Idaho & New Mexico State...

[kalm]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpa ... 4a10fd2ad8

[bluehenbillk]

The Ohio U professor gets a D for that article from me.

No difference in fundraising or sponsorship $$ from G5 schools & FCS? Yea. So App State has Miami(FL) coming to Boone to play football. They won't take advantage of that? They'll charge people the same for that game in advertising as they will for Savannah St or Presbyterian right? Yea, in Fantasyland maybe. If 30,000 people come to Boone for a weekend game normally how many will be there that weekend?

Go to a G5 game & tell me it's the same as your average FCS game...

[Aho Old Guy]

Without much investigation or knowledge of affiliations, I would think New Mexico State as a likely fit for Conference-USA --- the Sun Belt may have done them a favor

CUSA has 4 or 5 Texas members including UTEP, which IIRC has a long-standing rivalry with NMSU. They could be a good fit for a "West Division"

...If 30,000 people come to Boone for a weekend game normally how many will be there that weekend?...

Not sure if this is much of a surprise, but home attendance in Boone ain't doing so well (down 27% to be exact over the last 5 years). It's actually now below pre-2005 levels (avg 21,459 for 2015 including The Convicts).

The last time the Hillbillys had 30k was (drum roll, please) Sept 8, 2012, against Da Grizz.

No doubt there will be a big crowd for The-U but no amount of additional advertising revenues or national exposure will really make up for the loss of 8,000+ fans per home game over the last 5 years. It actually gets worse. Late season games against Western, Furman, et. al., would draw 29- to 30k fans. Last year in November, Arkansas State and LA-Lay drew 18,721 and 16,124.

[JohnStOnge]

From what I read Idaho did not want to lose the payouts to G-5 schools for body bag games with P-5 because they are significantly higher that what would be offered to FCS schools who are playing the same opponent. There is also the revenue sharing from any televised games, conference members in a bowl games and the revenue generated by the CFB playoffs and championship game is shared by all FBS teams (that is what I read).

The mythology about being FBS meaning being better off financially continues. See http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances. In the last year for which data are available, 2014, Idaho's athletic program lost $7.1 million on athletics while Idaho State's athletic program lost $5.4 million. That's taking account of the fact that "school funds" are listed as revenues. "School funds" are a cost to the school.

And BTW Boise State's athletic program lost $8.4 million in 2014.

In other words: The Division I school that did the best in terms of revenues - expenses with its athletic program last year was FCS Idaho State.

This thing of thinking that being FBS is a financial winner for schools outside of the Power 5 conferences and Notre Dame is SUCH a bunch of crap. People look at the revenues and forget about the expenses.

Ok. So Boise State's athletic program generated $37,323,056 outside of the funds the school had to kick in to balance the books while Idaho State's athletic program generated $7,046,464. People say "OH...look how much more revenue Boise State generated!"

The problem is that Boise State also had $45,680,801 in expenses while Idaho State had only $12,491,220. And $7,046,464 - $12,491,220 is a smaller loss than $37,323,056 - $45,680,801 is.

I can understand saying that Boise State having a 54% greater net loss on its athletic program than Idaho State has is worth it because it's like paying for publicity. But this stuff of saying Boise State does better financially with its athletic program because it's in FBS is complete nonsense. And of course the same is true of Idaho vs. Idaho State.

[kalm]

From what I read Idaho did not want to lose the payouts to G-5 schools for body bag games with P-5 because they are significantly higher that what would be offered to FCS schools who are playing the same opponent. There is also the revenue sharing from any televised games, conference members in a bowl games and the revenue generated by the CFB playoffs and championship game is shared by all FBS teams (that is what I read).

The mythology about being FBS meaning being better off financially continues. See http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances. In the last year for which data are available, 2014, Idaho's athletic program lost $7.1 million on athletics while Idaho State's athletic program lost $5.4 million. That's taking account of the fact that "school funds" are listed as revenues. "School funds" are a cost to the school.

And BTW Boise State's athletic program lost $8.4 million in 2014.

In other words: The Division I school that did the best in terms of revenues - expenses with its athletic program last year was FCS Idaho State.

This thing of thinking that being FBS is a financial winner for schools outside of the Power 5 conferences and Notre Dame is SUCH a bunch of crap. People look at the revenues and forget about the expenses.

Ok. So Boise State's athletic program generated $37,323,056 outside of the funds the school had to kick in to balance the books while Idaho State's athletic program generated $7,046,464. People say "OH...look how much more revenue Boise State generated!"

The problem is that Boise State also had $45,680,801 in expenses while Idaho State had only $12,491,220. And $7,046,464 - $12,491,220 is a smaller loss than $37,323,056 - $45,680,801 is.

I can understand saying that Boise State having a 54% greater net loss on its athletic program than Idaho State has is worth it because it's like paying for publicity. But this stuff of saying Boise State does better financially with its athletic program because it's in FBS is complete nonsense. And of course the same is true of Idaho vs. Idaho State.

Yeah!

[clenz]

From what I read Idaho did not want to lose the payouts to G-5 schools for body bag games with P-5 because they are significantly higher that what would be offered to FCS schools who are playing the same opponent. There is also the revenue sharing from any televised games, conference members in a bowl games and the revenue generated by the CFB playoffs and championship game is shared by all FBS teams (that is what I read).

The mythology about being FBS meaning being better off financially continues. See http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances. In the last year for which data are available, 2014, Idaho's athletic program lost $7.1 million on athletics while Idaho State's athletic program lost $5.4 million. That's taking account of the fact that "school funds" are listed as revenues. "School funds" are a cost to the school.

And BTW Boise State's athletic program lost $8.4 million in 2014.

In other words: The Division I school that did the best in terms of revenues - expenses with its athletic program last year was FCS Idaho State.

This thing of thinking that being FBS is a financial winner for schools outside of the Power 5 conferences and Notre Dame is SUCH a bunch of crap. People look at the revenues and forget about the expenses.

Ok. So Boise State's athletic program generated $37,323,056 outside of the funds the school had to kick in to balance the books while Idaho State's athletic program generated $7,046,464. People say "OH...look how much more revenue Boise State generated!"

The problem is that Boise State also had $45,680,801 in expenses while Idaho State had only $12,491,220. And $7,046,464 - $12,491,220 is a smaller loss than $37,323,056 - $45,680,801 is.

I can understand saying that Boise State having a 54% greater net loss on its athletic program than Idaho State has is worth it because it's like paying for publicity. But this stuff of saying Boise State does better financially with its athletic program because it's in FBS is complete nonsense. And of course the same is true of Idaho vs. Idaho State.

Also only a 56% ROI for ISU vs 81% for BSU

Deceiving raw numbers are deceiving.

[JohnStOnge]

Also only a 56% ROI for ISU vs 81% for BSU

Elaborate. The bottom line is still going to be that BSU lost more money on its athletic programs than ISU did. Are you saying that because they spent a whole lot more money their loss was less as a percentage of what they spent?

If so that's nuts. If you lost more money you lost more money.

[Jjoey52]

Well at least ISU finally won something

[kalm]

Well at least ISU finally won something

[JohnStOnge]

Also only a 56% ROI for ISU vs 81% for BSU

Deceiving raw numbers are deceiving.

Ok I went ahead and ran to numbers to make sure of what you're saying. You appear to be looking at the fact that Boise State's revenues outside of what the school had to kick in were 81% (I got 81.7%) of its expenses while Idaho State's revenues were 56% of revenues outside of what the school had to kick in so that means Boise State did better. I'd say the return on investment is -19% for Boise State and -44% for Idaho State.

But losing less as a percentage of revenues doesn't make you better off. You lost more money. Say you're Idaho State looking at Boise State purely in terms of finances as an indicator of how you could do if you could go FBS and enjoy similar success. Athletics is a net $5 million dollar drain on your university. Bottom line is when you look at Boise State its athletic program is a net $8 million dollar drain on the university. The percentage terms don't matter. If you're concerned over losing $5 million per year you're not helping things by taking steps that will lead to you losing over $8 million per year just because you can say the loss is smaller as a percentage of what you're spending.

[SDHornet]

But losing less as a percentage of revenues doesn't make you better off. You lost more money. Say you're Idaho State looking at Boise State purely in terms of finances as an indicator of how you could do if you could go FBS and enjoy similar success. Athletics is a net $5 million dollar drain on your university. Bottom line is when you look at Boise State its athletic program is a net $8 million dollar drain on the university. The percentage terms don't matter. If you're concerned over losing $5 million per year you're not helping things by taking steps that will lead to you losing over $8 million per year just because you can say the loss is smaller as a percentage of what you're spending.

Nailed it.

FCS is a cost control measure, we lose money at a smaller clip than non-P5 FBS. The bottom tier/non-P5 FBS conferences are going to be hurting. The P5 will be out spending them by millions on an annual basis, all the while the rest of FBS is going to be losing money hand over fist trying to keep up.

[CaseyOrourke]

From what I read Idaho did not want to lose the payouts to G-5 schools for body bag games with P-5 because they are significantly higher that what would be offered to FCS schools who are playing the same opponent. There is also the revenue sharing from any televised games, conference members in a bowl games and the revenue generated by the CFB playoffs and championship game is shared by all FBS teams (that is what I read).

The mythology about being FBS meaning being better off financially continues. See http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances. In the last year for which data are available, 2014, Idaho's athletic program lost $7.1 million on athletics while Idaho State's athletic program lost $5.4 million. That's taking account of the fact that "school funds" are listed as revenues. "School funds" are a cost to the school.

And BTW Boise State's athletic program lost $8.4 million in 2014.

In other words: The Division I school that did the best in terms of revenues - expenses with its athletic program last year was FCS Idaho State.

This thing of thinking that being FBS is a financial winner for schools outside of the Power 5 conferences and Notre Dame is SUCH a bunch of crap. People look at the revenues and forget about the expenses.

Ok. So Boise State's athletic program generated $37,323,056 outside of the funds the school had to kick in to balance the books while Idaho State's athletic program generated $7,046,464. People say "OH...look how much more revenue Boise State generated!"

The problem is that Boise State also had $45,680,801 in expenses while Idaho State had only $12,491,220. And $7,046,464 - $12,491,220 is a smaller loss than $37,323,056 - $45,680,801 is.

I can understand saying that Boise State having a 54% greater net loss on its athletic program than Idaho State has is worth it because it's like paying for publicity. But this stuff of saying Boise State does better financially with its athletic program because it's in FBS is complete nonsense. And of course the same is true of Idaho vs. Idaho State.

Not arguing with you on that point. I was just passing on information and attitudes I had read in articles and gleaned from trolling their message forum.

I did however gain a lot from reading the article on Forbes... http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpa ... acb7e26d22 and it puts some things in perspective and shows that going to the FBS isn't necessarily the promised land.

[andy7171]

Is Idaho a part of Montana? Or is it Canada?

Yes.

[Jjoey52]

Actually back in territorial days present day Montana was in the Idaho territory.