FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

So nothing's really changed, except that there won't be any press around to write about recommendations to wipe EMU's women's golf team out- no clicks to be had there.

I've asked, and you've not answered. So I'll ask again. For an athletic department that is tens of millions of dollars in the red, how would cutting women's golf (or some other low-budget sport) make any kind of significant impact?

My bad- it wouldn't.  My point is that missing from all of the rhetoric about how expensive football is is a discussion about the revenues available simply as a byproduct of EMU having an FBS football team, no matter how bad they are and no matter how much the average student there could care less.  When you take that away- the TV money (which, as I've said is a big time futures winner), the millions in guarantee games, the modest-but-not-insignificant apparel money from adidas...when you strip all of that away and vacate your spot at the FBS money buffet, how much do you really wind up saving?  Assuming that they keep all of the other sports that nobody there cares about either, the school is still going to subsidize almost all of the cost of all of those activities which is a pretty major part of Bunsis's gripe- football just happens to be the biggest, juiciest target. 

[Bombers798891]

My bad- it wouldn't.  My point is that missing from all of the rhetoric about how expensive football is is a discussion about the revenues available simply as a byproduct of EMU having an FBS football team, no matter how bad they are and no matter how much the average student there could care less.  When you take that away- the TV money (which, as I've said is a big time futures winner), the millions in guarantee games, the modest-but-not-insignificant apparel money from adidas...when you strip all of that away and vacate your spot at the FBS money buffet, how much do you really wind up saving?  Assuming that they keep all of the other sports that nobody there cares about either, the school is still going to subsidize almost all of the cost of all of those activities which is a pretty major part of Bunsis's gripe- football just happens to be the biggest, juiciest target. 

The revenue streams you mentioned.

1. $650,000 a year in the new TV deal, which runs for I think another 12 years, though it can always be renegotiated like the last one was before then (Cited previously)
2. $200,000 for the apparel, plus a $200,000 "discretionary fund for retail value." Source here: http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/2015/06/16/metro-state/28845069/
3. $1.2 Million for the game against Missouri in 2016. (Cited previously)

It all adds up to about $2 million a year. But remember, that's not all new money. The old TV deal was worth about $150,000, the old apparel deal $90,000, and they got $650,000 for playing Michigan State in 2014. Source for the MSU game here:http://www.mlive.com/eagles/index.ssf/2015/01/emu_football_team_replaces_mic.html

So, a brand new apparel deal, a brand new TV deal, and a better guarantee game all adds up to an additional $1 million or so for the school over the previous deals. These are better than nothing, but it's not money that's going to turn around the financials of the department on its own.

That only changes if people start showing up, and your toddler analogy is simply silly. If you want people to spend their discretionary income and time on your product, then you need to provide a reason for that. Going 3-21 over the past two years, 7-41 over the past four, and getting more than four wins once in the past 20 is not a reason.

A word on guarantee games: While it looks like the school is adding a few more in the coming years, there's a tradeoff for the money they bring in:

1. You get fewer home games. Sure, from a revenue standpoint, who cares? But if your argument is that people should give the football team a chance, it's hard to do that when you give them all of five chances to do so because you're off playing a trio of paycheck games in NY, NJ, and KY. (And I doubt Army's much of a paycheck, if it is at all)

2. You tend to lose those games, which can set a bad tone for the season from a fan perspective. Again, you want people to care about the team, well, it's pretty hard to get people excited for your first conference home game when you're 1-5 with a 65-0 and a 73-14 loss on your docket.

For EMU, the Benefits outweigh the costs. But paycheck games aren't a panacea, and probably make some of the symptoms ailing the program worse

[wally_wabash]

Interestingly, with all of the attention EMU is getting, it's actually Idaho that is going to abandon FBS football.  But the situations are very different- Idaho has been essentially evicted from the Sun Belt, which was always a poor geographic match.  It's Big Sky or bust for the Vandals. 

[Bombers798891]

From a USA Today article on Idaho:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/04/27/idaho-expected-leave-fbs-fcs/83599158/

"Outgoing Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton, in a 2014 interview with USA TODAY Sports at the time of the NCAA's formulation of a cost of attendance stipend, predicted that schools at the lower end of the FBS resource scale would begin to look to FCS as a way to continue playing football with lessened financial pressure."

[jknezek]

I fully expect another schism in DI football in the next decade after the Power 5 autonomy proposals. The non-power 5 leagues, with a few exceptions, just won't be able to afford it. I think enough TV money will filter down to FCS if the non-power 5 drop down. Not like it will with the Power 5, obviously, but the content will still be needed so some money will be there.

This is the ultimate TCU won, Boise State lost situation.

[Dr. Acula]

I fully expect another schism in DI football in the next decade after the Power 5 autonomy proposals. The non-power 5 leagues, with a few exceptions, just won't be able to afford it. I think enough TV money will filter down to FCS if the non-power 5 drop down. Not like it will with the Power 5, obviously, but the content will still be needed so some money will be there.

This is the ultimate TCU won, Boise State lost situation.

Just look at one of EMU's MAC brethren, Akron.  The University is running a $60m deficit and the football program is no small culprit.  They're paying $4.3m per year just to pay off the $60m InfoCision Stadium, plus $8m per year to subsidize the program itself.  For a school with tight finances that's a lot of dough every year.

[formerd3db]

 Once again, a very intriguing discussion my friends.  I can't really add anything more to the discussion as all of you have covered it extensively well regarding all the pros & cons.  Only to say that I agree with several points that Wally and bombers contributed regarding some reasons to keep it.  And my friend ExTP always seems to come through with a great point as well.  Yet, I also believe that my friend (our friend) Mr. Ypsi knows the situation the best from the underlying historical standpoint since he used to teach there.  And admittedly some of the past few success seasons EMU has had which I and Ypsi shared were 2-3 decades ago and as we all know and agree, college football scene has changed dramatically since then.

I will end with these comments (and in the sense that only posing this as a question to ponder also, similar to ExTP's question as to what would the detriment to EMU be in dropping football).  In considering some arguments for EMU to not retain football, one might as well then just simply apply to to all the sports.  You might as well then simply not sponsor any sports at all (which IMO biased opinion, is ludicrous). Why retain them any of them-what value do any of these really provide to the university? And this would apply to many other schools on the collegiate scene as well at any of the levels.  IMO, (and what I was trying to relate, which I did in perhaps in a poor fashion) is that there is some inherent good and value in sponsoring collegiate athletics if you apply that in the sense of the overall educational experience and mission of a school-that applies perhaps only to those who are participating in those sports but to some alumni and the general community as well.  But I guess not for a school like EMU.  No program, whether sport, music or theater or whatever has value to everyone (putting the $ aside).

Anyway, perhaps it has truly come to the time where EMU will finally have to make a decision.  We'll obviously just have to wait and see what transpires.

P.S. Yes, jknezek, Eastern Michigan was, indeed, in the MIAA way back in the early formative years, but not since about 1923.  They did, however, continue to play some MIAA schools occasionally through the 1960's until they started to "elevate" their program. (BTW, did you know that Hillsdale played Big Ten member U of Chicago in 1930?  Of course, Chicago was in its "downslide years" at that level before unfortunately dropping the sport later in that decade. Same dilemma as EMU?!!!!

 

[Bombers798891]

In considering some arguments for EMU to not retain football, one might as well then just simply apply to to all the sports. 

(putting the $ aside).

The second line here can't happen, which is why the first line here doesn't fly

[jknezek]

  In considering some arguments for EMU to not retain football, one might as well then just simply apply to to all the sports.  You might as well then simply not sponsor any sports at all (which IMO biased opinion, is ludicrous). Why retain them any of them-what value do any of these really provide to the university? And this would apply to many other schools on the collegiate scene as well at any of the levels.  IMO, (and what I was trying to relate, which I did in perhaps in a poor fashion) is that there is some inherent good and value in sponsoring collegiate athletics if you apply that in the sense of the overall educational experience and mission of a school-that applies perhaps only to those who are participating in those sports but to some alumni and the general community as well.  But I guess not for a school like EMU.  No program, whether sport, music or theater or whatever has value to everyone (putting the $ aside).

The big flaw in a lot of this thinking is the outsized costs of football. That is usually more than balanced by outsized revenues,at the D1 level through TV, tickets, product sales, alumni donations, sponsorships and at other levels by tuition paying students, but when it isn't you have a problem. Just one example, Coach C is over 20% of the salary budget for all 16 head coaches at EMU. Football is around 65% of all men's scholarships. The facilities are the most expensive to build and maintain. The staff is the largest. The recruiting expenses are the highest of all sports. The insurance is the most expensive as are the medical expenses, part of that is the violence of the sport, part of that is the shear number of participants.

You can't ignore the elephant in the room. Football is seriously expensive in a way most sports aren't on the expense side. Now imagine the Title IX implications of removing football. It is much different than the Title IX implications of removing, say, every other men's sport. Especially since Title IX exists only on the expense side, not on the revenue side.

Look, I love football. I love college football. But that doesn't exempt the sport from scrutiny. There are going to be places where it simply doesn't make sense to have a team. EMU might be one of those places. That doesn't condemn the sport or the university. There are places where other sports aren't the right fit, for example the SEC doesn't sponsor men's soccer. But it's fair to question these decisions, especially when universities come under serious budget pressure.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I will end with these comments (and in the sense that only posing this as a question to ponder also, similar to ExTP's question as to what would the detriment to EMU be in dropping football).  In considering some arguments for EMU to not retain football, one might as well then just simply apply to to all the sports.  You might as well then simply not sponsor any sports at all (which IMO biased opinion, is ludicrous). Why retain them any of them-what value do any of these really provide to the university? And this would apply to many other schools on the collegiate scene as well at any of the levels.  IMO, (and what I was trying to relate, which I did in perhaps in a poor fashion) is that there is some inherent good and value in sponsoring collegiate athletics if you apply that in the sense of the overall educational experience and mission of a school-that applies perhaps only to those who are participating in those sports but to some alumni and the general community as well.  But I guess not for a school like EMU.  No program, whether sport, music or theater or whatever has value to everyone (putting the $ aside).

You know, I thought even as I was posting that comment, someone might respond with "Well, why have any sports at all?"

The counter to that, of course, is that in general, an intercollegiate athletics program provides many benefits to a college, even in the nonrevenue programs of Division III.  We are all agreed that they enhance the overall education experience and mission, that they can be drivers of applications and enrollment, and sources of school pride.  Carnegie Mellon sponsoring sports like golf, tennis, cross country...of course none of those are essential to the University's daily operation, and the school would still exist if they went away.  But they do draw some quality student-athletes and applicants who otherwise would not consider the school (to wit, I only considered schools where I could play football).  For the University, the programs on the whole are a net positive.

Then we come to the question of whether the Eastern Michigan football program is currently generating any of those intangible benefits, much less enough to justify the costs of running an FBS football program.  Probably not, right?  Maybe the Carnegie Mellon women's tennis program runs at a financial loss, but it's going to cost the school, what, maybe five percent of what the football program costs Eastern Michigan?  The entire CMU men's and women's tennis budget for the year is probably less than one of the EMU coordinator's salaries, right?  Were I an administrator, I could talk myself out of a small financial loss on a program with an argument about how good it is for the University to have a well-rounded athletics department as part of its overall marketing and vision, and that's why I can justify having a golf team, a tennis team, a swim team, etc.   That gets a lot harder to do with an FBS football program that (probably, if the numbers are accurately reported) costs the University a significant amount of money with little-to-none of the benefits.  Is anyone (besides the guys on the team, who aren't paying tuition) applying to EMU because they have a football team?  Does the program generate any positive PR for the school as a whole?  Just because football is good for a lot of schools doesn't mean that it's good for EVERY school.

As jknezek said earlier:

Look, I love football. I love college football. But that doesn't exempt the sport from scrutiny. There are going to be places where it simply doesn't make sense to have a team. EMU might be one of those places. That doesn't condemn the sport or the university.

[formerd3db]

Look, I'm not saying I don't agree with you guys totally.  I am just presenting other legitimate points of view.  Your counter points are all true and realistic in this era.  I love college football as much as you guys and admittedly, I am one of those who tends to, unrealistically perhaps, have that mentality of maintaining the status quo at all costs.  There are some things that are simply worth that regardless of costs (although I do not doubt that we will have varied opinions as to what those may or may not be).   However, we all have to also admit that in many ways this is essentially the current standard in this era with regard to almost everything in our society (which starts, no less, with the government deficit spending, entitlements, etc., etc.).  I do see your argument with regard to the Title IX issues, but as has also been said, the fact is that there will never be any chance of equality from an economic standpoint for those sports in comparison to other of the men's sports whether football is included or not. 

Indeed, as jknezek and ExTP have said, perhaps EMU is just one of those schools where it doesn't make sense to have a football team and that just because football is good for some schools, doesn't mean it good for every school.  However, while that is true, it is equally true in today's society and can't be denied (regardless if whether right or wrong) if we are completely honest, that a school which drops football will not certainly not be in the limelight-those will be "just another school" in the eyes of many.  I agree with you that it doesn't condemn the sport or the university, yet, they just simply won't be in the limelight, plain and simple.  I will be very sad if EMU decides to "throw in the towel" and goes the way of the Swarthmore debacle.  Those in power will make their own choices and I and others will just have to live with it.  We should have seen this coming as to how EMU mishandled the nickname debacle several years ago.   Life will go on, but if that occurs, I probably won't care to think about EMU ever again (do you ever think about Long Beach State, Pacific, Wichita State? etc., etc.?)   I doubt it.  )    To use G. Sager's famed old line...I think we've beat this dead horse enough!  We've covered it all.     \

Revised to correct spelling errors.

[jknezek]

I probably won't care to think about EMU ever again (do you ever think about Long Beach State, Pacific, Wichita State? etc., etc.?)   I doubt it.  )   

When you think of EMU now, do you think positive thoughts? Are they lovable losers or do you just think about what a mess the program is? It's kind of important because not thinking about them at all might be an improvement over negative thoughts, which most of us have if we bother to think at all about EMU. As for Wichita State, pretty sure most of the college sports watching country thinks about them at times from November through March for the last half decade or more. Long Beach State for the last 20 years or so is in the mix for the NCAA College World Series. Pacific has long been a power in volleyball and water polo, although even I can't claim to care much about that outside of knowing it for some odd reason. But the point remains that while your sports watching and thinking might be limited to college football, the allocation of resources for these schools goes other directions and certainly pays off at times in other sports for people with broader, or simply other, college sports interests.

I guess I fall in the camp that not all publicity is good publicity, but good publicity is always good, even if it reaches fewer people. So I'll take Wichita State's reduced sports publicity, with it being pretty much positive, over EMU's broader exposure from football that is pretty much always bad.

And yes, we've probably beat this one to death. 

[ADL70]

Just looking at this school year, gymnastics was the only sport that EMU was better than mediocre.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Just looking at this school year, gymnastics was the only sport that EMU was better than mediocre.

Yes, but all sports (even men's basketball, contrary to common stereotype) consist of STUDENT-athletes to a greater degree than football (at least as of my retirement about 9 years ago).  Just for example, I don't recall a womens' soccer player who ever received less than a B from me (and I was regarded by the athletic department as a tough grader to be avoided); I only recall one football player ever who received above a C - and many missed more classes than they attended.  (This may also partially explain attendance at games.  Naturally such sports as soccer, etc., receive lower attendance than football in this culture, but many non-revenue sports at EMU received surprisingly HIGH attendance as students showed up to support players they knew as friends and classmates.)

Barring action by the regents or president (both of whom have already hinted at support for football), this whole discussion may be moot as the AD has come out adamantly in favor of retaining FBS football and MAC membership (which requires football).

[Bombers798891]

Just looking at this school year, gymnastics was the only sport that EMU was better than mediocre.

They've won five conference championships this year. What are you talking about?

Besides "better than mediocre" is something their football team has almost never been able to claim, and something they are nowhere near as a program. Heck, forget even mediocre. Right now, simply being bad would be an improvement.