Originally posted by Illinoisguy23
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Northwood Exit and Expansion Discussion
Collapse
Support The Site!
Collapse
X
-
-
there was a GVSU recruit whose school confirmed the school was moving to D1 in 2023
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GVSU-2019 View Post
Ugh. Can't we just force Oakland and U of D to sponsor football/bring Ferris and Wayne State with us? I hate the idea of playing in the OVC
UofD Mercy likely would not reinstate football due to budget reasons. They did, at one time, under the University of Detroit name, offer football (pre-merger). they dropped the sport in 1965. Interestingly, Detroit claims a football national title in 1928, being selected by one of the selectors who choose national champions in that era (Parke Davis).
Detroit last season of football included games against 4 teams who are now (or will soon be) Power Conference opponents. The last opponent that played who would have been considered a DII or lower team was NMU in 1963. Detroit had no problem playing bigger name teams even as their football was uncertain including Army, Navy, MSU, Miami (Fl), Boston College (who was the last opponent ever), Kentucky, and even Notre Dame.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Irishlaker View Post
OVC is a dumpster fire and one that's a million miles a way at that. We'd be doing it for the sake of doing it. Dumb.
Horizon is OK, but who gives a rip about playing Green Bay? You mean the Packers? Less dumb? Sorta. But still dumb.
Beach is right that we don't have the alumni base. The other big difference GV v MAC is so far we haven't been stupid enough to pull $18M a year from our own money to pay for sports so we can get pasted most of the time. I don't always agree with Tony's comments let alone read all of them (enough with the novels, dude) but he does have the right idea with the #'s about what MAC schools spend of their own $ and fees to pay for their athletic depts. REALLY dumb.
GLIAC may be shaky, but I still like us in D2 until there is a glaringly better option.
I have enjoyed D2 over the years, but I personally believe the writing is on the wall when our conference is imploding, we struggle to fill the open schedule with D2 opponents, and we have resorted to playing in-conference teams twice. I think there is a future for us in Division I and it's only a matter of time before we move up. I believe we also have the geographic advantage where if we eventually moved up into the MAC, we would likely overtake the directionals athletically.
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Irishlaker View Post
OVC is a dumpster fire and one that's a million miles a way at that. We'd be doing it for the sake of doing it. Dumb.
Horizon is OK, but who gives a rip about playing Green Bay? You mean the Packers? Less dumb? Sorta. But still dumb.
Beach is right that we don't have the alumni base. The other big difference GV v MAC is so far we haven't been stupid enough to pull $18M a year from our own money to pay for sports so we can get pasted most of the time. I don't always agree with Tony's comments let alone read all of them (enough with the novels, dude) but he does have the right idea with the #'s about what MAC schools spend of their own $ and fees to pay for their athletic depts. REALLY dumb.
GLIAC may be shaky, but I still like us in D2 until there is a glaringly better option.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GVSU-2019 View Post
Ugh. Can't we just force Oakland and U of D to sponsor football/bring Ferris and Wayne State with us? I hate the idea of playing in the OVC
Horizon is OK, but who gives a rip about playing Green Bay? You mean the Packers? Less dumb? Sorta. But still dumb.
Beach is right that we don't have the alumni base. The other big difference GV v MAC is so far we haven't been stupid enough to pull $18M a year from our own money to pay for sports so we can get pasted most of the time. I don't always agree with Tony's comments let alone read all of them (enough with the novels, dude) but he does have the right idea with the #'s about what MAC schools spend of their own $ and fees to pay for their athletic depts. REALLY dumb.
GLIAC may be shaky, but I still like us in D2 until there is a glaringly better option.
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlueBlood View PostThis MAC talk is interesting. I've always thought that GVSU kind of seemed like a MAC-like school playing in D2.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tony Nicolette View PostInteresting conversation, Chap. I'll start by saying that I don't necessarily believe that MAC schools should be FCS. I was simply responding to your assertion in post 338 that the media rights money is why MAC schools don't belong in FCS.
I still contend that the media rights money these schools get is not the "crippler" you asserted in that same post. Do they get some additional soft dollar value from the exposure? OK...I can grant you that, but that hardly turns the 3% of their budget that the hard dollars provide into something truly major. I mean, let's be honest, that exposure's impact has limits.
In subsequent posts, you have added additional rationales around other money factors why MAC schools don't belong in FCS:- Money Games - Sure, they do get more as a MAC school than they would as an FCS school. No argument. BUT, there is more to the story here. Don't forget that as FBS schools, MAC schools are also the PAYER in money games. EVERY MAC school has at least one FCS opponent on their 2022 schedule. I will absolutely agree that the net of these non-con games is a positive cash flow to MAC members. 100% true. BUT, is it bringing millions in every year to each school in a fashion that offsets a large percentage of their athletics budget? I bet we could find a couple instances where that is the case, but we could also find others where it isn't. It's important, sure, but it has its caveats and isn't universally a boon for every school.
- Non-Revenue Sports - Yep, totally with you that those media rights dollars have an impact. I guess I would submit that a drop to FCS would also present a decrease in the need for those dollars via a reduction in the overall athletics budget:
- Dropping football schollie load from 85 to 63 (double benefit here, as cost drops and students paying tuition increases)
- FCS coaching staffs make less across the board vs. FBS coaching staffs
- Athletic departments in FCS in total are smaller and less costly vs. their FBS counterparts
- More non-Rev Athletes Enrolled - Yep, 100% agree that many schools use athletics as a way to have more students on campus that are paying their own way, and that keeping those sports around is important. Is the $800K (on the high side) of the media rights keeping a couple of sports going? Perhaps, but would the reductions in costs of being FCS reduce the school's athletics budget by a commensurate amount that would keep those same kids on campus and paying tuition? One could argue it might.
Look, I'll re-state: I am not out here trying to say that MAC schools should be FCS. I agree with you that when you add all of your instances together there is a net dollar benefit to being in the MAC vs. FCS. I still don't think it's a windfall, however, and moreover isn't a silver bullet to why they should be at any level in particular. It's a very nuanced situation.
Since we are on this walk, the ultimate position I hold is that there is a good-sized portion of the current NCAA membership that actually belongs somewhere that doesn't yet exist. Let's face it: In principle, MAC schools are FBS the same as any of the Power 5 schools are FBS. Average MAC budget? $25-$26M per my prior post. Average Big Ten budget? Roughly $100M. Average SEC budget? Almost $99M. The "poorest" of the P5 conferences, the ACC, still has an average athletics budget of $57M. That landscape is decidedly slanted.
I'm with you that MAC members need every dollar they can scrounge, but I would submit that every time they find one dollar, the P5 schools are finding two or three. So, do MAC schools belong in FBS in general? I would argue not through the lens that NO G5 school stands a chance in general against what the P5 schools have and are capable of. Does that mean they should be FCS? I don't agree with that either, but I could argue they fit more closely with FCS than they do P5.
Not to put too fine a point on it, one other thing to look at is WHERE the $ comes from. On average, the $100M Big Ten budgets only pull 7% of their funds from the government, student fees, and their school's general fund. When it comes to the $26M MAC budgets, 79% of those dollars come from those same sources. Think about that...MAC schools actually provide more than double the amount of cash to their athletic departments compared to their Big Ten counterparts, so they can have a 1/4 of the total budget. That math simply doesn't add up to any sort of level playing field, let alone offer a path to any sort of true competitiveness or value derivation. The P5 are in a space unto themselves. It's not a bad thing...it is what it is. This site spells a lot of this out...it's great info.
Would be way easier to discuss this vs. trying to type all of these things. Perhaps this is fodder for future broadcasts from the great Media Mind of Misener?
Unfortunately, for most schools, the idea of being an FBS and D1 member has chased the all mighty dollar too far. It was one thing when D1 athletics were still about student athletes and there was some teeth to the idea they were students first and athletes second. Unfortunately the schools began to realize how much money they could make from athletics (speaking large Power 5 Programs), and they began chasing those $$$$$$$, with the blessing and assistance of the NCAA. This has created a rift between the haves and have nots with D1 and have pushed D2 even farther behind.
From what I recall (I don't have the research handy), something like 95% of the NCAA's revenue is dumped back into D1 athletics.
I actually did a project for my sports management master's degree that looked at the potential of a school (non-football, small D2 school), moving up to division 1 for athletics.
When you actually looked at that particular school, the money actually does make sense for a school to move up, if you don't consider the heavy cost the NCAA is putting on moving up. (The fee is several times the average D1 yearly revenue cut to the school IIRC),
There are a lot of revenue streams that people don't consider when talking about moving up or staying in D2. One of them deals with scholarships. what many people don't know is the NCAA actually pays a substantial stipend to schools for each athletic scholarship they offer. (see note below)
This scholarship stipend is another place the NCAA is creating the haves and the have nots in D1 athletics. The more scholarships a school gives out per year overall, the more each stipend is worth.
The following is from the NCAA's own document regarding the distribution of money to institutions.
"The Grants-in-Aid Fund is based on the number of athletic grants awarded in the prior academic year by each institution (based on full-time equivalencies), with an escalating multiplier which rewards schools that provide more athletic grants. The unit value is determined by the total number of athletic grants awarded by all active Division I institutions.
The multiplier, from what I recall increases drastically between the scholarship numbers an FBS school provides and what a FCS or non-football school provides, again putting a lot more money into the hands of the haves rather than the have nots.
Beyond the NCAA's scope now are decisions from the courts which have farther split the Power 5 and rest of college athletics. With very rare exceptions, NIL deals are largely favoring Power 5 student athletes, and as a result the schools these athletes attend. With the NCAA's repeated failure to act, the government and courts have been forced to act.
Finally, back to what the NCAA allowed to happen. The D1 management committee allowed full cost of attendance to be paid for student athletes, rather than just tuition and room and board. This further creates a separation because many schools can not afford to pay cost of attendance to all athletes. This puts those schools father behind.
I really think in the next few years you will see a complete split between The Power 5 (Power 6 for basketball), and the rest of the D1 programs. The Power 5 schools will split off from the rest of the NCAA and form their own governing agency, while the rest of D1 will undergo drastic changes. I also think this will come down to D2 and you will see a major split between D2 schools, some of whom will continue to move to the new D1, while others will stay with the current division.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
This MAC talk is interesting. I've always thought that GVSU kind of seemed like a MAC-like school playing in D2.
Leave a comment:
-
Interesting conversation, Chap. I'll start by saying that I don't necessarily believe that MAC schools should be FCS. I was simply responding to your assertion in post 338 that the media rights money is why MAC schools don't belong in FCS.
I still contend that the media rights money these schools get is not the "crippler" you asserted in that same post. Do they get some additional soft dollar value from the exposure? OK...I can grant you that, but that hardly turns the 3% of their budget that the hard dollars provide into something truly major. I mean, let's be honest, that exposure's impact has limits.
In subsequent posts, you have added additional rationales around other money factors why MAC schools don't belong in FCS:- Money Games - Sure, they do get more as a MAC school than they would as an FCS school. No argument. BUT, there is more to the story here. Don't forget that as FBS schools, MAC schools are also the PAYER in money games. EVERY MAC school has at least one FCS opponent on their 2022 schedule. I will absolutely agree that the net of these non-con games is a positive cash flow to MAC members. 100% true. BUT, is it bringing millions in every year to each school in a fashion that offsets a large percentage of their athletics budget? I bet we could find a couple instances where that is the case, but we could also find others where it isn't. It's important, sure, but it has its caveats and isn't universally a boon for every school.
- Non-Revenue Sports - Yep, totally with you that those media rights dollars have an impact. I guess I would submit that a drop to FCS would also present a decrease in the need for those dollars via a reduction in the overall athletics budget:
- Dropping football schollie load from 85 to 63 (double benefit here, as cost drops and students paying tuition increases)
- FCS coaching staffs make less across the board vs. FBS coaching staffs
- Athletic departments in FCS in total are smaller and less costly vs. their FBS counterparts
- More non-Rev Athletes Enrolled - Yep, 100% agree that many schools use athletics as a way to have more students on campus that are paying their own way, and that keeping those sports around is important. Is the $800K (on the high side) of the media rights keeping a couple of sports going? Perhaps, but would the reductions in costs of being FCS reduce the school's athletics budget by a commensurate amount that would keep those same kids on campus and paying tuition? One could argue it might.
Look, I'll re-state: I am not out here trying to say that MAC schools should be FCS. I agree with you that when you add all of your instances together there is a net dollar benefit to being in the MAC vs. FCS. I still don't think it's a windfall, however, and moreover isn't a silver bullet to why they should be at any level in particular. It's a very nuanced situation.
Since we are on this walk, the ultimate position I hold is that there is a good-sized portion of the current NCAA membership that actually belongs somewhere that doesn't yet exist. Let's face it: In principle, MAC schools are FBS the same as any of the Power 5 schools are FBS. Average MAC budget? $25-$26M per my prior post. Average Big Ten budget? Roughly $100M. Average SEC budget? Almost $99M. The "poorest" of the P5 conferences, the ACC, still has an average athletics budget of $57M. That landscape is decidedly slanted.
I'm with you that MAC members need every dollar they can scrounge, but I would submit that every time they find one dollar, the P5 schools are finding two or three. So, do MAC schools belong in FBS in general? I would argue not through the lens that NO G5 school stands a chance in general against what the P5 schools have and are capable of. Does that mean they should be FCS? I don't agree with that either, but I could argue they fit more closely with FCS than they do P5.
Not to put too fine a point on it, one other thing to look at is WHERE the $ comes from. On average, the $100M Big Ten budgets only pull 7% of their funds from the government, student fees, and their school's general fund. When it comes to the $26M MAC budgets, 79% of those dollars come from those same sources. Think about that...MAC schools actually provide more than double the amount of cash to their athletic departments compared to their Big Ten counterparts, so they can have a 1/4 of the total budget. That math simply doesn't add up to any sort of level playing field, let alone offer a path to any sort of true competitiveness or value derivation. The P5 are in a space unto themselves. It's not a bad thing...it is what it is. This site spells a lot of this out...it's great info.
Would be way easier to discuss this vs. trying to type all of these things. Perhaps this is fodder for future broadcasts from the great Media Mind of Misener?
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tony Nicolette View Post
Well, it depends on which article one reads regarding the subject. This article states that each school gets $600K per year. In the article here, that # looks like it's more akin to $833K per year. Either # is well below $1M. The average Athletics budget for a MAC school is in the $25M-$26M range, so again...$600-$800K isn't anything to sneeze at, but amounts like these that represent roughly 3% of the average member's budget are not what are keeping the lights on for these programs.
The yearly budget for some of these non-revenue sports is in the $500,000 per year range at MAC schools. Dropping the athletic program from FBS to FCS cuts a substantial revenue stream in TV rights money, which helps keep some of the non-revenue sports going at these schools. Don't forget, that most of these non-revenue sports are the ones that actually bring in more student athletes than school pays for scholarships. Men's swimming and diving averages about 30 roistered athletes per team, at an NCAA maximum 9.9 scholarships per year. Wrestling was similar. the reason EMU is adding women's lacrosse (to replace softball) is because it is similar. A lacrosse roster is roughly 35 athletes and is about 13 scholarships, compared with 18 softball players and 13 scholarships maximum. These athletes paying their way to attend a school make a big difference. This is what you are seeing smaller schools adding sports regularly. It is something that the administration at most larger schools have yet to grasp.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tony Nicolette View Post
The MAC TV deal nets each league member significantly less than $1M per year. I'm not saying it's "nothing", but at face value I'm struggling to see the loss of a # like that to be a "crippler" as you suggest...
How much is the exposure each university gets worth?
How much is the added benefit that ESPN provides to the conference and member schools worth? What added benefits are included? ESPN and the MAC, as part of the deal, have developed the digital sports profile as well. Additionally ESPN has the rights to sublease rights to broadcasts to regional and other national networks, while the MAC gets a portion of those sublease agreements.
One thing that needs to be considered here as well is a comparison. How much is the MAC's media deal compared with the highest deal from a non-FBS conference? Just in basic revenue alone from the deal, without the added benefits, you are talking about about half a million per year in revenue per school by dropping down to the FCS level from FBS.
What else would dropping down from FBS to FCS cost you? Each school goes and plays a guarantee game or two during the football season. The amount paid for those games is substantially different if the school is an FBS or FCS program. Dropping down to FCS would cost schools several hundred thousand dollars for each game. Why does this happen? The demand for people see an FCS program playing a major FBS team isn't the same as it is for an FCS team playing at an FBS power. This means lower ticket prices and sales for most places, and thus less revenue to the visiting team.
Leave a comment:
Ad3
Collapse
Leave a comment: