Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

[richald]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...cceeds_wh.html

Plus losing soccer recently (before bringing it back) led me to that conclusion.

Article is four years old...

[KleShreen]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

Article is four years old...

It is. Ashland posters on here kept citing financial issues when talking about potentially moving conferences, as well, so I figured that meant finances were an issue still. I know Ashland laid off some faculty/staff shortly after that article came out, plus cutting soccer. I am aware that they brought soccer back, but I had been told that was due to private funds from donors specifically to bring the team back and that athletics itself is running on an exorbitant amount of private donors and not university funds, which doesn't bode well.

[richald]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

There are two that would be great additions in Cleveland.....John Carroll and Baldwin Wallace. Both strong financially.....and great traditions.....

[Boohaha]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

There are two that would be great additions in Cleveland.....John Carroll and Baldwin Wallace. Both strong financially.....and great traditions.....

The Browns....

[unc4life]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

It is. Ashland posters on here kept citing financial issues when talking about potentially moving conferences, as well, so I figured that meant finances were an issue still. I know Ashland laid off some faculty/staff shortly after that article came out, plus cutting soccer. I am aware that they brought soccer back, but I had been told that was due to private funds from donors specifically to bring the team back and that athletics itself is running on an exorbitant amount of private donors and not university funds, which doesn't bode well.

I think it's safe to say that AU athletics do a very good job of pulling in private funds to help with Athletics, in fact I would say that is one major advantages they have over every D2 school in Ohio and most others in the GLIAC. I'm sure if the AU women's basketball team needed anything they could have it lined up in mins. I think there is a difference though from helping supplement and enhance athletics and fully funding them. I can promise you AU athletics are not being fully funded by donors.

[WayneStatesman]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

There are two that would be great additions in Cleveland.....John Carroll and Baldwin Wallace. Both strong financially.....and great traditions.....

Aren't those Division III schools?

[ctrabs74]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

You just answered your own question from your other post: Why don't leagues like the RMAC make a big deal about their travel? Because they don't have a choice. The "wealth of schools south of Michigan" have options, and if they can reduce travel expenses and missed class time they're going to do it. Schools like New Mexico Highlands don't have two or three conferences that are better fits for travel. One could argue they'd be a solid fit in the LSC, but that presumes they want to go there and that the LSC wants them. My point is that they don't have an easy, viable option nearby that can significantly reduce their footprint OR "align to University missions". The schools south of Michigan are making an issue out of travel (among other things) because they can.

There was a rumor a few years ago about New Mexico Highlands considering a move to the LSC, but the (at the time) new administration opted to remain in the RMAC.

[Tony Nicolette]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

There was a rumor a few years ago about New Mexico Highlands considering a move to the LSC, but the (at the time) new administration opted to remain in the RMAC.

Could be. My point is really that there is a large # of D2 schools in a swath from Missouri through Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. That footprint contains SIX football playing conferences. A lot of the former GLIAC members that have expressed concern over travel tend to fit toward the middle of that footprint, so their options to go in either direction are (in some cases) multiple.

To continue with the Highlands example, sure...to get to Sioux Falls is the opposite end of the conference, and they do technically cross through the outposts of up to four other leagues...but the only other league that really offers them a distinct/potential geographic advantage is the LSC. SO, without options, they've learned to accept their situation.

So, back to Kle's question (which is a fine one, frankly). I stand by what I said...the schools that express concern over travel are doing so because they have an alternative...THEY CAN. Highlands (among others, of course) pretty much doesn't. Plus, Brandon is probably also correct that it's much to easier say travel is a problem instead of including that they were worried about being competitive. That's not true for everyone making the move, but it's hard to argue that it didn't impact some.

[Tech Boys]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

Just a couple of random ideas. If the GLIAC wants to continue with divisions they should switch to an East-West split.

WEST Davenport Lake Superior State Michigan Tech Northern Michigan Purdue-Northwest Wisconsin-Parkside

EAST Ashland Ferris State Grand Valley State Northwood Saginaw Valley State Wayne State

I chose Davenport for the west because they are the newest member among the east members. Would this help reduce trips across the bridge or having to go around the southern tip of Lake Michigan?

For new members if Indianapolis is not an option: Indiana Wesleyan, Lawrence Tech, Olivet Nazarene, and Saint Xavier. I know only three things about these schools. Their locations are in the footprint or fairly close to current schools, three have an enrollment of more than 4,000 and the other is more than 3,000, and they all (will) have football. They would also help other sports with low sponsorship numbers. There doesn't seem to be any public football-playing schools available from NAIA and I didn't look at D3.

[bigmrg74]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

I know nobody likes to hear it, but Michigan Tech and Northern Michigan are a detriment to the GLIAC at this point. We can't get many of the wealth of schools south of Michigan to consider the GLIAC because none of them want to make that trip to the UP for conference games in a majority of the sports. The GLIAC would be in a better position if they were able to pawn the UP schools off to the NSIC, but that is never going to happen because it would then make travel tougher for the NSIC and historical GLIAC people would be livid. But as it stands, they are a detriment.

I like both Tech and Northern- we do play them in hockey- but that would put us at 18. The NSIC is already bloated at 16. No thanks.

Yeah, the only way that Tech and NMU would leave the GLIAC is if the NSIC was to break up and go looking for more members. But the only way that would really happens is if the other hockey schools like Duluth, Mankato, St. Cloud State, and Bemidji, all break off and want to get together with other hockey schools. But I kinda doubt that with Bemidji and Mankato in the WCHA while Duluth and St. Cloud State are in the NCHC, that those schools would get together to form an all sport conference. Something would have to force their hand to get them motivate enough to get them together and be in a position to where schools like Tech and NMU would even think about wanting to jump to another conference.

[DexterCardinal]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

I agree that the premise of CMU or WMU dropping isn't realistic. The idea of EASTERN doing so, on the other hand, is absolutely NOT a joke. Will they? Might be doubtful, but when one reviews their funding, attendance, and level of competitive success, the question of "why are they D1" is absolutely worthy of review. I'm not being critical, I am just saying that there is a lot about that school and its situation that all but scream D2.

Are you kidding me? Does this look like an impoverished, D2 eligible, program?
http://emuchampionshipbuilding.com/
The EMU football program is profitable and went to a bowl game in 2016. They are scheduled to play Purdue and San Diego St. this season. You don't get televised, big paydays like that in D2. Basketball this year is 20-11, is in 2nd place in the MAC West and on a 6 game winning streak. They are probably headed for post season action. The Olympic sports are successful, even dominant, in the MAC. Men's XC has won the MAC 8 straight years and the women are on a threepeat. In short, no EMU for the GLIAC.

[Tony Nicolette]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

Are you kidding me? Does this look like an impoverished, D2 eligible, program?
http://emuchampionshipbuilding.com/
The EMU football program is profitable and went to a bowl game in 2016. They are scheduled to play Purdue and San Diego St. this season. You don't get televised, big paydays like that in D2. Basketball this year is 20-11, is in 2nd place in the MAC West and on a 6 game winning streak. They are probably headed for post season action. The Olympic sports are successful, even dominant, in the MAC. Men's XC has won the MAC 8 straight years and the women are on a threepeat. In short, no EMU for the GLIAC.

Thanks for the post, Dexter. I'm always interested in what my fellow GLIAC'ers think.

I'll start by apologizing for this post...it's gonna be long. No way around it. That said, I think those who are interested and give it the time will be intrigued by what's here. Maybe not...I find I'm often the only one who really likes this stuff. :doh: In either case, I really think the directional nature of EMU along with some of their other factors make them an obvious D2 candidate. They are also perfect for the GLIAC footprint. BUT, you bring up some good thoughts, so let's dig and see what we find:

- EMU Football is Profitable - So, I'm all ears/eyes...if you have access to a balance sheet for their football program that shows as such, I'm open to it. I would submit that this is NOT the case:
1) First, I don't think they're getting anywhere near the amount from playing Purdue you would seem to think. Further, SDSU might cover their travel, but with the Aztecs also being a Group-of-Five school, I doubt they are paying big time to get an "equivalent" opponent. Additionally, EMU is undoubtedly paying FCS Monmouth to come and play them, so is there a pot of money left over for these games? I don't see it. Additionally, playing Purdue or SDSU "on TV" nets EMU no income, and an arguably limited amount of TV exposure. This is simply not a financial boon.
2) Sure, they went to a bowl a game a couple of years ago, but those bowl dollars are shared within the conference. I would submit that the amount they garnered that one year was not markedly greater than their standard MAC postseason conference share. No pot of gold here either.
3) Football (if I am given to understand correctly) represents about a tenth of the school's overall athletics budget, which tends to run in the mid $30's in terms of millions. So, let's round down and call it $3M. You honestly believe that through those couple of money games, tickets and concessions, merchandising, and post season share that EMU is bringing in $3M a year? Is football TRULY solvent? Maybe it is...I am still leery...
4) Let's finish our review of football. The program started in 1891, and wins at a .438 clip. That 2016 trip to the Bahamas Bowl was only the second bowl berth ALL TIME for the program. I don't take that as a sign that this is a program that is competitive or "on the rise". I'm a big fan of sample size...and sample size tell me they stink. They win at about a .438 clip all time, but in the 28 seasons since 1990, that win % is only .307...AND, 23 of those 28 seasons netted four wins or fewer. Sure, the bowl berth is semi-nifty but in comparison to those win #'s and no MAC titles since 1987, it doesn't herald to me that this is a high-performing outfit.

EMU Basketball is 2nd in the MAC, et al - Again, kinda neat...but I'm a fan of sample size. Sample size tells me that this isn't emblematic of a great program. Sure, their current coach is in year seven and is winning at a .540 clip. It's been 20 years since their last MAC title, and 13 of those 20 seasons since that title (think Earl Boykins) netted a losing record. That's neat that they're rolling a bit in the last few weeks, but sample size tells me that this program is mediocre at a very generous best.

The Olympic programs are successful, even dominant - True, and not true. Both mens and womens cross country are awesome in the MAC. Zero argument. Mens Track is very good. Mens Swimming and Diving is DOMINANT. Totally right. Outside of that, I don't see it. The league titles are few and far between in baseball, softball, volleyball, womens hoops, wrestling, whatever. To take it a step further, they are a perennial "mid-pack" team in terms of their All-Sports Trophies. For the men, it's the Reese Trophy. It's been awarded 60 times...EMU has won it three. The women's award is the Jacoby Award...EMU has won it once. In fact, EMU noted last year that there have only been three instances in the last 20 years were both the men and women finished in the top four of their respective standings in the same academic year. So, they are competitive...will grant you that. Successful or dominant? In spots, OK. Program wide? Not so sure.

EMU Championship Building Initiative - Thanks for sending the link to this. It was neat, and interesting to review. Here are a few of things I would note:
1) This is not something that is set in stone. Rather, it is a "proposed vision". Case in point, page 72 of the AECOM Report you can find on this site refers to a "theoretical construction start date" of 2016. I'm not aware that any of this stuff has begun (more on that in a minute), so that timeline is already behind. The timeline ran through 2025, so with it already being two years behind I'm curious as to it's viability.
2) This site shows a report that points out how EMU's facilities are, in nearly every case, worse than their MAC counterparts. Boy, they'd fit right in here in the GLIAC, maybe...eh? ;-)
3) The AECOM Report touts the projected expenditures of all of these projects to be $46.7M. According to an article a year ago, that vision has been reduced to $35M. Not sure what that means in specific, but certainly SOMETHING had to be cut. However, the school has less than $10M of that raised...and the students are VERY wary of where the rest of the $ will come from. Now, Phase I was approved and supposedly is scheduled to be started already...can't find anywhere that it actually has. Since they are still about $25M short, and $6M came from one donation, I question just how fast this will go, or how much of the "vision" will actually happen.

EMU...an "impoverished", D2 eligible program - "Impoverished" is your word. That said, I would say the story here is far from simple:
1) According to the USA Today, EMU pulled more than $24M from its general fund to pay for athletics in 2015-16. MLive reports is to be more like $27M. Any way you slice it, that is a TON of money being pulled from the University's operating budget and/or student fees to pay for athletics. They have annually been in the top 5% of the 230 D1 programs in this category for many consecutive years. If the University and its students are OK with it, that's fine. That doesn't seem to be the case...and when that huge amount of spending is netting general mediocrity and not improving the image of the University or its brand, what is it really netting?
2) The University has a pretty significant budget shortfall. This article talks about the multiple jobs that are being considered for elimination because the school has a $4M to $5M shortfall this year.

You (and everyone else) is entitled to their opinions. I continue to be of the opinion that given the struggle EMU has to keep up with the rest of D1 in terms of competitiveness, and how much money it costs the school every year to do so, I submit that their at least considering an alternative makes sense. Now, I also believe that the Power Five schools will be forcing some serious change to the NCAA structure in the coming years and the entire landscape of things could change. However, if we knew things were going to stay the same, I would submit that at least reviewing the option of D2 and the GLIAC would certainly be worth EMU's consideration.

[BeachinLaker]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

Are you kidding me? Does this look like an impoverished, D2 eligible, program?
http://emuchampionshipbuilding.com/
The EMU football program is profitable and went to a bowl game in 2016. They are scheduled to play Purdue and San Diego St. this season. You don't get televised, big paydays like that in D2. Basketball this year is 20-11, is in 2nd place in the MAC West and on a 6 game winning streak. They are probably headed for post season action. The Olympic sports are successful, even dominant, in the MAC. Men's XC has won the MAC 8 straight years and the women are on a threepeat. In short, no EMU for the GLIAC.

EMU football is far from profitable. There are only like 24 profitable football programs in Division I. Eastern Michigan University definitely isn't one of them. In fact, I would go as far as saying their program is a massive financial drain on their athletic program.

[Tony Nicolette]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

EMU football is far from profitable. There are only like 24 profitable football programs in Division I. Eastern Michigan University definitely isn't one of them. In fact, I would go as far as saying their program is a massive financial drain on their athletic program.

Sort of...there are actually about two dozen profitable ATHLETIC programs in Division I. Football could be the key driver to that profitability, but that is a PROGRAM #. I could make the case that there are actually a fair number more than 24 football programs that are solvent...they just aren't making enough to pay for the entirety of their school's athletic department.

I completely agree that Eastern's football program isn't profitable. Further, the evidence is overwhelming that their athletic department absolutely is not.

[WayneStatesman]

Re: Future GLIAC Members? Particularly Football?

Sort of...there are actually about two dozen profitable ATHLETIC programs in Division I. Football could be the key driver to that profitability, but that is a PROGRAM #. I could make the case that there are actually a fair number more than 24 football programs that are solvent...they just aren't making enough to pay for the entirety of their school's athletic department.

I completely agree that Eastern's football program isn't profitable. Further, the evidence is overwhelming that their athletic department absolutely is not.

I could be wrong but I don't ever remember a college or university that is D1 level that has decided to drop their athletic program to D2. That doesn't mean it will never happen or that it shouldn't happen but it hasn't happened yet.

I'm sure there are many D1 schools that struggle to fund their athletic programs but they seem to prefer to cut costs elsewhere to stay in D1, probably due to alumni pressure to keep the "prestige" of being a D1 program. Even if it makes sense financially I don't see EMU going the D2 route.