(09-01-2016 09:08 AM)emu79 Wrote:  

(09-01-2016 07:38 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  NPR has sports commentaries by the likes of Frank DeFord and Kevin Blackistone, great pieces that have nothing to do with the politics of NPR. The EMU commentary wasnt any different than most we have heard from other sources who wonder, if winning isnt everything, it is the only thing, then if you aren't winning for 5 decades what are you doing?

The last winning season I believe was in 1996 sorry it isn't five decades try again.

I am not ignorant of EMU's 1996 season. The point is a lack of winning tradition that the story states.

Don't like what you hear attack the messenger rather than what is being said.

Every school ought to look long and hard at what they spend and why they spend it. Doing it because its always been done is stupid.

Among the G5 only four schools self-generated (non-fee, non-university, non-government revenue) less than EMU in the last reported budget cycle and one of those is just starting transition (Coastal Carolina, FIU, Ball State, Troy).

Four schools spent more in institutional dollars (AFA, UMass, ODU, UConn)

Two derived a higher percentage of revenue from institutional sources (Coastal Carolina, FIU). Of the five schools where the highest percentage of revenue, four combined have played fewer years of FBS than EMU.

EMU reported 3,000 fewer fans per game in football than the next lowest, and more than 5,000 less than the third lowest. EMU reported the 55th lowest attendance in basketball out of 350+ firmly in the bottom 20% of men's hoops attendance.

UConn spends less than $700,000 more in institutional support and they generate $37 million in ticket sales, donations and sponsorship and get nationally relevant teams in men's basketball and the dominant women's hoops program. ODU spends a million more from the school treasury but self-generate 150% more. UMass spends $1.3 million more much of that on a pretty new FBS program and has some national relevance to a degree in hoops. Air Force spends about $7 million more but part of their role is to advertise their branch of service and they tend to be relevant in G5 ranks in football.

EMU enrollment is growing despite an athletics department that generates far more negative image than positive.

Not discussing whether than investment is worth the money taken from students would be irresponsible.

As to Idaho.

Their result was earned. They entered FBS trying to scheme the rule book, they wanted to play one season at Washington State declare attendance made and reclassify. NCAA held them as firmly as they could making them play there for four years.

Since 1995 they have failed to address their stadium issues. They can't fix geography, they are 1000 miles from the closest Sun Belt school (NMSU and they were booted as well). They had the opportunity while in the WAC to demonstrate to western peers they were serious about their athletic program and be in the MWC mix, and they failed to accomplish that.

Why shouldn't there be a sports revenue-sharing system among all Michigan universities? Wouldn't that be the NPR way? Trolls.

(09-01-2016 09:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Don't like what you hear attack the messenger rather than what is being said.

Every school ought to look long and hard at what they spend and why they spend it. Doing it because its always been done is stupid.

Among the G5 only four schools self-generated (non-fee, non-university, non-government revenue) less than EMU in the last reported budget cycle and one of those is just starting transition (Coastal Carolina, FIU, Ball State, Troy).

Four schools spent more in institutional dollars (AFA, UMass, ODU, UConn)

Two derived a higher percentage of revenue from institutional sources (Coastal Carolina, FIU). Of the five schools where the highest percentage of revenue, four combined have played fewer years of FBS than EMU.

EMU reported 3,000 fewer fans per game in football than the next lowest, and more than 5,000 less than the third lowest. EMU reported the 55th lowest attendance in basketball out of 350+ firmly in the bottom 20% of men's hoops attendance.

UConn spends less than $700,000 more in institutional support and they generate $37 million in ticket sales, donations and sponsorship and get nationally relevant teams in men's basketball and the dominant women's hoops program. ODU spends a million more from the school treasury but self-generate 150% more. UMass spends $1.3 million more much of that on a pretty new FBS program and has some national relevance to a degree in hoops. Air Force spends about $7 million more but part of their role is to advertise their branch of service and they tend to be relevant in G5 ranks in football.

EMU enrollment is growing despite an athletics department that generates far more negative image than positive.

Not discussing whether than investment is worth the money taken from students would be irresponsible.

As to Idaho.

Their result was earned. They entered FBS trying to scheme the rule book, they wanted to play one season at Washington State declare attendance made and reclassify. NCAA held them as firmly as they could making them play there for four years.

Since 1995 they have failed to address their stadium issues. They can't fix geography, they are 1000 miles from the closest Sun Belt school (NMSU and they were booted as well). They had the opportunity while in the WAC to demonstrate to western peers they were serious about their athletic program and be in the MWC mix, and they failed to accomplish that.

So ODU and UConn spend more than EMU from their schools treasury. How much of all these donations and ticket sales go back to the school (not back to the sports programs)? Also the negative image regarding EMU is due to these same articles that are lambasting their negative image - and it's really just football. Who is complaining about their track teams?

NPR is like a fish out of water talking about sports.

John Bacon is an arrogant ass just like the rest of the Michigan slappies.

Attendance has very little to do with the Emu situation. Even if they sold out the stadium every game you're only talking about a $2 million increase in revenue. Do the math.

The problem is really the number of sports. Maybe they need to reduce the number of scholarships. Maybe the NCAA should reduce the number of scholarships. Of course, that would not be NPR friendly.

How about every school that subsidizes Athletics cuts football? Then the remaining 20 schools can all play each other in one big money making conference. They could even pay the players! Of course the overall talent level would be so low because so many high school kids around the country are going to quit football. That would also make the NPR folks happy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-01-2016 09:11 AM)emu79 Wrote:  Yes and EMU is within six miles of Michigan Stadium any other program in the country have that type of competition in their backyard? If so name one. EMU has and always will be a commuter based working person college with most of its students from the great Detroit Metro area which means most weekends the students are back home and not on campus. So yes EMU faces some unique challenges other schools don't face. Amazing how the media doesn't explore those items in any detail. And yes the college athletic model is broken over all and needs to be fixed.

While true, don't you think that's a two way street? What if EMU were located in Mt. Pleasant? Ypsilanti is still metro Detroit and close to everything. CMU plays in the middle of nowhere and still manages to hit the 15,000 mark. I'm a die hard CMU alum and I only make it to 1-2 games a year because I don't want to drive 2.5 hours.

I understand it sucks they are right by UM, but I'm sure there are other examples. I know football is huge in Texas but there are like 10 D-1 programs in that state. ULL and ULM are 2 of 4 programs in Louisiana which is not a big state. Personally I feel as if it's almost a cop out to say that. EMU has never really been good.

Dear george14,
Eastern has had some very good years in football. The most recent time period was 1986-89. Those were all winning seasons, and included a win in the California Bowl in 1987. So to say that Eastern has never been good is just showing your ignorance of Eastern's program. I can accept that because you did not go to Eastern. However, it does not do one good to spout inaccurate information if you really don't know what you are talking about.

(09-01-2016 11:51 AM)george14 Wrote:  

(09-01-2016 09:11 AM)emu79 Wrote:  Yes and EMU is within six miles of Michigan Stadium any other program in the country have that type of competition in their backyard? If so name one. EMU has and always will be a commuter based working person college with most of its students from the great Detroit Metro area which means most weekends the students are back home and not on campus. So yes EMU faces some unique challenges other schools don't face. Amazing how the media doesn't explore those items in any detail. And yes the college athletic model is broken over all and needs to be fixed.

While true, don't you think that's a two way street? What if EMU were located in Mt. Pleasant? Ypsilanti is still metro Detroit and close to everything. CMU plays in the middle of nowhere and still manages to hit the 15,000 mark. I'm a die hard CMU alum and I only make it to 1-2 games a year because I don't want to drive 2.5 hours.

I understand it sucks they are right by UM, but I'm sure there are other examples. I know football is huge in Texas but there are like 10 D-1 programs in that state. ULL and ULM are 2 of 4 programs in Louisiana which is not a big state. Personally I feel as if it's almost a cop out to say that. EMU has never really been good.

Being close to the big city and the mass of people can also work against a school like EMU. There are so many more things to do and the media only focuses on the 2 big schools and the pro teams. Everyone else gets very little. It's easy for the smaller guy to get lost amongst the giants.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-01-2016 12:54 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear george14,
Eastern has had some very good years in football. The most recent time period was 1986-89. Those were all winning seasons, and included a win in the California Bowl in 1987. So to say that Eastern has never been good is just showing your ignorance of Eastern's program. I can accept that because you did not go to Eastern. However, it does not do one good to spout inaccurate information if you really don't know what you are talking about.

Read between the lines. I meant EMU has never consistently had a good program. Since becoming D1 they have 6 winning seasons and 1 bowl appearance. Yes, they had a pretty solid 4 year stretch. That was 30 years ago Ken. Are you a UM fan who is now resorting to the revisionist history argument over MSU?

My point was clear, EMU has never really been good. 30 years ago they had a solid stretch for 4 years then plummeted into mediocrity. They have 1 MAC championship.

Dear george14,
You obviously do not understand. If there was period when any team wins a championship, they were good. The Detroit Lions won the championship of the NFL in 1957. So, according to your definition they were never good. Eastern dominated small college football in the twenties and thirties in the State of Michigan, but again, they were never any good.
Like I said in my earlier post your ignorance is showing, and you don't know what you are talking about.

(08-31-2016 08:37 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  The reality is that every MAC school and almost all of the NCAA subsidizes athletics. EMU gets to be the focal point but we are all in the same boat. It's a subject that goes way beyond EMU.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

EMU is the focal point because they are on the far end of the spectrum. NIU may subsidize like many other schools, but our football program like some in exchange has brought loads of positive recognition to the university, and keeps many successful alumni interested and involved in the institution. Real-life benefits from those subsidies EMU is not enjoying from their football expenditures and potentially never will.

Dear NIUfilmmaker,
Things never stay the same. It may take a few more years, but Eastern's football program is making progress, just as Northern Illinois will fall sooner or later. It's the nature of athletic competition.

(09-01-2016 03:00 PM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 08:37 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  The reality is that every MAC school and almost all of the NCAA subsidizes athletics. EMU gets to be the focal point but we are all in the same boat. It's a subject that goes way beyond EMU.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

EMU is the focal point because they are on the far end of the spectrum. NIU may subsidize like many other schools, but our football program like some in exchange has brought loads of positive recognition to the university, and keeps many successful alumni interested and involved in the institution. Real-life benefits from those subsidies EMU is not enjoying from their football expenditures and potentially never will.

More schools subsidize than the casual fan knows.

I love most college sports. I think they are a positive for a university. I've known athletes from all levels of NCAA competition and pretty much all will tell you it was a positive in their life, even those paying their own way in Division III.

But I think every responsible leadership should be evaluating what athletics means and what is the proper role and investment. There have been too few Birmingham Southern's who stepped back and said another level fits who we are better. Miami (FL) for years was one of the few Division I schools to not play hoops, it wasn't a great fit for them. Now with the Big East on the table they found room for it.

I'm not a Michigan taxpayer, and I'm not paying tuition to EMU so I really don't care what EMU's course is.

But every institution owes it to all their communities to evaluate what fits best.

EMU is such an outlier that the spotlight is going to shine on them. If attendance was 16k in football and teams were going 5-7 to 7-5 every year and another $2 million or $3million flowing in from customers and boosters, no one would notice EMU.

(09-01-2016 04:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Miami (FL) for years was one of the few Division I schools to not play hoops, it wasn't a great fit for them. Now with the Big East on the table they found room for it.

They would have had to find room for it one way or another, it is now required be Div1

What we've seen in the MAC over the decades is the schools with weaker fans and recruiting situations end up at the bottom of the pack.

EMU and Kent for that matter had a couple of really good coaching jobs done in their history but the historical norm as MAC programs has never been high.

Toledo/BGSU are right in the middle of the MAC and can tap into OH, IL, MI, PA recruiting grounds effectively. Nice setups for football. NIU can hit WI like no other MAC school.

The differences seem slight compared to EMU yet they are significant enough to make a difference in recruiting/retention, player development and coaching that EMU finds itself hard pressed to compete.

The answer for EMU is to hang in there as long as they can with the idea that at some point the fundamentals will shift in their favor.

1) What if the B1G decides to share their network with the MAC and offer to play 1-1 at MAC stadiums?

2) Toledo and NIU were to leave the MAC changing the competitive balance of the West?

3) Detroit metro is flush with a new wave of autonomous vehicle companies and Google moves its headquarters to Ypsilanti. A different demographic that will support EMU football.

(09-01-2016 09:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  As to Idaho.

Their result was earned. They entered FBS trying to scheme the rule book, they wanted to play one season at Washington State declare attendance made and reclassify. NCAA held them as firmly as they could making them play there for four years.

Since 1995 they have failed to address their stadium issues. They can't fix geography, they are 1000 miles from the closest Sun Belt school (NMSU and they were booted as well). They had the opportunity while in the WAC to demonstrate to western peers they were serious about their athletic program and be in the MWC mix, and they failed to accomplish that.

Is an Idaho type fate in EMU's future?

Let's say after the raid by the B12 is done, the MWC and AAC decided they'll both expand to 16 and join forces on a "G5" network that will bring more revenue with all of the inventory.

B12 (UH, UM, UC, UConn)
AAC (Rice, AState, NIU, Toledo, Buffalo, UMass, ODU, FIU)
MWC (UTEP, UTSA, TxSt, UNT)

That could squeeze CUSA/MAC/SBC greatly by losing 10-12 of their best programs the MWC/CUSA. The remaining MAC and SBC jump into CUSA to try to make a third serious G5 conference with 12 teams.

CUSA (Ohio, Miami, Ball St, Georgia St)

That leaves the MAC with 6 schools (BG, EMU, CMU, WMU, UA, KSU) and the SBC with 7 (ULM, ULL, Troy, USA, GaSo, Coastal, App) giving the SBC the upper hand.

The SBC decides to just add 4 schools (BG, UA, CMU, WMU) with good football from the MAC, bring up EKU as a FB only school to get back to 12.

EMU and Kent are then in an Idaho situation with nowhere to go because the focus in the future will be on upgrading higher potential FB schools. They'll have to drop to FCS like Idaho did in this situation.

Or if there is a geographic reshuffle with a team like NIU going in on a conference with Tulsa/Arkansas State, Buffalo/Ohio heading East and Toledo/Miami grabbing spots in CUSA with WKU/MTSU in that conference. It tears up the MAC forcing an exodus of the better football schools to the SBC which leave EMU without a seat in it.

Extreme scenarios but you never know.

EMU will be saved by geography. Either they drop football altogether, or they stay FBS. There is no FCS conference that will save EMU money.

(09-01-2016 08:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-01-2016 09:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  As to Idaho.

Their result was earned. They entered FBS trying to scheme the rule book, they wanted to play one season at Washington State declare attendance made and reclassify. NCAA held them as firmly as they could making them play there for four years.

Since 1995 they have failed to address their stadium issues. They can't fix geography, they are 1000 miles from the closest Sun Belt school (NMSU and they were booted as well). They had the opportunity while in the WAC to demonstrate to western peers they were serious about their athletic program and be in the MWC mix, and they failed to accomplish that.

Is an Idaho type fate in EMU's future?

Let's say after the raid by the B12 is done, the MWC and AAC decided they'll both expand to 16 and join forces on a "G5" network that will bring more revenue with all of the inventory.

B12 (UH, UM, UC, UConn)
AAC (Rice, AState, NIU, Toledo, Buffalo, UMass, ODU, FIU)
MWC (UTEP, UTSA, TxSt, UNT)

That could squeeze CUSA/MAC/SBC greatly by losing 10-12 of their best programs the MWC/CUSA. The remaining MAC and SBC jump into CUSA to try to make a third serious G5 conference with 12 teams.

CUSA (Ohio, Miami, Ball St, Georgia St)

That leaves the MAC with 6 schools (BG, EMU, CMU, WMU, UA, KSU) and the SBC with 7 (ULM, ULL, Troy, USA, GaSo, Coastal, App) giving the SBC the upper hand.

The SBC decides to just add 4 schools (BG, UA, CMU, WMU) with good football from the MAC, bring up EKU as a FB only school to get back to 12.

EMU and Kent are then in an Idaho situation with nowhere to go because the focus in the future will be on upgrading higher potential FB schools. They'll have to drop to FCS like Idaho did in this situation.

Or if there is a geographic reshuffle with a team like NIU going in on a conference with Tulsa/Arkansas State, Buffalo/Ohio heading East and Toledo/Miami grabbing spots in CUSA with WKU/MTSU in that conference. It tears up the MAC forcing an exodus of the better football schools to the SBC which leave EMU without a seat in it.

Extreme scenarios but you never know.

Wow!
Reading your post is like going back in time and talking to hippies at Woodstock. You are seriously high on something psychotropic.

How many mushrooms does one school have to pop to want to join CUSA?

(09-01-2016 08:10 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(09-01-2016 08:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-01-2016 09:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  As to Idaho.

Their result was earned. They entered FBS trying to scheme the rule book, they wanted to play one season at Washington State declare attendance made and reclassify. NCAA held them as firmly as they could making them play there for four years.

Since 1995 they have failed to address their stadium issues. They can't fix geography, they are 1000 miles from the closest Sun Belt school (NMSU and they were booted as well). They had the opportunity while in the WAC to demonstrate to western peers they were serious about their athletic program and be in the MWC mix, and they failed to accomplish that.

Is an Idaho type fate in EMU's future?

Let's say after the raid by the B12 is done, the MWC and AAC decided they'll both expand to 16 and join forces on a "G5" network that will bring more revenue with all of the inventory.

B12 (UH, UM, UC, UConn)
AAC (Rice, AState, NIU, Toledo, Buffalo, UMass, ODU, FIU)
MWC (UTEP, UTSA, TxSt, UNT)

That could squeeze CUSA/MAC/SBC greatly by losing 10-12 of their best programs the MWC/CUSA. The remaining MAC and SBC jump into CUSA to try to make a third serious G5 conference with 12 teams.

CUSA (Ohio, Miami, Ball St, Georgia St)

That leaves the MAC with 6 schools (BG, EMU, CMU, WMU, UA, KSU) and the SBC with 7 (ULM, ULL, Troy, USA, GaSo, Coastal, App) giving the SBC the upper hand.

The SBC decides to just add 4 schools (BG, UA, CMU, WMU) with good football from the MAC, bring up EKU as a FB only school to get back to 12.

EMU and Kent are then in an Idaho situation with nowhere to go because the focus in the future will be on upgrading higher potential FB schools. They'll have to drop to FCS like Idaho did in this situation.

Or if there is a geographic reshuffle with a team like NIU going in on a conference with Tulsa/Arkansas State, Buffalo/Ohio heading East and Toledo/Miami grabbing spots in CUSA with WKU/MTSU in that conference. It tears up the MAC forcing an exodus of the better football schools to the SBC which leave EMU without a seat in it.

Extreme scenarios but you never know.

Wow!
Reading your post is like going back in time and talking to hippies at Woodstock. You are seriously high on something psychotropic.

How many mushrooms does one school have to pop to want to join CUSA?

It's Kit Kat, what else do you expect?

(09-01-2016 08:09 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  EMU will be saved by geography. Either they drop football altogether, or they stay FBS. There is no FCS conference that will save EMU money.

The NMSU scenario.

New Mexico State is so far away from Big Sky and Southland schools that FCS isn't viable.

I can't see any way FCS works for EMU unless it is non-scholie football.