Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I do not neccesarily agree that the FCS must have a dim financial future or that a move to the FBS is the only way to secure a programs long term financial stabilty. What I do say is that each FCS conference must find a better way to increase outside revenues. Student fees and gate revenues can only go so far, and if revenues dont increase, the programs will become stagnant.

IMO, the CAA needs to continue to view the membership "upheavel" not as a problem but as an opportunity to strengthen the conference. An opportunity to create something that can at least sell more seats, but more importantly increase sponsorships and create some potential TV revenue.

I say (and Im sure Yeager is already investigating it) lets create a FCS superconference. Find a way to bring in Appy State and Georgia Southern. Both those programs can play on an FBS level. Look at possibly bringing in UNCC...maybe. The weak and poorly funded programs will leave by attrition. I know there are complexities, but they just need to be dealt with.

Put something together that the press will recognize, respect, and most importantly "promote". Something that even FBS football fans will come to recognize as being "of high quality" and something that can be "sold". Kinda what the AFL was to the NFL or the ABA was to the NBA. An alternate league.....another choice along the Eastern Seaboard.

If you have been reading the news, Texas A&M is very unhappy about the Longhorn Network and may still move to another conference (SEC or Pac-12). This could still precipitate future conference realignments and changes. The Big East is certainly looking to grow. Along with increasing media rights deals at the FBS level (see Pac-12's recent 20+ milion per school deal), the FBS - BCS conferences might break off and form their own D-I. The gap is widening between the haves and have nots.

What does this mean for the CAA? SOCON? Etc...I think it's possible the FCS might merge with the MAC, C-USA, SUN, etc.. Or perhaps those conferences might form their own D-I level with mid-level bowl games. At any right, there is no evidence any of this would alter the financial future of the FCS. People in Montana are going to care just as much about their football as ever. If anything, I would think the continued growth of the NFL & the D-I FBS (& football, in general) is good for everyone in football. The FCS is only going up, and schools still want football to create an environment to attract male enrollment. There is a perception that real schools sponsor football.

I do not neccesarily agree that the FCS must have a dim financial future or that a move to the FBS is the only way to secure a programs long term financial stabilty.

I think that statement includes a false premise. That false premise is taht a move to FBS is likely to improve a school's financial situation. That is a myth. A very persistent and stubborn myth. But a myth.

The latest information I've seen in that regard can be viewed at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... nances.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. You can use to search engine at the top to look at the expenses and revenues for each school. Additional information and comentary is available in the other articles linked in the body of the text:

RISING SALARIES: Colleges seek funds to close budget gaps
SUBSIDIES INCREASING: Schools raise fees to prop up college sports
ANALYSIS: College sports soak up subsidies, fees
BIG-TIME ATHLETICS: Are they worth the big-time costs?

If you mess around for a while looking at different institutions you will soon see that when subsidies such as direct institutional support (a cost to the universities involved) are removed, non BCS schools with FBS programs arent' generally doing well at all.

One of these days when I get time I am going to use that query to derive the average actual net of FCS schools and non BCS FBS schools. By that I mean I'm going to see what the nets look like when the subsidies...which cost somebody and do not really represent revenue generated by the athletic programs...are removed. Having looked around some with the query I am very confident that the non BCS FBS schools had a bigger...substantially bigger...average net loss during 2009 - 2010 than the FCS schools did.

I don't know what it's to take to get rid of the false perception that a school going from FCS to FBS is likely to improve its financial situation. But I will keep trying I guess.

I wonder how the situation looks for B(C)$ folk. Sure the top of the top (read: U$C, Michigan, Bama, etc.) is probably sitting pretty. But what about Oregon State, Vandy, Northwestern, etc.? Probably not so much.

FCS is the best, IMO.

I wonder how the situation looks for B(C)$ folk. Sure the top of the top (read: U$C, Michigan, Bama, etc.) is probably sitting pretty. But what about Oregon State, Vandy, Northwestern, etc.? Probably not so much.

FCS is the best, IMO.

Don't confuse the issues of finance & quality/purity of sport. The BC$ schools are in great shape thanks to new media rights. Oregon State is in the NP12 (New-Pac-12), where each school gets 21 million dollars just from television rights alone...and this despite not being in a major market (the Beavs don't even command Portland really -- it's a Duck/Viking/MLS/T-Blazer town as far as I know).

Of course, the FCS is better; there is actually a competitive championship. I just wish every FCS conference got an auto-bid and participated. I just don't get why we can't get the Ivy, Pioneer, and SWAC involved on a yearly basis. I don't care how they do it...extra play-in game to the play-ins. Whatever. I know this isn't going to happen, but I really want it to.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I do not neccesarily agree that the FCS must have a dim financial future or that a move to the FBS is the only way to secure a programs long term financial stabilty.

I think that statement includes a false premise. That false premise is taht a move to FBS is likely to improve a school's financial situation. That is a myth. A very persistent and stubborn myth. But a myth.

I completely agree. Moving from the irrelevant FCS to an irrelevant FBS conference does not guarantee increase revenues and interest. Such a move would only increase expenditures with an increase in potential revenue. No additional revenue is guaranteed by such a move.

alvin kayak wrote:

I wonder how the situation looks for B(C)$ folk. Sure the top of the top (read: U$C, Michigan, Bama, etc.) is probably sitting pretty. But what about Oregon State, Vandy, Northwestern, etc.? Probably not so much.

FCS is the best, IMO.

Don't confuse the issues of finance & quality/purity of sport. The BC$ schools are in great shape thanks to new media rights. Oregon State is in the NP12 (New-Pac-12), where each school gets 21 million dollars just from television rights alone...and this despite not being in a major market (the Beavs don't even command Portland really -- it's a Duck/Viking/MLS/T-Blazer town as far as I know).

Of course, the FCS is better; there is actually a competitive championship. I just wish every FCS conference got an auto-bid and participated. I just don't get why we can't get the Ivy, Pioneer, and SWAC involved on a yearly basis. I don't care how they do it...extra play-in game to the play-ins. Whatever. I know this isn't going to happen, but I really want it to.

I think the Pioneer is shafted by NCAA schollie rules. But the Ivy and perhaps the SWAC are the ones at fault for their own non-participation: the Ivies because they don't "believe" in it (though they're being hypocritical there because they take part in the hoops tournament), and the SWAC because they're tied into certain bowl games. They could easily bypass all that if they so chose.

alvin kayak wrote:

I wonder how the situation looks for B(C)$ folk. Sure the top of the top (read: U$C, Michigan, Bama, etc.) is probably sitting pretty. But what about Oregon State, Vandy, Northwestern, etc.? Probably not so much.

FCS is the best, IMO.

Don't confuse the issues of finance & quality/purity of sport. The BC$ schools are in great shape thanks to new media rights. Oregon State is in the NP12 (New-Pac-12), where each school gets 21 million dollars just from television rights alone...and this despite not being in a major market (the Beavs don't even command Portland really -- it's a Duck/Viking/MLS/T-Blazer town as far as I know).

Of course, the FCS is better; there is actually a competitive championship. I just wish every FCS conference got an auto-bid and participated. I just don't get why we can't get the Ivy, Pioneer, and SWAC involved on a yearly basis. I don't care how they do it...extra play-in game to the play-ins. Whatever. I know this isn't going to happen, but I really want it to.

Ivy and SWAC decides not to participate in the playoffs. I have an issue with the Pioneer getting an auto-bid as they don't provide football scholarships.

The truth is very few programs, FBS, BCS, or otherwise actually turn an athletic department profit. When a school is acutally making a little dough, it is usually forcibly put back into facilities.

That said, MOST football and basketball men's programs are, in fact, solvent and financially "successful." The problem is that even those these one or two programs make money, the rest of the AD is a complete drain with little or no revenue stream to even out the expenditure. Women's volleyball is decent to watch, but last I heard not a single program in the country made a profit on their team last year. Even the publicity hound UConn women's basketball team is running 7 figures of debt annually.

Therefore, if you move to the FBS and add schollies, it isn't just that cost that hits you. You have to add insolvent sports, and insolvent Title IX schollies. So if you're moving up, football revenues must SKYROCKET to offset the additional spending you will certainly incur. Your athletic budget is going to at minimum double, so you better be able to double attendace at football games.

If you look at FBS prime targets like App State and Montana, a move to the FBS would probably increase support, but will it actually double? Most would call that a bad gamble. These programs draw 25k or so now, but aren't in areas of the country where drawing 50k weekly is all that likely playing a low-level FBS schedule. If you're Montana, how excited is your fanbase going to be at the prospect of playing New Mexico State or UTSA?

I guarantee you that these peripheral targets for WAC expansion like Sac State and Portland State are nowhere near having it being financially reasonable to consider moving up... they aren't even close to the black now and would be looking to go 4x or 5x on football revenues.

Well stated LD.

Title IX is the biggest reason that college football hasn't become semi-pro.....Wait.