Future of UAlbany Football

[danefan]

Not to be a downer on this but I am very concerned about State funding for this next fiscal year. Patterson and Silver will still be 2 of the 3 men in a room. Depending on how the election goes, the state senate appears up for grabs. So the 3rd man becomes the player to be named later. It does not seem like anyone is talking about a fiscal climate in state government where approval for UA's football stadium seems likely, no matter how much of a priority the school makes it. Gov Patterson has compared this crisis with the Great Depression - speking to the national Press club in DC.

As far as increasing the number of scholarships - where does the money come from. If you cut current men's sports you then have money and no title 9 offset problem. But what teams do you cut. We have already lost a mens' wrestling team that would have been competitive at the national level. If we are talking about more scholarships then - where does the money come from? the athletic dept is still run on a shoestring compared to most D1 schools. The students athletic fees are out of sight. I haven't heard of any tremendous increase in donations to the programs.

All that being said - I look forward to tailgating at the home opener and continue to hope for the best.

 

They have been saying that they have the scholarship money in reserve for a few years now. And there has never been talk of cutting men's sports. This would have to come from adding women's. That's the money at issue.

 

If we got an offer to join the CAA North as a football affiliate not withstanding our field, I can guarantee that we would accept it and be full scholarship within 2 years. I believe the money is there to do that.

 

The priority has to be the stadium. The stadium is more important then 63 rides right now. No stadium and 63 rides means we'll be signing the same kids we got this year but giving them scholarships. If we were to jump to 63 rides we need to facilities to jump our recruiting up also.

[uofalbany]

How many schollys are we at now, 36?

As it stands, are we giving full rides to 36 players? That means at least half of our players are on no schollys.

If the 36 schoolys are divided, then players are maybe given half scholarships at best.

 

Why would we get the same players, if all of the players were on 100% Full scholarship?

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see it happening that way.

 

The stadium is damn important. But I think the scholarships are as well.

 

I'm not comfortbal basing the future on possiblities like being offered affiliation in a CAA north... unless you know something that I don't know. The CAA may never split into two divisions.

 

Why not max out the schollys now, go independent, and have even more leverage and reason to get the stadium done? What about having a 12k seat stadium, but not be on full scholarship? HOw long do we wait for the CAA to split? Or for the America East to decide to have football? Or for the NEC to go full schollys?

 

The top notch FCS players want FULL rides, not half rides or somewhere in between.

Even without the stadium, I think we pull in the better recruits, with the possibility of becoming much more competitive with the Montanas of the league, while we construct the stadium... After the stadium is built, then we don't have to dickle around with finding more schollys.

 

As for paying for the extra schollys for the women's team, a money game with the 57+ rides will certainly help pay for it.

[UAalum72]

Just a few points about the previous discussion:

 

1. I'm pretty sure Ford said this year that we only have one or two players on full rides, the rest of the nearly thirty equivalencies are split up into partials

 

2. I wouldn't count on Delaware or Montana ever coming here, they play very few non-league road games with other FCS schools.

 

3. Speculation on the CAA breakup revolves around the fact that they have 12 teams already, and Georgia State and Old Dominion will be starting up within two more years, 14 being thought too many for one conference. Possible breakup of the Big East on football lines filtering down to FCS is also part of it.

 

4. Technically there's no requirement for a larger stadium for FBS, only 15K actual attendance. Expecting to build 50,000 seats that would only be needed to join a major top-six conference is just too far into the future to be realistic, and unless you know a donor with $200M it's not politically realistic. Get the 24K stadium and if you're at the point in 20 years where you need to double it, it'll be an easier sell to get the money then when crowds are near capacity.

 

5. Anyway a bigger issue than a stadium for going FBS is what league do you expect to join? Which of the Big East, ACC or Big 10 do you think is looking for a team in Northeast? or is it the MAC that gets you excited about being FBS?

 

6. BTW today is Bob Ford's 71st birthday.

[danefan]

Andrew Smith is the only full scholarship player we have. The other 31 scholarships are split and I have no clue how many partials there are.

[MRSGDG]

Not to be a downer on this but I am very concerned about State funding for this next fiscal year. Patterson and Silver will still be 2 of the 3 men in a room. Depending on how the election goes, the state senate appears up for grabs. So the 3rd man becomes the player to be named later. It does not seem like anyone is talking about a fiscal climate in state government where approval for UA's football stadium seems likely, no matter how much of a priority the school makes it. Gov Patterson has compared this crisis with the Great Depression - speking to the national Press club in DC.

As far as increasing the number of scholarships - where does the money come from. If you cut current men's sports you then have money and no title 9 offset problem. But what teams do you cut. We have already lost a mens' wrestling team that would have been competitive at the national level. If we are talking about more scholarships then - where does the money come from? the athletic dept is still run on a shoestring compared to most D1 schools. The students athletic fees are out of sight. I haven't heard of any tremendous increase in donations to the programs.

All that being said - I look forward to tailgating at the home opener and continue to hope for the best.

 

exactly... I think only people who have access to UA's financial records can tell you how much money is involved, and how much money is exactly needed. Right now the last thing any state agency included SUNY is going to do, is find extra ways to spend money, even if it is to make money. They just want to maintain what they at least have right now.

[ATL_DANE]

I will say just two things on this thread:

 

1) We need to keep up with the other SUNY Centers (Academically and Athletically) UA Football is falling way behind SBU and Buffalo. Buffalo plays Auburn and Pitt. SBU plays Army and Rutgers. UA plays Bryant and Saint Francis? I have a major problem with UA not keeping up with our peer SUNY Centers. I'm not asking New York to keep up with Michigan, Florida, Georgia, Texas or UC. Keep up with the SUNY Centers. That's all I ask.

 

2) Look the part. If UA wants to be treated like a major state university it needs the appropriate facilities and conference affiliation. You wouldn't go to a job interview in ripped jeans and a tee shirt and expect a job offer? UA can't have a high school football field and expect significant numbers of fans to attend.

 

We need to beg, borrow or steal to keep up with Stony Brook and Buffalo. Not keeping up with SBU and UB just proves the point about who is and isn't a New York flagship. There is a lot of work to be done in a short amount of time. Buffalo fought the SUNY system to be where they are. Will UA fight?

[uofalbany]

I will say just two things on this thread:

 

1) We need to keep up with the other SUNY Centers (Academically and Athletically) UA Football is falling way behind SBU and Buffalo. Buffalo plays Auburn and Pitt. SBU plays Army and Rutgers. UA plays Bryant and Saint Francis? I have a major problem with UA not keeping up with our peer SUNY Centers. I'm not asking New York to keep up with Michigan, Florida, Georgia, Texas or UC. Keep up with the SUNY Centers. That's all I ask.

 

2) Look the part. If UA wants to be treated like a major state university it needs the appropriate facilities and conference affiliation. You wouldn't go to a job interview in ripped jeans and a tee shirt and expect a job offer? UA can't have a high school football field and expect significant numbers of fans to attend.

 

We need to beg, borrow or steal to keep up with Stony Brook and Buffalo. Not keeping up with SBU and UB just proves the point about who is and isn't a New York flagship. There is a lot of work to be done in a short amount of time. Buffalo fought the SUNY system to be where they are. Will UA fight?

 

Everything that I have previously written on this topic has been influenced by those same exact thoughts atl dane. Lackadaisical effort, mediocre goals, and a lack of vision by our university and our athletic department will put us so behind that we'll never catch up.

 

This will happen if we are nearsighted, and if we obsess on all of the small, minute obstacles along the way. I guess it's all about personal perspective, and where each of us wants to see our university go.

 

Will UA fight, and will its supporters, including alumni, fight?

 

Just a few points about the previous discussion:

 

2. I wouldn't count on Delaware or Montana ever coming here, they play very few non-league road games with other FCS schools.

 

3. Speculation on the CAA breakup revolves around the fact that they have 12 teams already, and Georgia State and Old Dominion will be starting up within two more years, 14 being thought too many for one conference. Possible breakup of the Big East on football lines filtering down to FCS is also part of it.

 

4. Technically there's no requirement for a larger stadium for FBS, only 15K actual attendance. Expecting to build 50,000 seats that would only be needed to join a major top-six conference is just too far into the future to be realistic, and unless you know a donor with $200M it's not politically realistic. Get the 24K stadium and if you're at the point in 20 years where you need to double it, it'll be an easier sell to get the money then when crowds are near capacity.

 

5. Anyway a bigger issue than a stadium for going FBS is what league do you expect to join? Which of the Big East, ACC or Big 10 do you think is looking for a team in Northeast? or is it the MAC that gets you excited about being FBS?

 

Who knows if Delaware or Montana would agree to visit UAlbany’s stadium…. But we’d certainly attract big FCS names.

Who wouldn't want to play FORDIE in his new stadium?

 

It will be interesting to see what happens, if anything, with all of the speculation going around. A lot of what-ifs thrown around. Even if the CAA breaks up, there’s no guarantee that they’ll need to add new programs. If they happened to split, there’s no guarantee that UAlbany would be picked as an addition, even if they do decide to add another program to the mix.

 

50k seats is a wet dream. A 15 to 20k seat stadium, with the capability of expanding to 30 to 40k, is what I’d like to see. And I know it can be done now, if we are agressive and really want it.

 

Worrying about the FBS while we are in the NEC is LOCO. There are too many things we need to do NOW, just to get out of the FCS basement.

 

The only way of dealing with TITLE IX situation would be to add a women's program. A good way to regress is to start eliminating some of your current programs. Progress not regress. And don't depend, expect, or count on Central SUNY to solve our problems. The University of Albany needs to take it by the ballies and make it happen. If we have the FULL rides, we get a money game a year (best case scenerio) which hopefully lines our pockets with 400-500k, which can be directed toward the addition of the women's program.

[jalidanefan]

We eliminated men's swimming or wrestling (an Olympic quality program at the time) when we first proposed DI.

 

Do we have some magic that 5 schools in the MAC (midwest) didnt in the last 5 years. Each school in that division whose FB rograms were already revved up more than ours who chose to make big investments into FB then cut other men's programs.

 

Once again, if the school community acknowledges this FACT of life and makes the decision to go on with an upgrade then fine. But lets not fool ourselves into thinking we have deeper pockets than Bowling Green, Toledo, Ohio (Dayton), Ball State, Western Michigan, ... there are many more, who cut men's programs. Each of these schools chose to dramatically increase funding for FB shortly before ending other men's programs. It will happen at UA, it has happened before, acknowledge it as far more probable then not. Unless you can point to evidence as good as mine to the contrary.

 

So on with the stadium or scholarship increases, it is exciting, it may bring positive attention to the university and community (although not having FB doesn't seem to hurt Binghamton at all), but there will be costs, not to acknowledge that is to either lie to the kids and coaches who will be hurt or hide your head in the sand to the evidence to appease yourself.

[uofalbany]

We eliminated men's swimming or wrestling (an Olympic quality program at the time) when we first proposed DI.

 

We elimnated which, swimming or wrestling? After the initial proposal or after entering D1?

 

Do we have some magic that 5 schools in the MAC (midwest) didnt in the last 5 years. Each school in that division whose FB rograms were already revved up more than ours who chose to make big investments into FB then cut other men's programs. But lets not fool ourselves into thinking we have deeper pockets than Bowling Green, Toledo, Ohio (Dayton), Ball State, Western Michigan, ... Each of these schools chose to dramatically increase funding for FB shortly before ending other men's programs.

 

I would imagine each school has it's own intentions and preferences. I like to base my perspective on numbers and facts. Specifically, for each school, what was this dramatic increase in football funding? How much more revved up than us were they before the funding increase? What programs did each school cut? I would hate to base our initiatives and goals on other schools actions. Maybe all of the schools favored getting rid of those men's programs. Maybe those programs meant so little, that it was agreed it was the most simple way of growing football. Their intentions and action and preferences have nothing to do with UAlbany.

 

So on with the stadium or scholarship increases, it is exciting, it may bring positive attention to the university and community (although not having FB doesn't seem to hurt Binghamton at all), but there will be costs, not to acknowledge that is to either lie to the kids and coaches who will be hurt or hide your head in the sand to the evidence to appease yourself.

 

We have NO stadium now, therefore, it is necessary. The stadium will most definitely end up being funded by what we get from the state directly from the budget. The stadium will have absolutely no impact on men's or women's programs currently at the university.

 

An increase in football scholarships from 32 to 63 and satisfying TITLE IX will have an impact on the AD budget. An important question would be, how much of an increase in COST will it take to do it.... Before we go skipping down the path of cutting any men's sports, let's see what kind of money we are looking at here.

 

We could probably find a figure of what the cost would be for each additional athlete added to the AD. The other cost associated would be travel for the added women's team to other schools.. And we can assume we will be able to get money games being above 57 rides.

 

Did SBU cut men's programs going to 63 rides, or did they satisfy TITLE IX? I didn't hear anything along those lines.

 

Before we start burying our heads in the sand, and before we start cutting our men's programs, maybe we should figure out how we can increase in scholarship and satisfy TITLE IX and not cut programs.

[danefan]

Did SBU cut men's programs going to 63 rides, or did they satisfy TITLE IX? I didn't hear anything along those lines.

 

Before we start burying our heads in the sand, and before we start cutting our men's programs, maybe we should figure out how we can increase in scholarship and satisfy TITLE IX and not cut programs.

 

SBU did not cut any men's sports. But I will say this...word on the street is that they are struggling big time to fund their Title IX equivalents to their FB schollys. They are eventually going to have to cut funding to other sports (basketball is a likely place). We don't want that to happen.

 

I consider myself one of the biggest UA football supporter on here but I don't want funding to other sports to be cut to fund the 63 rides. I want the stadium to be a priority over all other facilities, but I don't want budgetary funding cuts.

 

Remember - you cannot use state money for athletic scholarships. its against state law.

[UAalum72]

We eliminated men's swimming or wrestling (an Olympic quality program at the time) when we first proposed DI.

 

We elimnated which, swimming or wrestling? After the initial proposal or after entering D1?

Both. Albany announced the elimination of wrestling, men's tennis, and men's and women's swimming as varsity sports in June 1994 - the beginning of the transition from Division III. Swimming was supposedly because the pool no longer met NCAA standards. Because WS was included, I suspect money was as much or more of a reason than Title IX. JV football and basketball went at about the same time. Women's lacrosse had just started in 1992.

[uofalbany]

Danefan, from my time on BPF, it seems as if you ARE one of the biggest UA football supporters on this board. I, for one, appreciate the info you contribute and offer. Thanks to UAalum72 as well.

 

Thanks for the info on SBU. Maybe you can answer some of the questions popping up in my brain.

 

How many full scholarship do we offer our current UAlbany athlete population? Where do we generate the money to cover them, seeing we don't get funding from the State for scholarships? I assume State funding can be used for team equipment, team travel, and all other AD activity.

 

If you were to guestimate, in terms of additional scholarships, what would the cost be for adding 30 full football scholarships, and an additional 30 for the women's side?

 

If the scenerio was that the university were going to go to 63 schollys in football, and add the 30 schollys for the women's side, how would YOU generate the additional cash to fund it, if in charge of the AD? And let's say we did generate 300-500k per year in money games, how would you incorporate this cash?

[danefan]

How many full scholarship do we offer our current UAlbany athlete population? Where do we generate the money to cover them, seeing we don't get funding from the State for scholarships? I assume State funding can be used for team equipment, team travel, and all other AD activity.

The use of state funding for athletics is something I don't have a ton of knowledge of. Dane96 is more of the "expert" on that area. But I don't expect him to chime in on this for a few weeks because he's out galavanting in Europe somehwere. What I do know is that you cannot use state money for athleticly based scholarships.

 

If you were to guestimate, in terms of additional scholarships, what would the cost be for adding 30 full football scholarships, and an additional 30 for the women's side?

One common misunderstanding is that you have to match scholarships for scholarships on the women's side. Adding 30 football scholarships doesn't necessarily mean you have to add 30 women's scholarships. There are other ways to be in Title IX compliance, including funding a new women's sport with no scholarships at all. The budgetary costs of a new sport plus adding a bit to other women's sports may make up the funding added for the 30 football scholarships. Title IX is about "equal access to education" which includes intercollegiate athletics. It does not necessarily mean a $ for $ tradeoff, althought that's the easiest way to prove compliance.

I would guestimate that adding the 30 rides for football would cost at most $600,000 a year (30 X 20,000). Now that would be substantially less as some rides will be given to in-state players whose tuition costs are less. With that being said the scholarship costs are an accounting "game". The athletic department "pays" the university for the scholarships. Whether or not its the actual cost of tuition is beyond my knowledge. So essentially the AD would need to come up with over $1 million per year.

 

If the scenerio was that the university were going to go to 63 schollys in football, and add the 30 schollys for the women's side, how would YOU generate the additional cash to fund it, if in charge of the AD? And let's say we did generate 300-500k per year in money games, how would you incorporate this cash?

 

I try and get a big donor to increase the scholarship endowment. They already have a large fundraiser for athletic scholarships which is the two golf outings. Getting a big donor on top of that is necessary. The profit from money games should be put towards football scholarships and expenses first and that includes whatever Title IX cost is associated therewith. Afterall that is a football expense. Anything left over should be general athletic money. Generally speaking that money can be planned for. These games are set up years in advance with contracts signed that include buyout provisions. At the very least you can plan for the buyout provision.

[uofalbany]

Thanks df for the info and insight. It's important stuff and is something to ponder.

 

I guess how it works is: if UAlbany football were in a Full scholarship conference or if we were an independent, the UAlbany AD could offer the full 63 scholarships or any number under 63 that it wanted. Then, the AD would have to pay the University for the chosen number.

 

Hypothetically, could the university itself decide to waive the scholarship cost of the added scholarships owed by the AD - for the betterment and growth of the University as as whole? Or is that sort of thing out of the University's hands, in the hands of SUNY Central, or against NCAA regulations?

[danefan]

Hypothetically, could the university itself decide to waive the scholarship cost of the added scholarships owed by the AD - for the betterment and growth of the University as as whole? Or is that sort of thing out of the University's hands, in the hands of SUNY Central, or against NCAA regulations?

 

 

I have no clue how the internal accounting would work for UAlbany, but regardless of how its done internally it still counts as athletic spending and scholarships for purposes of the NCAA.

 

We wouldn't have to be at the full 63 for purposes of NCAA. We just need to be at 90% thereof over a two year average to get a good money game from an FBS team.