Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

Recommended Posts

http://www.nj.com/sports/njsports/index.ssf/2009/12/football_championship_subdivis.html

 

A very good article from the Newark Star Ledger this morning about the costs of FCS football. The article focuses on Monmouth but the issues are common to almost all FCS schools.

 

 

What I hate about these stories is the facts they always omit.

 

College football costs a lot of money from an accounting stand point, not from an actual dollars stand point. Most of the cost is from scholarships that are charged to the department. As the Hofstra experience has taught us, without football the college would just re allocate the money (scholarships) to other students. Net effect? Zero. Its just an allocation. Either way, your giving a kid free (or discounted) admission.

 

Also, what is the cost of a scholarship? Its really nothing. Does adding one body to a class room really cost anything? No. The professor would be there anyway. Maybe you can claim there is an opportunity cost. The fact anyway is that the costs are bogus. You charge the athletic department the full cost of scholarship. What student pays full retail prices? No one. Every student is on some sort of aid (Pell Grants, TAP etc.)

 

Don't forget, these stories never focus on the intangibles. Is there no value to a university in the name recognition that a football brings to a university? Kids like to attend brand name universities just like they want brand name products. Do you want an iPod or a COSTCO private brand MP3 player? Turner Gill said he was shocked when he went to Buffalo and couldn't find a student wearing a Buffalo shirt. Students were wearing Michigan, Ohio State and other university branded merchandise. School pride? Zero. Kids want to attend Michigan, Florida, UCLA etc. Its not because they heard they had a great accounting department. They know the school. They know the brand. They want that brand. Where did the brand come from? Athletics, which is mainly basketball and football.

 

Lastly, although this story was about the cost to an athletic department to fund a FCS football team, I wish they would talk about the economic impact to the community. Are we to believe that there is no impact? When 10,000 to 100,000 fans come to a game do they not eat anything? Does no one stay at a hotel? Is there no economic activity? Of course there is and that would be lost without the football team.

 

The anti athletic forces focus on the numbers that work for them. They conveniently drop or ignore numbers that don't work for them.

Edited by SoCal_Dane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nj.com/sp...p_subdivis.html

 

A very good article from the Newark Star Ledger this morning about the costs of FCS football. The article focuses on Monmouth but the issues are common to almost all FCS schools.

 

 

What I hate about these stories is the facts they always omit.

 

College football costs a lot of money from an accounting stand point, not from an actual dollars stand point. Most of the cost is from scholarships that are charged to the department. As the Hofstra experience has taught us, without football the college would just re allocate the money (scholarships) to other students. Net effect? Zero. Its just an allocation. Either way, your giving a kid free (or discounted) admission.

 

Also, what is the cost of a scholarship? Its really nothing. Does adding one body to a class room really cost anything? No. The professor would be there anyway. Maybe you can claim there is an opportunity cost. The fact anyway is that the costs are bogus. You charge the athletic department the full cost of scholarship. What student pays full retail prices? No one. Every student is on some sort of aid (Pell Grants, TAP etc.)

Don't forget, these stories never focus on the intangibles. Is there no value to a university in the name recognition that a football brings to a university? Kids like to attend brand name universities just like they want brand name products. Do you want an iPod or a COSTCO private brand MP3 player? Turner Gill said he was shocked when he went to Buffalo and couldn't find a student wearing a Buffalo shirt. Students were wearing Michigan, Ohio State and other university branded merchandise. School pride? Zero. Kids want to attend Michigan, Florida, UCLA etc. Its not because they heard they had a great accounting department. They know the school. They know the brand. They want that brand. Where did the brand come from? Athletics, which is mainly basketball and football.

 

Lastly, although this story was about the cost to an athletic department to fund a FCS football team, I wish they would talk about the economic impact to the community. Are we to believe that there is no impact? When 10,000 to 100,000 fans come to a game do they not eat anything? Does no one stay at a hotel? Is there no economic activity? Of course there is and that would be lost without the football team.

 

The anti athletic forces focus on the numbers that work for them. They conveniently drop or ignore numbers that don't work for them.

 

 

The bolded point is really what I get pissed off about.

 

Unless you have just enough classrooms and beds for the students at the university, there is no lost opportunity. Football scholarships should be counted "at cost". Whatever out of pocket expense there is for the university to have that student on campus is the real cost of a scholarship.

Edited by danefan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"FCS schools must confront their expenses without the benefit of the lucrative television contracts or the cash-laden bowl payouts that aid Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division 1-A) teams."

 

Me and my dad were discussing this last night. When they first did the split some 1-AA games were on network TV in local markets whether it was BU, BC, Rutgers, UConn or Holy Cross. Since then, Conferences and not the NCAA have negotiated TV contracts and that has steered revenue towards the BCS and FBS schools. This makes FCS football an attendance driven sport. If you can't draw you can't survive.

 

We are kidding ourselves if we think that FCS football as it is now can survive. The dent in budgets in the future will be in travel. Those costs are only gonna continue to rise as we go into the future. If we stay patient I am almost willing to bet that a new Yankee conference emerges with decreased scholarship numbers.

Edited by WCDBvoiceofUA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every successful endeavor in life begins with heavy costs and over weighted risks. When SUNY Buffalo started their FBS football program their was A LOT of naysayers. This went on until just last year when they won the MAC. I read an article this morning that was talking about possible expansions of the Big Ten and the Big East and they referenced SUNY Buffalo.

 

Albany needs leadership and to take a few risks. This up coming shake up in the Big Ten, Big East (maybe PAC10) CAA etc will have a lot of ripple effects. We need to be in a position to seize on the opportunity. I think Buffalo and Stony Brook are poised for a conference bump, are we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Reality Check but Buffalo has no shot at getting into the Big Ten. I will either be Rutgers, ND, WV or Mizzou. Anyway the decision is not coming for 18 months. My point being is that if the structure of FCS football does not change it will not be in the long term benefit of UA to put too much investment in football (i.e. New stadium and increase in scholarships). I do support improvements to University Field as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Reality Check but Buffalo has no shot at getting into the Big Ten. I will either be Rutgers, ND, WV or Mizzou. Anyway the decision is not coming for 18 months. My point being is that if the structure of FCS football does not change it will not be in the long term benefit of UA to put too much investment in football (i.e. New stadium and increase in scholarships). I do support improvements to University Field as is.

 

 

ALL PROGRAMS LOSE MONEY...there are about 20-30 at the FBS level that actually make money...real money and not "break-even EADA reporting". Football loses money everywhere. Oh yeah, guess what, outside hoops at the big schools...most schools lose money on athletics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did FCS football become about making money?

 

There are very very very few athletic departments in the country that are in it to make money.

 

FCS football isn't going to change anytime soon. It is always going to require an investment by the University.

 

However, football, like basketball, is a revenue generating sport. If the right committment is made, it can be used to take the load off of other sports. That is something that cannot be said for any other sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...