(01-21-2018 11:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 07:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 06:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 05:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 05:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Because they're doing the same thing that you did in that sentence: They're thinking that university prestige is the same thing as football program prestige. It's not. Obviously an FBS football program has more prestige than an FCS football program if the two programs are at a comparable level of success, but there are many universities without FBS football, many without varsity football at all, that are very prestigious. Having a football program that is more prestigious than the one at Georgetown or William & Mary (for example) is not the same as having a university that is more prestigious than Georgetown or William & Mary.

A lot of university administrators would serve their universities better if they devoted more time, effort, and resources to improving the university, even though that is a lot more work and a lot less fun than strutting the sidelines with an FBS football team and high-fiving the mascot. And yes, I realize that a sports message board is not the best place to find people who agree with this comment.


North Dakota State's annual athletic budget is only about $25 million. They spend less than just about every FBS program other than Louisiana-Monroe, and they have 6 FCS national titles in the last 7 years.

Exactly. Five national titles---yet most people dont know about those titles or care. They could be the NDSU Giraffes for all most people know about them.

For a few million more the FBS schools get the extra exposure, the prestige, and perception of being one of just 130 FBS universities in the country. Thats basically a full nationwide advertising program for a couple of extra million. Frankly, I dont think its even a very difficult decision for most university administrators and its the reason the flow of schools is into FBS from FCS and not the other way around. Its simply doesnt cost that much more to be FBS. FBS schools are much better off to simply trim their budgets, reorganize into tighter conferences with cheaper travel costs, and try to increase ticket revenue than to move to FCS.

If you want to really cut athletic costs signifcantly, you have to drop football. Its as simple as that.

You are vastly overestimating the value of the exposure to people who don't care about college football, either that or you are vastly overestimating the number of people who care about college football. The folks who faithfully watch every single bowl game, sure, they might think they'd rather be in the Cure Bowl than the FCS championship. People who don't follow sports don't give a flip about either one. They're not going to steer their kids away from Johns Hopkins or Carnegie Mellon just because neither has a big-time football team.

Yes, not having varsity football at all is a much larger savings. But saying that you might as well spend more for a middling FBS program instead of having a really good FCS team doesn't make the more expensive investment a better investment. It's like saying that, sure, a long-term bank loan on a $25,000 Chevy isn't the best deal financially, so why not take out a long-term loan on a $50,000 Cadillac instead?

And I bet a lot more people have heard of North Dakota St. than UL-Monroe. A lot probably can't distinguish between ULM, ULL and La Tech.

My guess is they do know ULM and they know the difference between ULM, ULL, and LaTech. But, lets say your right----I bet they do know the difference between those 3 and McNeese....and thats what really matters.

But there are other ways to gain prominence than football. You could do it in basketball too. I would agree that for many schools, if you're paying for football, you might as well be FBS. And ULM is a really bad example if someone is trying to argue (not you) about schools that might be better off moving down to FCS ....ULM gets the benefits of being FBS with a FCS budget. They have the lowest subsidy (in total dollars - not on a per student per year basis) of any public institution in the G5 (and far lower than many P5 schools). They do more with less. Next year, they'll be bowling.

Heck, ULM plays FBS for the cost of FCS/Southland play.

(01-21-2018 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 11:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 07:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 06:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 05:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. Five national titles---yet most people dont know about those titles or care. They could be the NDSU Giraffes for all most people know about them.

For a few million more the FBS schools get the extra exposure, the prestige, and perception of being one of just 130 FBS universities in the country. Thats basically a full nationwide advertising program for a couple of extra million. Frankly, I dont think its even a very difficult decision for most university administrators and its the reason the flow of schools is into FBS from FCS and not the other way around. Its simply doesnt cost that much more to be FBS. FBS schools are much better off to simply trim their budgets, reorganize into tighter conferences with cheaper travel costs, and try to increase ticket revenue than to move to FCS.

If you want to really cut athletic costs signifcantly, you have to drop football. Its as simple as that.

You are vastly overestimating the value of the exposure to people who don't care about college football, either that or you are vastly overestimating the number of people who care about college football. The folks who faithfully watch every single bowl game, sure, they might think they'd rather be in the Cure Bowl than the FCS championship. People who don't follow sports don't give a flip about either one. They're not going to steer their kids away from Johns Hopkins or Carnegie Mellon just because neither has a big-time football team.

Yes, not having varsity football at all is a much larger savings. But saying that you might as well spend more for a middling FBS program instead of having a really good FCS team doesn't make the more expensive investment a better investment. It's like saying that, sure, a long-term bank loan on a $25,000 Chevy isn't the best deal financially, so why not take out a long-term loan on a $50,000 Cadillac instead?

And I bet a lot more people have heard of North Dakota St. than UL-Monroe. A lot probably can't distinguish between ULM, ULL and La Tech.

My guess is they do know ULM and they know the difference between ULM, ULL, and LaTech. But, lets say your right----I bet they do know the difference between those 3 and McNeese....and thats what really matters.

But there are other ways to gain prominence than football. You could do it in basketball too. I would agree that for many schools, if you're paying for football, you might as well be FBS. And ULM is a really bad example if someone is trying to argue (not you) about schools that might be better off moving down to FCS ....ULM gets the benefits of being FBS with a FCS budget. They have the lowest subsidy (in total dollars - not on a per student per year basis) of any public institution in the G5 (and far lower than many P5 schools). They do more with less. Next year, they'll be bowling.

Heck, ULM plays FBS for the cost of FCS/Southland play.

Yup. Really hard to argue they would be better off moving down.

I think you can try to gain prominence with basketball, but there are 350 or so D1 universities playing D1 basketball. You kind of put yourself into an exclusive club when you FBS as there is only 130 schools that play football at that level. To many in the general public--its a sign of being a "big time" school (whether it really means that or not is another argument, but the perception exists).

(01-21-2018 11:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 11:11 PM)NoDak Wrote:  This article shows why FBS to FCS dont happen more

http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/c...021768001/

If a low level bowl is worth $24 million for NMSU in earned media for just one game, NMSU would be bat sh*t crazy to drop to FCS. The regular season games more than double that. Idaho will be returning too when it gets appropriate conference partners.

NMSU's athletic department has been losing close to 20 million a year for years now. They have no football home. They have no bowl agreements. Their other sports reside in a terrible conference possibly because other conferences are terrified of their 'flight risk' status resulting from their strong need to find a football home. Heck, they might end up being in a conference with no NCAA autobid.

So yes, NMSU had a good year. Their first good year in decades. How much money did NMSU spend over the years in order to get that 24 million dollars of unearned media.

And there's an issue with unearned media. Some of it is valuable, but a lot of it isn't. You don't get to control who you target with that media (unlike paid media).

I agree with you that FCS is not really much of a solution in many cases. But for NMSU, which really needs to find a Olympic sports home that is more stable than the WAC. Perhaps the Southland or Big Sky could be a landing spot.

NMSU has a choice. As do other FBS and FCS schools. How much is football worth? 100 million over 5 years? Destroying your Olympic sports?

The problem is that NMSU is not really close to anyone in the Big Sky or Southland. They're kinda close to NoCol and Northern Arizona but that's it. They're kinda close to Abeliene Christian. It'd be a way better idea if they tried to stuck with UTEP or New Mexico if at all possible. Their football is a joke, so maybe it's just time to hang it up.

(01-22-2018 01:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 11:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 07:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 06:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You are vastly overestimating the value of the exposure to people who don't care about college football, either that or you are vastly overestimating the number of people who care about college football. The folks who faithfully watch every single bowl game, sure, they might think they'd rather be in the Cure Bowl than the FCS championship. People who don't follow sports don't give a flip about either one. They're not going to steer their kids away from Johns Hopkins or Carnegie Mellon just because neither has a big-time football team.

Yes, not having varsity football at all is a much larger savings. But saying that you might as well spend more for a middling FBS program instead of having a really good FCS team doesn't make the more expensive investment a better investment. It's like saying that, sure, a long-term bank loan on a $25,000 Chevy isn't the best deal financially, so why not take out a long-term loan on a $50,000 Cadillac instead?

And I bet a lot more people have heard of North Dakota St. than UL-Monroe. A lot probably can't distinguish between ULM, ULL and La Tech.

My guess is they do know ULM and they know the difference between ULM, ULL, and LaTech. But, lets say your right----I bet they do know the difference between those 3 and McNeese....and thats what really matters.

But there are other ways to gain prominence than football. You could do it in basketball too. I would agree that for many schools, if you're paying for football, you might as well be FBS. And ULM is a really bad example if someone is trying to argue (not you) about schools that might be better off moving down to FCS ....ULM gets the benefits of being FBS with a FCS budget. They have the lowest subsidy (in total dollars - not on a per student per year basis) of any public institution in the G5 (and far lower than many P5 schools). They do more with less. Next year, they'll be bowling.

Heck, ULM plays FBS for the cost of FCS/Southland play.

Yup. Really hard to argue they would be better off moving down.

I think you can try to gain prominence with basketball, but there are 350 or so D1 universities playing D1 basketball. You kind of put yourself into an exclusive club when you FBS as there is only 130 schools that play football at that level. To many in the general public--its a sign of being a "big time" school (whether it really means that or not is another argument, but the perception exists).

ULM has a real problem. Financially the whole institution is struggling. I have read they are 65% female so they have Title IX problems. They are spending so little because that's all they can do and even that is too much.

(01-22-2018 01:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Heck, ULM plays FBS for the cost of FCS/Southland play.

Yup. Really hard to argue they would be better off moving down.

Schools that are efficient with FBS, that really are doing it on an FCS budget, are almost surely better off remaining in FBS, because of the additional CFP revenues for FBS.

But so many aren't. Many FBS schools are like UMass, spending a good $10 million more a year than when they were FCS while drawing 17,000 fans a game.

For those schools, there is virtually zero chance any FBS benefits come to anywhere near the extra $10m in real dollars they are losing each year. They should go back to FCS.

(01-21-2018 11:11 PM)NoDak Wrote:  This article shows why FBS to FCS dont happen more

http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/c...021768001/

If a low level bowl is worth $24 million for NMSU in earned media for just one game, NMSU would be bat sh*t crazy to drop to FCS. The regular season games more than double that. Idaho will be returning too when it gets appropriate conference partners.

Problem with this analysis is even if the study is correct, just because you spend $24m on media doesn't mean you reap that in benefits, which is the real issue. E.g., this year Warner Bros spent $100 million on marketing to sell their "Justice League" movie, but as of now it hasn't broken even. Money lost. We can look at NMSU enrollment and donation patterns to see if benefits are being reaped.

In contrast, if NMSU spends $10m more on FBS football than they would if they are FCS, then that's real money down the drain, bottom line money.

(01-19-2018 06:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why would an obvious Big 10 candidate consider FCS?

We may chuckle at this statement but Buffalo could grow significantly with Big Ten resources. UB is a good school and fits the Big Ten profile.

(01-22-2018 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 11:11 PM)NoDak Wrote:  This article shows why FBS to FCS dont happen more

http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/c...021768001/

If a low level bowl is worth $24 million for NMSU in earned media for just one game, NMSU would be bat sh*t crazy to drop to FCS. The regular season games more than double that. Idaho will be returning too when it gets appropriate conference partners.

Problem with this analysis is even if the study is correct, just because you spend $24m on media doesn't mean you reap that in benefits, which is the real issue. E.g., this year Warner Bros spent $100 million on marketing to sell their "Justice League" movie, but as of now it hasn't broken even. Money lost. We can look at NMSU enrollment and donation patterns to see if benefits are being reaped.

In contrast, if NMSU spends $10m more on FBS football than they would if they are FCS, then that's real money down the drain, bottom line money.

NMSU is an interesting case. Unlike Idaho, they really don’t have a nearby FCS conference home that’s a reasonably good fit. They are probably better off riding this out as an FBS indy until the mid 2020’s and seeing if a spot pops open for them in the MW. If that doesn’t happen, thier football program might be in real long term danger of remaining viable.

(01-22-2018 10:07 AM)chess Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 06:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why would an obvious Big 10 candidate consider FCS?

We may chuckle at this statement but Buffalo could grow significantly with Big Ten resources. UB is a good school and fits the Big Ten profile.

The reason we chuckle is because ... well, the idea doesn't pass the chuckle test.

(01-22-2018 11:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 11:11 PM)NoDak Wrote:  This article shows why FBS to FCS dont happen more

http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/c...021768001/

If a low level bowl is worth $24 million for NMSU in earned media for just one game, NMSU would be bat sh*t crazy to drop to FCS. The regular season games more than double that. Idaho will be returning too when it gets appropriate conference partners.

Problem with this analysis is even if the study is correct, just because you spend $24m on media doesn't mean you reap that in benefits, which is the real issue. E.g., this year Warner Bros spent $100 million on marketing to sell their "Justice League" movie, but as of now it hasn't broken even. Money lost. We can look at NMSU enrollment and donation patterns to see if benefits are being reaped.

In contrast, if NMSU spends $10m more on FBS football than they would if they are FCS, then that's real money down the drain, bottom line money.

NMSU is an interesting case. Unlike Idaho, they really don’t have a nearby FCS conference home that’s a reasonably good fit. They are probably better off riding this out as an FBS indy until the mid 2020’s and seeing if a spot pops open for them in the MW. If that doesn’t happen, thier football program might be in real long term danger of remaining viable.

I agree with that. There's nothing wrong with making an investment if there is a reasonable foreseeable path to success. NMSU might have a reasonable path to joining the MW in the next few years, and if joining the MW would make the football program a profitable enterprise, then yes, enduring several years of losses now will pay off in the long run. Good investment.

But for many schools that have been flogging the FBS horse for a while now, it's clear that the investment has failed, but there is a tenacity in holding on to it anyway.

(01-21-2018 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 06:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 05:43 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 08:55 PM)panama Wrote:  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.

If it was obviously "a better deal" than FBS then far more G5 administrators would move to FCS. Thats the only objective measure available.

The fact that there is no mass movement from the G5 to FCS is clear evidence its NOT "obviously a better deal". In fact, the evidence is that administrators see even the G5 as being a BETTER deal than FCS as we see FAR more movement of FCS schools to the G5 than we see G5 schools moving to FCS.

The problem Idaho had was they were not an attractive expansion target for any FBS conference and were located in an relatively isolated portion of the county for FBS programs. Indy life was going to be very difficult for Idaho. In thier case, there was a potentially attractive FCS alternative that actually was marginally more attractive as it offered good rivals that were reasonably familiar to Idaho fans. Its a huge mistake to try to use Idaho's very unique situation extrapolate FCS as a more attractive option for most G5's. Honestly, most of FCS football is more comparable to the bottom 100 teams in D1 basketball than it is to the typical G5.

Groupthink is a real thing.

And to some extent it is peers. I think Troy, USA and UAB would clearly be better off if all 3 were FCS or without football. But if only one moved down, would it be better? It would be a risk.

That is part of the equation, and for say, MAC schools, the compactness of the conference keeps it together, and costs/revenue equation probably wouldn't be too different at FCS vs FBS.

(01-21-2018 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 03:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If you're FBS, and you move down to FCS, you send a big signal to your donors that athletics isn't important. And if athletics isn't important, why is it important enough for them to cut checks?

That stops mattering if you don't have any meaningful donors cutting checks.

At a lot of the G5 schools, there really aren't a lot of meaningful alumni cutting checks anyway. That's why our programs run at huge deficits.

Besides if an alumni donating to the school's general fund is contingent on the school wasting more that the donation from the general fund to subsidize athletics....has that alumni really donated anything of value to the school?

Excellent point. The football program may have value to that alum, but overall, does it help the general student population?

(01-21-2018 04:41 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 01:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If it was obviously "a better deal" than FBS then far more G5 administrators would move to FCS. Thats the only objective measure available.

No, any "objective" financial factors are greatly outweighed by the massive ego and pride factors that make administrators want to be in charge of "an FBS institution" instead of an FCS school, or to be in charge of a "Division I university" rather than a school whose athletic programs compete in Division II or III.

You think that because of bias. The reality is that if my operating budget is 3/4 of a billion dollars to a billion dollars then paying 3% to 5% of that as a marketing cost center is not a big deal to me. Again, people are paid a lot of money to analyze and make decisions on their university futures. The amount of marketing you get from the university commercial at even the Cure Bowl is work millions. Even when you suck in FBS people are talking about your sucking. Nobody talks about FCS unless you're in some small town 250 miles from an FBS school.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Can you show your work? How many students will attend GaSt that would not have otherwise done so because of the Cure Bowl?




I would agree, though, that if GaState is going to have football, doing it at the FBS level is the proper place - that is the ONLY level that the football fans in the area would have a shred of interest in.

(01-22-2018 11:29 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 04:41 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 01:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If it was obviously "a better deal" than FBS then far more G5 administrators would move to FCS. Thats the only objective measure available.

No, any "objective" financial factors are greatly outweighed by the massive ego and pride factors that make administrators want to be in charge of "an FBS institution" instead of an FCS school, or to be in charge of a "Division I university" rather than a school whose athletic programs compete in Division II or III.

You think that because of bias. The reality is that if my operating budget is 3/4 of a billion dollars to a billion dollars then paying 3% to 5% of that as a marketing cost center is not a big deal to me. Again, people are paid a lot of money to analyze and make decisions on their university futures. The amount of marketing you get from the university commercial at even the Cure Bowl is work millions. Even when you suck in FBS people are talking about your sucking. Nobody talks about FCS unless you're in some small town 250 miles from an FBS school.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Can you show your work? How many students will attend GaSt that would not have otherwise done so because of the Cure Bowl?




I would agree, though, that if GaState is going to have football, doing it at the FBS level is the proper place - that is the ONLY level that the football fans in the area would have a shred of interest in.

Can you show how many people wouldnt have bought a Chevy without a Super Bowl Chevy commercial? I think your asking for data thats just not readily available. I think people understand that over a long period of time advertising is very good at creating and building a brand. I'd say for a university, that brand building takes a significant amount of time--but I think most would admit a Cure Bowl--that functioned as a highly watched 3 hour nationally televised infomercial on student life at GaState---was another nice step towards building the kind of brand GaState would like to establish.

(01-22-2018 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 11:29 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 04:41 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 01:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If it was obviously "a better deal" than FBS then far more G5 administrators would move to FCS. Thats the only objective measure available.

No, any "objective" financial factors are greatly outweighed by the massive ego and pride factors that make administrators want to be in charge of "an FBS institution" instead of an FCS school, or to be in charge of a "Division I university" rather than a school whose athletic programs compete in Division II or III.

You think that because of bias. The reality is that if my operating budget is 3/4 of a billion dollars to a billion dollars then paying 3% to 5% of that as a marketing cost center is not a big deal to me. Again, people are paid a lot of money to analyze and make decisions on their university futures. The amount of marketing you get from the university commercial at even the Cure Bowl is work millions. Even when you suck in FBS people are talking about your sucking. Nobody talks about FCS unless you're in some small town 250 miles from an FBS school.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Can you show your work? How many students will attend GaSt that would not have otherwise done so because of the Cure Bowl?




I would agree, though, that if GaState is going to have football, doing it at the FBS level is the proper place - that is the ONLY level that the football fans in the area would have a shred of interest in.

Can you show how many people wouldnt have bought a Chevy without a Super Bowl Chevy commercial? I think your asking for data thats just not readily available. I think people understand that over a long period of time advertising is very good at creating and building a brand. I'd say for a university, that brand building takes a significant amount of time--but I think most would admit a Cure Bowl--that functioned as a highly watched 3 hour nationally televised infomercial on student life at GaState---was another nice step towards building the kind of brand GaState would like to establish.

3 hour infomercial? Hardly. Ga State got what, a minute to showcase the university? And a very unfocused audience at that, mostly consisting of alums from the schools, and football junkies, lost in a sea of other bowl games.

Better than being Eastern New Mexico, which many doesn't even know exist. It's not everything but it helps.

FBS football has helped in my perception of Georgia State even if only slightly. But I no longer group it with schools like all of the Southland and Big South.

(01-22-2018 05:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 11:29 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 04:41 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 01:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  No, any "objective" financial factors are greatly outweighed by the massive ego and pride factors that make administrators want to be in charge of "an FBS institution" instead of an FCS school, or to be in charge of a "Division I university" rather than a school whose athletic programs compete in Division II or III.

You think that because of bias. The reality is that if my operating budget is 3/4 of a billion dollars to a billion dollars then paying 3% to 5% of that as a marketing cost center is not a big deal to me. Again, people are paid a lot of money to analyze and make decisions on their university futures. The amount of marketing you get from the university commercial at even the Cure Bowl is work millions. Even when you suck in FBS people are talking about your sucking. Nobody talks about FCS unless you're in some small town 250 miles from an FBS school.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Can you show your work? How many students will attend GaSt that would not have otherwise done so because of the Cure Bowl?




I would agree, though, that if GaState is going to have football, doing it at the FBS level is the proper place - that is the ONLY level that the football fans in the area would have a shred of interest in.

Can you show how many people wouldnt have bought a Chevy without a Super Bowl Chevy commercial? I think your asking for data thats just not readily available. I think people understand that over a long period of time advertising is very good at creating and building a brand. I'd say for a university, that brand building takes a significant amount of time--but I think most would admit a Cure Bowl--that functioned as a highly watched 3 hour nationally televised infomercial on student life at GaState---was another nice step towards building the kind of brand GaState would like to establish.

3 hour infomercial? Hardly. Ga State got what, a minute to showcase the university? And a very unfocused audience at that, mostly consisting of alums from the schools, and football junkies, lost in a sea of other bowl games.

No. You had a million+ watching. How many would have watched an infomercial on Georgia Sta? Nobody. But packaged in the way it is, it gets watched by a million people and it makes going to Georgia St look appealing. Thats all its about---and as an FBS member, its not the only time Georgia St is on national TV.

Heck, the one minute actual commercial is probably the most irrelevant part of the benefit to the school. The real benefit is being perceived as "big time" in comparison to other non-FBS schools by the general public. Overtime, that perception will become stronger and more widely held as the name is heard on more and more Saturday telecasts.

When I 1st moved to Atlanta in 2001. I had never heard of Georgia State...

They had no football. no presence...just a commuter school...

Football has help changed that... (along with them taking over the Olympic dorms and getting some students on campus...)

(01-19-2018 05:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  http://buffalonews.com/2018/01/18/bucky-...ty-for-ub/



Won't let me copy/paste.

This article is trash. The writer bashes UCF, and our athletic director Danny White (he was once UB's athletic director). Danny White hired Scott Frost and UCF football went 13-0 and was #6 in the nation. He also hire Johnny Dawkins who took us to the semifinals of the NIT in his 1st season as coach. Bucky Gleason is a hack. A few years ago UB got a ton of great press for going bowling and there was much discussion about how a UB football program back in the day was racially unified.... press like that is worth it's weight in gold.