What's the next realignment domino to fall?

[uniftw]

FWIW

The FCS is the NCAA championship. The FBS plays for something that isn't NCAA related. Feel free to say the FCS doesn't play for a title at the highest level if you want, just realize that the "highest level" isn't NCAA sanctioned. It's like saying that Clemson's title doesn't count last year because it wasn't at the NFL level, which truly is a higher level.

[Khan4Cats]

I don't think the conversation is about even talent I think it's more about a more even chance. The birds can't even get to the final four of college football. They at least have the chance in college basketball. Also, since they're eligible for the same tournament as power 5 schools the exposure is higher in basketball which could result in higher profits. Ask, butler, WSU, gonzaga, VCU, dayton, etc. No matter how you slice it the FCS isnt as profitable as the CFP and not even as profitable as the worst bowl game. Basketball will always bring more exposure than football to an FCS school unless the football team pulls a NDSU type UCLA streak.

The Birds were in the Football Championship game a couple of years ago, they haven't even been in the NCAA's this century.

I'd be curious to see the balance sheets of the private schools to see just how profitable their 'non-football' athletic departments are. I doubt they are any more profitable than the football playing publics.

[BEARZ77]

FWIW

The FCS is the NCAA championship. The FBS plays for something that isn't NCAA related. Feel free to say the FCS doesn't play for a title at the highest level if you want, just realize that the "highest level" isn't NCAA sanctioned. It's like saying that Clemson's title doesn't count last year because it wasn't at the NFL level, which truly is a higher level.

Fair and accurate point; but we all know that's just semantics. Ask yourself this, if the question is posed who the National Champion in Football in the NCAA was last year, what will the response be. And if you ask most college football fans to name the top 20 programs last year, will a FCS team get named. On the other hand if you ask that in basketball will Gonzaga, or WSU get named ?

[rally]

I'd be curious to see the balance sheets of the private schools to see just how profitable their 'non-football' athletic departments are. I doubt they are any more profitable than the football playing publics.

If all or almost all FCS schools are losing money playing football, their overall athletic departments are going to be worse off then if they didn't sponsor football. Conversely, if you don't sponsor football, your athletic department if going to be better off than if it did because aren't losing money on it. That's one factor, and there are plenty of others in judging the performance of an athletic department. But the negative financial effect that FCS football has on an athletic department is pretty much undeniable.

[unipanther99]

I'd be curious to see the balance sheets of the private schools to see just how profitable their 'non-football' athletic departments are. I doubt they are any more profitable than the football playing publics.

If all or almost all FCS schools are losing money playing football, their overall athletic departments are going to be worse off then if they didn't sponsor football. Conversely, if you don't sponsor football, your athletic department if going to be better off than if it did because aren't losing money on it. That's one factor, and there are plenty of others in judging the performance of an athletic department. But the negative financial effect that FCS football has on an athletic department is pretty much undeniable.

Football loses money, yes. But UNI without a football program would be a drastically different kind of school. WSU was sort of a unicorn. Without football, several key donors just go away, the student to athletic department relationship changes significantly for the worse, our standing and exposure within the state declines --- and perhaps our share of tax $ with it. Cutting football would create more problems than it would seem to solve. The Campanile (Bell tower) doesn't make UNI any money either, but that's not a reason to put a wrecking ball to it. It's part of the identity of the university. Football is much the same.

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

I'd be curious to see the balance sheets of the private schools to see just how profitable their 'non-football' athletic departments are. I doubt they are any more profitable than the football playing publics.

If all or almost all FCS schools are losing money playing football, their overall athletic departments are going to be worse off then if they didn't sponsor football. Conversely, if you don't sponsor football, your athletic department if going to be better off than if it did because aren't losing money on it. That's one factor, and there are plenty of others in judging the performance of an athletic department. But the negative financial effect that FCS football has on an athletic department is pretty much undeniable.

Football loses money, yes. But UNI without a football program would be a drastically different kind of school. WSU was sort of a unicorn. Without football, several key donors just go away, the student to athletic department relationship changes significantly for the worse, our standing and exposure within the state declines --- and perhaps our share of tax $ with it. Cutting football would create more problems than it would seem to solve. The Campanile (Bell tower) doesn't make UNI any money either, but that's not a reason to put a wrecking ball to it. It's part of the identity of the university. Football is much the same.

Unicorn? Tell that to Gonzaga, St. Mary's, VCU (only a club team) . Butler and dayton are non-scholarship. Xavier? Nopen. Not a single one play any sort of scholarship football.

[mvfcfan]

Yeah because we all know that the privates are so cash strapped that we have to have travel partners in this league even though they don't sponsor football.

Where's all this extra money everyone is talking about? I certainly don't see it. Everyone is so cash strapped we can't afford the extra trips to Missouri State every year.

[BEARZ77]

Yeah because we all know that the privates are so cash strapped that we have to have travel partners in this league even though they don't sponsor football.

Where's all this extra money everyone is talking about? I certainly don't see it. Everyone is so cash strapped we can't afford the extra trips to Missouri State every year.

You just made the point we all have been making. If I am currently losing 5 million a year in athletics and 2 million of that is Football, I don't become solvent because I cut Football. I just become less in debt. There are still major issues beyond that that will have to be addressed in athletics funding at the non power 5 Universities.

I'm a public school guy, but I can't understand what is so difficult to understand about the fact that athletic departments at our level are consistently operating millions of dollars in the red, and the only way they don't show it is by drawing down huge subsidies from their schools general funds. And when you look at the #1 culprit in that it's FCS football for most schools for a number of reasons. One is the obvious fact it can't cover it's own expenses. But it also forces Universities to have to maintain an equal number of non revenue producing sports for woman to remain in compliance, thus adding to the debt athletics burden their Universities with. This is going to come to an end at some point, because state legislatures are increasingly putting the screws to funding.

There are many activities and programs at Universities that don't cover their costs and have to be funded, so the fact Athletics is also in that boat isn't so much the issue as to the amount and the ever increasing costs associated with that. People are forgetting the primary role of the University is to use it's resources to further the education of its students, not fund semi-pro sports teams.

[mvfcfan]

I'd rather see my team go to the Ohio Valley for all sports than drop football. I'd almost rather see us go that route anyways.

Pros- Rivalry with E Illinois, competing with teams that spend comparatively to us, basketball tournament in Evansville, probably have the nicest basketball arena in the league, immediately compete for football and basketball championships, every school in the OVC is a public except Belmont but they're actually good.

Cons- Murray State would join MVC, OVC is a one bid league (who cares, we're never getting an at large anyways and not convinced the MVC ever will either)

I'd also like to add Western Illinois and North Alabama to the OVC, but I'd be willing to join with or without them.

OVC North Division
Western IL (football)
Eastern IL (football)
SIUE
INST (football)
Morehead
EKU (football)
SEMO (football)

OVC South Division
TN ST (football)
TN TC (football)
UT Martin (football)
Belmont
N Alabama (football)
Jax St (football)
Austin Peay (football)

The conference would be legit, and this is actually realistic. 14 overall members with 11 football members. I definitely like this a lot better than staying in a league where no one is on the same page. The travel is also very reasonable. If I was the OVC commissioner I'd be contacting us, WIU, and N Alab for sure. And the thing about is if we lost Jax St and EKU to FBS, we'd still have a 12 team league with 9 fb schools. Just seems a lot more stable to me. And there's always the chance Morehead State could bring back scholarship football.

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

That's the dumbest idea I've seen on the board