those is a money-losing proposition.

It's a "lose less money" proposition. If you assume that donations to the athletic department were negligible already and will still be negligible going forward, then it's pretty much all expenses and very little revenue in any event.

UAB's athletic budget in 2013-14 was about $30.4 million, per the Department of Education's Equity in Athletics database, http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

For the same year, examples of expenses reported by some no-football D-I schools in the south: East Tennessee State, $7.9 million; Belmont, $12.3 million; Florida Gulf Coast, $11.0 million; University of North Florida, $10.0 million.

Even taking the high end of that, they'd spend $18 million/year less as a D-I no-football program, and the only significant lost revenue is whatever the annual CUSA distribution is. Even if CUSA pays out $2 million/year, they're still cutting their losses by $16 million/year.

IMO, those numbers only work for schools that wouldn't lose much in the way of annual donations if they drop FBS football. If a school dropping football would lose $10 million/year from upset donors (whether that's athletic donations or university donations), it's probably not worth the move.

The problem is that those same numbers show $30M in revenue, $8M generated by football. It's nearly impossible to untangle what is and isn't football revenue or athletic revenue, but the USA Today numbers from a few years ago just popped up and showed UAB running a $10M or so athletic deficit overall. I looked at Alabama State's athletic budget, and they're running a $10M or so deficit on a $15M program.

The only way to show cutting football as a big money-saver is to only count the savings and ignore the lost revenues.

Basically, outside of maybe 50 schools, athletics doesn't produce enough revenue to support athletics. A few dozen football programs, a few dozen basketball programs are exceptions. You subsidize athletics to stay in the game and hope for a George Mason/Boise State/Florida Gulf Coast type jackpot.

I don't think you save much money going from Arkansas State's setup to UA-Little Rock's structure. (No offense to either school, just wanted a southern football/no-football same-state comparison).

Alabama State is an HBCU that plays FCS football. I would agree that moving to FCS is not likely to save money and might even be a net loss.

But having no football program should be a substantial savings unless the school would lose millions per year in donations as a result of dropping football. That's why I compared UAB's budget to the budget of no-football schools.

UALR, by the way, reported annual expenses of $8.6 million on athletics, and as an urban state university campus in a state where an SEC team sucks up all the football attention, might be a good parallel for UAB.

So UALR is most likely talking about an $8M annual athletics deficit.

If the administration isn't buying the "football/athletics is the front porch of the university" theory, and is opposed to a $10M or so annual subsidy to keep athetics part of the undergrad student-life experience, then the green-eyeshade move to make is to take the horse behind the barn and shoot it, not to amputate a leg.

If anyone was going to take a "no subsidy" stance, that would happen at dozens of schools in D-I, or more.

What percentage of the 350 or so D-I schools lose at least $8 million/year on athletics? I'd guess somewhere between 50 and 80 percent.

Will NMSU's status change at all? I'd have to imagine CUSA will strongly consider giving them a call.

Original CUSA
Houston, Memphis, Tulane, Cincinnati, USF in AAC (CUSA prime-with later additions, ECU, UCF, Tulsa and SMU)
DePaul, Marquette in Big East
St. Louis in Atlantic 10
Louisville in ACC
Southern Miss only one remaining in CUSA full time and only original football school
Charlotte left for Atlantic 10 and returned
UAB looking for a new home

(11-30-2014 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  I really didn't think they would shut down football despite all the talk. Their attendance isn't THAT bad. Alabama loves college football. If Kent and Akron can continue, UAB certainly could. And several of their old Sun Belt peers-USF, ODU, Charlotte, USA-have added football. WKU moved up to FBS and Jacksonville added non-scholarship football. Only VCU hasn't gone in that direction.

ODU, Charlotte, USA all made the decision to move up to FBS before the whole autonomy discussion and full cost of attendance.

I don't think many schools now feel as compelled to move up to FBS knowing they'll have to assume much more in costs to do so. A school like Liberty would still be interested but I think for some it presents a financial barrier. The new playoff system isn't as kind to mid majors either as the old one with the computer polls.

Kent and Akron are in the MAC which is their optimal travel option. CUSA makes sense if you want to pour money down a drain for the visibility. That is what ODU and Charlotte's administration have been willing to do. At UAB the patience has run out for that model after 20 years of giving it a go.

If UAB takes the leap it will be interesting to see if some MAC members' presidents and schools like ULM feel brave enough to cut football.

(11-30-2014 05:36 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Will NMSU's status change at all? I'd have to imagine CUSA will strongly consider giving them a call.

New Mexico State is more or less a free agent at this point without the votes to join the SBC all sports.

I know CUSA has looked at NMSU in the past so I doubt they wouldn't look again at the school. If they decide not to go the Louisiana direction because it doesn't add an additional state then NMSU or UMass start to make sense. Either could make up for the basketball tradition lost by losing UAB.

(11-30-2014 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  If UAB takes the leap it will be interesting to see if some MAC members' presidents and schools like ULM feel brave enough to cut football.

The only MAC team that could cut football is emu. I dont see any other MAC teams dropping football.

(11-30-2014 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  If UAB takes the leap it will be interesting to see if some MAC members' presidents and schools like ULM feel brave enough to cut football.

If they cut football that is the end to MAC membership. That is why Eastern Michigan isn't cutting football because they'll lose membership in a highly respected D1 conference.

The 3 weakest MAC schools financially are EMU, BGSU and Akron. BGSU has a strong tradition in the MAC and is a football school. Akron has a brand new on campus stadium from the campus boom that was going on 5-10 years ago.

Kent State has 43,000 students and is doing very well right now as a university. Attendance is now above 20,000 for some games and they finished 11-3 back in 2012.

(11-30-2014 06:00 PM)nbcards Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  If UAB takes the leap it will be interesting to see if some MAC members' presidents and schools like ULM feel brave enough to cut football.

The only MAC team that could cut football is emu. I dont see any other MAC teams dropping football.

If EMU is able to hang in other MAC teams are all that much further away from it happening.

The MAC has agreed to implement the full cost of attendance should it be voted in so you aren't going to see movement over that issue.

(11-30-2014 05:30 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 05:08 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  I wonder if UMass is on the replacement list.

I'm sure UMass will talk to CUSA about membership. CUSA I believe will demand all sports and that might be too much for UMass to agree to. Then again the leadership of UMass might say to itself we struck out with the AAC and CUSA is the next best thing.

The more I think about it, the more I think UMass could probably get into CUSA if it wanted. They like big enrollments, big names, big markets ideally.

Then UAB could take UMass's spot in the Atlantic 10....the only problem is its tough to imagine a program on its death bed getting accepted into a conference full of striving upward programs. UAB might even drop out of Division 1 all together and play at a lower level like Huntsville.

UMass couldn't nut up for the MAC, what would give you any indication they would for CUSA?