mvfcfan wrote:Here's the thing you don't seem to understand Mikovio.
Wow.
Most FCS teams play in garbage conferences in basketball, because most FCS programs are very small public schools.
They play in garbage conferences, not just
in basketball. Conferences which are peers to the MVFC. Which is why I'm cool on efforts to merge the MVC and MVFC.
Most FCS programs in basketball are considered low majors because they are that small. The Missouri Valley Football Conference is a different level than your typical FCS conference and it has been showing every year in the (FCS) playoffs. A more accurate comparison is comparing the MVC and it's programs to the Mountain West and its programs. Both conferences are made of schools that are actually mid majors and have the ability to support both programs. The Dakota schools without a doubt would be mid majors. They can support both programs and be successful at both. Also most (but not all) MVFC schools could support FBS football, but choose not to. Most FCS programs would never be able to support FBS football.
Sorry but the numbers just don't bear that out.
The MVFC includes schools like MSU and Illinois State, which yes, can support healthy programs in both. But it also has WIU and Youngstown which can't. Now, is NDSU more like MSU and ISU than WIU and Youngstown? In terms of overall revenue, yes, but the problem is all their revenue goes into FCS football. Again, their basketball coaches are getting poached by Horizon and MAC schools.
No, the MWC isn't a peer. The MWC has schools which are generally the biggest in their states and/or major cities, or close to it, and can support healthy programs in both.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/San Diego State had $56 million in revenue in 2016
UNLV $47 million
Boise State $47 million
Fresno State $45 million
New Mexico $43 million
Colorado State $40 million
Wyoming $37 million
Utah State $32 million
Nevada $31 million
San Jose State $31 million
All MVFC schools earn less revenue than all MWC AD's.
Illinois State $27 million
Missouri State $26 million
North Dakota State $25 million
North Dakota $25 million
SIU $23 million
UNI $18 million
South Dakota State $17 million
South Dakota $16 million
Indiana State $15 million
Youngstown $15 million
WIU $13 million
San Diego State can pay a Rocky Long and a Steve Fisher and have $10 million left over, but no MVFC programs have that luxury. My point is that, when you get below a certain point, you need to make a choice-- do we want to put more resources into football or basketball? NDSU is an example of a school which, while earning revenue near the top of the MVC, will starve its basketball to prop up its football.
And honestly how much money do you really need to find 8 or so guys that can put a ball through a hole?
That'd make a great slogan for Chicago State. But in the real world, what you spend on basketball matters. You can hire good coaches, but if you don't pay them, they'll bolt. And yeah, you can hire the assistant and he might keep the train running, but if you don't pay him either he'll bolt. Eventually your luck will run out. See: SIU circa 2000-2010.
Too add to my point there are also a lot of mid major and low major programs that don't have football and are bad at basketball.
Alright, let's break this down. Of the 351 Division I schools,
130 are FBS programs (85 scholarships).
124 are FCS programs
--105 of which offer scholarships (63 scholarships)
--19 of which are non-scholarship (Pioneer and Ivy)
97 are I-AAA (no football)
Now, you've got 109 full-scholarship FCS programs, and 116 schools which are either non-scholie FCS or non-football altogether. About the same number.
Yet the best midmajor basketball programs (Butler, Gonzaga, Creighton, Wichita, St. Mary's, Dayton, Rhode Island, Davidson, VCU, SLU) are disproportionately NOT full-scholie FCS. If anything, adding a school with a good FCS program is a bad idea because it encourages them to spend more in that sport-- a sport with very limited returns.