Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
G5 has no regrets
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,747
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #21
RE: G5 has no regrets
I was an advocate of Arkansas State's move from I-AA to I-A. But the university waited longer than I thought prudent and we got into a hellacious situation moving just as a coaching era was ending and not making a really good hire.

Arkansas State would have eventually dropped football had we remained I-AA because the fan interest wasn't there.

By the same token, but for the NCAA changes to I-A membership we would have dropped football in I-A as well.

It was only when our administration was forced to fund 85 scholarships in football and play at least five at home (which was much more significant when it was an 11 game schedule, it at a minimum should be 11 home games over a rolling two year period, if not 6).

That things got better. There were years of mediocrity after the change with several 6-6 seasons, but season ticket numbers started growing. Just offering mediocre football under the FBS banner sold better.

I think we have a real problem in the marketplace of fans thinking of the divisions as analogous to MLB, AAA, AA, A baseball when each classification is a choice of selecting the grouping that fits the needs of the school.

I believe there is a tremendous amount of voodoo economics used to support being Division I.

In basketball Division I is so large the perception claims are pretty much bogus. If you aren't drawing a decent crowd on your own or making regular trips to the Dance you are not getting millions in publicity for your expenditure.

In football there is currently enough scarcity that there is some publicity value but I think it is over-stated.

Last time there was serious(sort of) saber rattling of a power group breakaway a long-time administrator told me that he could write down the names of 100 to 120 schools where the president would be absolutely relieved if it were to happen because that would mean they would have cover for finally getting athletic spending to a level appropriate for the institution.

64 public colleges rely on the school's finances and student fees cover 75 cents of every athletic dollar spent.

Who knows how many privates are in a similar situation and deeming it marketing.

I don't believe for a minute that a majority of the presidents and chancellors at those schools thinks it is the highest and best use of the money but they understand that if they try to bring it into something more defensible that fans and many alums will demand their head on a pike.
01-22-2018 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,106
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 356
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #22
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 10:35 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 08:41 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Almost everyone who plays in the Sun Belt and CUSA moved up from the FCS and I don’t think a single school except for Idaho obviously would entertain going back.

From a Georgia Southern perspective, we only entered the FBS a few years ago, but our athletic budget has doubled, we’ve added almost 10k seats to our stadium and fill it regularly, and we get more national recognition now than we did even when playing FCS National Championship games.

However, we didn’t move up for that. We moved up to be in the same subdivision as our peer schools. ECU, App State, MTSU, Troy, Texas State, Southern Miss, etc are all listed as our peer institutions and almost all of them are schools we used to play at the D1-AA level before they moved up. That left us as a large public school with 21k (soon to be 28k) students playing in a subdivision dominated by small private colleges with 4-5k students. It was a no brainer to make the decision to move up with our peer schools and I’m glad we did.

Umm... ECU is not a peer. We are a 30,000 student school, with a Medical and several doctoral and master programs.

Our Peer institutions
Central Michigan University
East Tennessee State University
FIU
NIU
Ohio University
Old Dominion University
Southern Illinois University - Carbondale
Texas Tech University
University at Buffalo (SUNY)*
University of Louisville*
University of Missouri - Kansas City
University of Nevada - Reno
University of North Dakota
University of South Carolina - Columbia*
University of Southern Mississippi
Virginia Commonwealth University
Western Michigan University
Wright State University - Main Campus

Why the star/asterisks?
01-22-2018 03:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,706
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 906
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #23
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 01:24 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 10:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 08:41 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Almost everyone who plays in the Sun Belt and CUSA moved up from the FCS and I don’t think a single school except for Idaho obviously would entertain going back.

From a Georgia Southern perspective, we only entered the FBS a few years ago, but our athletic budget has doubled, we’ve added almost 10k seats to our stadium and fill it regularly, and we get more national recognition now than we did even when playing FCS National Championship games.

Georgia Southern just moved up to FBS so you guys are still in the Honeymoon Phase, where alumni are excited and donations are pouring in. That's good.

But it's also true that compared to 5 years ago, you guys are soaking the academic side for $10m more a year, subsidies have risen from $7m to $17m in that time, out-stripping even the growing revenue increases from licensing, donations and ticket sales.

In terms of real revenue - meaning revenue actually generated by football, such as donations and ticket sales - you guys are on a growth trajectory right now, and if the growth continues, you will be an FBS success story. But if that stagnates such that the "growth" is just robbing Peter to pay Paul (student fees/transfers), it will be another failure.

We'll see. 07-coffee3

While it's true that students have incurred extra fees during our move-up, it's nothing that the students themselves didn't vote for. There was a campus wide vote of students and faculty to approve the move to FBS that needed a 60% majority to pass. The subsequent FBS fee and stadium expansion fee that were added on top of the athletic fee were approved by student council.

Even though the expenses of athletics have risen since the move up, our academics haven't suffered at all. They've honestly gotten better since. We've raised our academic requirements and and began expanding our academic facilities investing over 150M in the last few years on new buildings and equipment that has turned GSU into the only public research hub south of Atlanta. We haven't even begun the South Campus expansion which will almost double the size of our main campus.

Student votes on these fees are, IMO, problematic for a number of reasons. One is that a significant portion of students might still end up paying for something that they don't want to, and since the program in question isn't about the academic mission, shouldn't have to. E.g., the vote to pass the fee is 60% in favor, 40% against, but the fee is imposed on 100% of students. Much better if those who want a football program pay for it, those who don't, don't.

Second, in a lot of cases these votes have kangaroo qualities. They might be non-binding, meaning the admins will do what they want anyway, or else if the admins lose a vote, then they just keep scheduling them until them until they pass. The pro-fee side gets do-overs.

Third, a lot of times these votes are like votes in communist countries - one person, one vote, one time, because once we win the vote, there won't be any more after that. Once the fee is passed, students may never get a chance vote on it again, or maybe not for many years later, meaning the fee doesn't have a mandate among current students, but it is imposed anyway.

Finally, students are often voting for fees they won't personally have to pay, or at least not much. E.g., seniors and even juniors with just a semester or two left on campus can feel freer to vote for a fee that is going to be imposed until once they are gone, or almost gone. They pass the real costs on to the students who come after. I recall something like that when I was USF. There was an expansion of a student center or something that the admins wanted to build, and they wanted student government to kick in money via a fee. I was an upper-classman with bills to pay and didn't think the expansion was needed, but when i found out the fee would go into effect after i graduated, it was like "Sure, why not"?

Also, it's great news that GS's research capabilities are improving, thanks to big capital expenditures. But whatever the money spent, there would be $10m more of it without the big ramp-up in FBS related fees and transfers. That's not chump change. Enrollment doesn't seem to have grown since the move to FBS, but maybe it will.

Like i said, IMO the jury is out on the move to FBS. It's too soon to tell. Hopefully, it works out well for you. 04-cheers


With respect to student fees---any student at a school when a fee is enacted is stuck with the fees---but at least they had the chance to vote. Those students arriving after the vote dont get a say, but they are aware of the fee before they enroll. Students not interested in athletics or with an intrinsic belief that student fees should not be directed toward athletic endeavors can choose a school with no athletic fees or no athletics at all.

There are many many schools that do not have athletic departments. Thats the choice. Frankly, most any school with any sort of athletics is using money from students to fund the department unless it is completely self supporting (which is rare at any level). So, students that dont want to support athletics in any way, probably are limited to a handful of big earning P5 schools or schools with no athletic department.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018 03:55 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-22-2018 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,106
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 356
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #24
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 02:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 12:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  Georgia Southern is one of the few recent moveups that I thought made sense. They don't have pro competition. They are a decent sized school in a good sized growing state. They had success at FCS. There's nobody else in the southern half of the state. They are in a really good area for talent. And there is really only one other school that is competition for fans in their area-UGA. Georgia Tech's appeal is fairly limited since it is much smaller and historically used to be pretty much just an engineering school.

All the rest sounds good, except for the bolded part. That's like me being locked in a cage with a 900-pound gorilla, and someone on the outside saying "well, you should be optimistic, because there really is only one other creature in that cage you have to compete with to get out" ... 07-coffee3

You make it sound like they can't carve their own niche.
01-22-2018 04:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Online
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 42
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #25
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 03:21 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 08:41 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Almost everyone who plays in the Sun Belt and CUSA moved up from the FCS and I don’t think a single school except for Idaho obviously would entertain going back.

From a Georgia Southern perspective, we only entered the FBS a few years ago, but our athletic budget has doubled, we’ve added almost 10k seats to our stadium and fill it regularly, and we get more national recognition now than we did even when playing FCS National Championship games.

However, we didn’t move up for that. We moved up to be in the same subdivision as our peer schools. ECU, App State, MTSU, Troy, Texas State, Southern Miss, etc are all listed as our peer institutions and almost all of them are schools we used to play at the D1-AA level before they moved up. That left us as a large public school with 21k (soon to be 28k) students playing in a subdivision dominated by small private colleges with 4-5k students. It was a no brainer to make the decision to move up with our peer schools and I’m glad we did.

That is it on a nail head. We consider ourselves a national research institution and aspire to be AAU. We've been a top 30 public research university for the past 4 years. Almost everybody in that club is FBS. You can argue all you want about who our peers are, but we moved up to be like our peers.

To add on to that... finances don't seem to be a problem. A study by the Pioneer Institute's states that student fees at the University of Massachusetts have increased from $6.662M in FY2004 to $8.151M in FY2015. And although PI (a right-wing think tank that's been in the center of several scandals in Massachusetts) attempts to criticize the athletic department's "out of control finances", that's an increase less than ******* inflation (which would be $8.51M). Additionally, those fees when spread out among our 30,037 students at Amherst (Fall 2016 most recent available data) come to ~$270 or about 0.8% of the cost of attendance for in-state students and 0.5% for out-of-state students. While the cost of D1 athletics is currently not financed by the system, with 74,496 students in the system we could potentially drop that number to ~$100.

And as I said, the student fees have nothing to do with FBS vs FCS as we were paying MORE in student fees during FCS if you adjust for inflation. Similarly, our entire athletics budget accounts for only 3% of our entire budget (Amherst) and (if financed by system in the future) 1% of the system budget. Football (only $8M budget) accounts for only 0.6% of the Amherst budget and (if financed by system in the future) 0.2% of the University of Massachusetts system budget.

Further, the argument cannot be made that taxpayers are holding the, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent burden. The state only supports 22% of the University of Massachusetts system's revenue, meaning that dropping football would save the median family (income of $75,297) only $0.05 on their taxes, yes, 5 ******* cents.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018 05:21 PM by McKinney.)
01-22-2018 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,707
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 127
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #26
RE: G5 has no regrets
The athletic fee argument about not going to any sports events is the same as the business major paying fees for new science labs. Almost no student utilizes ever thing they are paying fees for. It use to be a lot worst at UMass, because tuition went back to the state's general fund, but fees stayed at the university. It seemed like we were paying a fee for every new building.
01-22-2018 06:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,808
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #27
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 06:23 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The athletic fee argument about not going to any sports events is the same as the business major paying fees for new science labs. Almost no student utilizes ever thing they are paying fees for. It use to be a lot worst at UMass, because tuition went back to the state's general fund, but fees stayed at the university. It seemed like we were paying a fee for every new building.

It's not the same, because a science lab is clearly a component of the academic mission, whereas the football team isn't. It's therefore reasonable to expect all students, even those whose major will never bring them to the Science building, to kick in for the former. But not the latter.

Football or any other intercollegiate sport is precisely the kind of peripheral/tangential activity that should be paid for with user fees.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018 09:12 PM by quo vadis.)
01-22-2018 09:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,210
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 426
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #28
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 09:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:23 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The athletic fee argument about not going to any sports events is the same as the business major paying fees for new science labs. Almost no student utilizes ever thing they are paying fees for. It use to be a lot worst at UMass, because tuition went back to the state's general fund, but fees stayed at the university. It seemed like we were paying a fee for every new building.

It's not the same, because a science lab is clearly a component of the academic mission, whereas the football team isn't. It's therefore reasonable to expect all students, even those whose major will never bring them to the Science building, to kick in for the former. But not the latter.

Football or any other intercollegiate sport is precisely the kind of peripheral/tangential activity that should be paid for with user fees.

This.

Its certainly easier for an English major to access a Biology class than it is for a non-athletic student (or non-traditional student) to access most of the benefits of football (or athletics period).
01-22-2018 09:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,106
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 356
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #29
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 09:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:23 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The athletic fee argument about not going to any sports events is the same as the business major paying fees for new science labs. Almost no student utilizes ever thing they are paying fees for. It use to be a lot worst at UMass, because tuition went back to the state's general fund, but fees stayed at the university. It seemed like we were paying a fee for every new building.

It's not the same, because a science lab is clearly a component of the academic mission, whereas the football team isn't. It's therefore reasonable to expect all students, even those whose major will never bring them to the Science building, to kick in for the former. But not the latter.

Football or any other intercollegiate sport is precisely the kind of peripheral/tangential activity that should be paid for with user fees.

But it's something that brings people to colleges and amenities they enjoy. It's no different than a publicly financed sports stadium or even just a public park or pool.
01-22-2018 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,808
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #30
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 01:24 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 10:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 08:41 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Almost everyone who plays in the Sun Belt and CUSA moved up from the FCS and I don’t think a single school except for Idaho obviously would entertain going back.

From a Georgia Southern perspective, we only entered the FBS a few years ago, but our athletic budget has doubled, we’ve added almost 10k seats to our stadium and fill it regularly, and we get more national recognition now than we did even when playing FCS National Championship games.

Georgia Southern just moved up to FBS so you guys are still in the Honeymoon Phase, where alumni are excited and donations are pouring in. That's good.

But it's also true that compared to 5 years ago, you guys are soaking the academic side for $10m more a year, subsidies have risen from $7m to $17m in that time, out-stripping even the growing revenue increases from licensing, donations and ticket sales.

In terms of real revenue - meaning revenue actually generated by football, such as donations and ticket sales - you guys are on a growth trajectory right now, and if the growth continues, you will be an FBS success story. But if that stagnates such that the "growth" is just robbing Peter to pay Paul (student fees/transfers), it will be another failure.

We'll see. 07-coffee3

While it's true that students have incurred extra fees during our move-up, it's nothing that the students themselves didn't vote for. There was a campus wide vote of students and faculty to approve the move to FBS that needed a 60% majority to pass. The subsequent FBS fee and stadium expansion fee that were added on top of the athletic fee were approved by student council.

Even though the expenses of athletics have risen since the move up, our academics haven't suffered at all. They've honestly gotten better since. We've raised our academic requirements and and began expanding our academic facilities investing over 150M in the last few years on new buildings and equipment that has turned GSU into the only public research hub south of Atlanta. We haven't even begun the South Campus expansion which will almost double the size of our main campus.

Student votes on these fees are, IMO, problematic for a number of reasons. One is that a significant portion of students might still end up paying for something that they don't want to, and since the program in question isn't about the academic mission, shouldn't have to. E.g., the vote to pass the fee is 60% in favor, 40% against, but the fee is imposed on 100% of students. Much better if those who want a football program pay for it, those who don't, don't.

Second, in a lot of cases these votes have kangaroo qualities. They might be non-binding, meaning the admins will do what they want anyway, or else if the admins lose a vote, then they just keep scheduling them until them until they pass. The pro-fee side gets do-overs.

Third, a lot of times these votes are like votes in communist countries - one person, one vote, one time, because once we win the vote, there won't be any more after that. Once the fee is passed, students may never get a chance vote on it again, or maybe not for many years later, meaning the fee doesn't have a mandate among current students, but it is imposed anyway.

Finally, students are often voting for fees they won't personally have to pay, or at least not much. E.g., seniors and even juniors with just a semester or two left on campus can feel freer to vote for a fee that is going to be imposed until once they are gone, or almost gone. They pass the real costs on to the students who come after. I recall something like that when I was USF. There was an expansion of a student center or something that the admins wanted to build, and they wanted student government to kick in money via a fee. I was an upper-classman with bills to pay and didn't think the expansion was needed, but when i found out the fee would go into effect after i graduated, it was like "Sure, why not"?

Also, it's great news that GS's research capabilities are improving, thanks to big capital expenditures. But whatever the money spent, there would be $10m more of it without the big ramp-up in FBS related fees and transfers. That's not chump change. Enrollment doesn't seem to have grown since the move to FBS, but maybe it will.

Like i said, IMO the jury is out on the move to FBS. It's too soon to tell. Hopefully, it works out well for you. 04-cheers


With respect to student fees---any student at a school when a fee is enacted is stuck with the fees---but at least they had the chance to vote. Those students arriving after the vote dont get a say, but they are aware of the fee before they enroll. Students not interested in athletics or with an intrinsic belief that student fees should not be directed toward athletic endeavors can choose a school with no athletic fees or no athletics at all.

That's not rational. If I am a Drama major and think school X with massive student fees supporting football is the best place for me to develop my craft, it would be silly for me to go elsewhere over that issue. Plus, it's wrong for an institution of higher learning to hold a student's choice hostage like that, putting them in the position of having to choose between something mission-central and football.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018 09:35 PM by quo vadis.)
01-22-2018 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.