MVCfans.com

mvfcfan wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that both are important sports. Most schools are putting more money into football though since there is a better chance at making the playoffs and competing for a national title. And it's not an entirely crazy thought for football schools to play together while the non-football schools play together. After all the football playing Dakota schools have been outperforming the MVC privates the past several years in basketball.

The other point I was trying to make was just proven yesterday. We're never going to compete for national titles in basketball; especially when schools are paying one and done players $100,000 under the table to go to their school and wear a certain company's apparel, just so they can hire that company's agent.

Now making it to the Sweet 16 every 2-3 years is definitely realistic. Getting more than one bid in the future is questionable, but it could still happen once in a while.

I guess I just can't figure out what it is you don't understand about the financial dynamics involved here. Almost all Universities below the power 5 +1 level are increasingly under budget constraints and losing money in providing athletics. The need to find ways to increase revenue and decrease expenses will continue to be paramount to their ability to compete in those sports they choose to provide. I love football, but at the majority of FCS schools, it is the biggest financial hit on their athletics budgets , and offers little chance of becoming even a neutral budget line item let alone a profitable one. Winning a championship is nice , but even for schools who regularly make the FCS playoffs, it does not result in financial gain for most. On the other hand simply making an NCAA Tournament appearance in basketball results in significant financial gain for both the University itself plus every team in the conference. Putting 1-2 teams in the NCAA Tourney yearly is much more financially advantageous for those Universities and the MVC than putting 5-6 schools in the FCS playoffs every year. Just the way it is. This is the real world; in the end you have to pay the bills .

^exactly. While football is great it's just not profitable unless you're a P5, Boise, byu, or notre Dame. I'm not saying get rid of it but basketball is definitely more important and a higher impact at all but 60 schools nationwide on any level.

glm38 wrote:

mvfcfan wrote:I just don't get what the issue is with football on this board. If a school wants to have a football team or doesn't want to have a football team then why does it matter? I just don't what the point of trashing football on this thread is. I'm not on here demanding that Bradley, Evansville, Drake, Loyola, and Valpo sponsor scholarship football. I'm just defending a sport my school sponsors. The fact remains that it is possible to be successful in both as every public in the MVC has proven.

So it's ok for you to malign/put down NCAA basketball in the MVC saying FCS football is superior? But it's not ok for others on here to state the opposite opinion? That makes zero sense.

Again this is primarily a BASKETBALL forum. Most people on here are more concerned with MVC basketball than they are with FCS football.

I would certainly agree, but after 52 pages on this thread, I wonder.

Don't know where to put this so here it is. Value of top college football team is Ohio state at 1.5-BILLION. Top in basket is (was) Louisville at 45-million

It's hard to quantify the exact value of football. I went to high school with a lot of people that went to K-State mostly because of football and the college atmosphere and experience that comes with it. I don't know how much that factors into prospective college students at the FCS level, but it probably has some effect.

AndShock wrote:It's hard to quantify the exact value of football. I went to high school with a lot of people that went to K-State mostly because of football and the college atmosphere and experience that comes with it. I don't know how much that factors into prospective college students at the FCS level, but it probably has some effect.

It does.

It's been referenced before, but UNI did a study in 09/10 and it found that if football was cut enrollment would take a dramatic drop - to the point that, IIRC, they said it would basically cripple the univerty's ability to operate at a level other than D3 or NAIA.

Jsnhbe1Birds wrote:Don't know where to put this so here it is. Value of top college football team is Ohio state at 1.5-BILLION. Top in basket is (was) Louisville at 45-million

That's comparing different valuations from Forbes and WSJ. The WSJ which values OSU Football at $1.5 billion has the most valuable being Kentucky basketball at $342.6 million.

rally wrote:

Jsnhbe1Birds wrote:Don't know where to put this so here it is. Value of top college football team is Ohio state at 1.5-BILLION. Top in basket is (was) Louisville at 45-million

That's comparing different valuations from Forbes and WSJ. The WSJ which values OSU Football at $1.5 billion has the most valuable being Kentucky basketball at $342.6 million.

That's makes a little more sense.

Has it ever been reported what portion of the AAC television deal is granted to WSU? I assume most of the limited TV contract is for football which they won't see a penny of.

Methinks the move was made predominantly for the purposes of tournament revenue and seeding. Wichita State will find the move financially rewarding I'm sure, though perhaps not as much as they had hoped. I remember the reported entrance costs associated with the Shockers move to the AAC were staggering