[71Bear]

ESPN polled the Big 5 coaches, asking them if Big 5 schools should exclusively schedule Big 5 opponents.  Shaw said yes and CoachDykes did not take a position.  In the P12, 7 yes 1 no and 4 uncertain (AZ was the only no vote). 

On this issue, Shaw is right on the mark.  Dumping the San Jose's, Davis' and Sac State's of the world would be a real step forward for big time college football.  Who wouldn't want to see quality match-ups every Saturday instead of the September snoozers to which we are currently subjected.

Well played, Coach Shaw and a big raspberry to CoachDykes for waffling......

NOTE:  Edited to correct error in original post.

[71Bear]

ESPN polled the Big 5 coaches, asking them if Big 5 schools should exclusively schedule Big 5 opponents.  Shaw said yes and CoachDykes did not take a position.  In the P12, 7 yes 1 no and 4 uncertain (AZ was the only no vote). 

On this issue, Shaw is right on the mark.  Dumping the San Jose's, Davis' and Sac State's of the world would be a real step forward for big time college football.  Who wouldn't want to see quality match-ups every Saturday instead of the September snoozers to which we are currently subjected.

Well played, Coach Shaw and a big raspberry to CoachDykes for waffling......

NOTE:  Edited to correct error in original post.

[OutsiderFan]

CSD probably waffled in part because he was at Louisiana Tech, and understands how important it is to smaller programs to play the big boys.

Anyone have a good story that outlines or summarizes what the "Big 5 breakaway" does, and its probable impact?

[OutsiderFan]

CSD probably waffled in part because he was at Louisiana Tech, and understands how important it is to smaller programs to play the big boys.

Anyone have a good story that outlines or summarizes what the "Big 5 breakaway" does, and its probable impact?

[Redrum]

he'll experience a rush of optimism unknown to mankind.

I think, over time,  the Big 5 trajectory will bring more conflict to Stanford's collective conscience.  We are running with the big boys just now,  but even bigger boys in the Big 5 won't stop until they are the NFL wearing school colors.

[Redrum]

he'll experience a rush of optimism unknown to mankind.

I think, over time,  the Big 5 trajectory will bring more conflict to Stanford's collective conscience.  We are running with the big boys just now,  but even bigger boys in the Big 5 won't stop until they are the NFL wearing school colors.

[zedcom]

Personally, I'd like to see us play one service academy each year to honor these student-athlete-defenders-of-our-freedom!

[zedcom]

Personally, I'd like to see us play one service academy each year to honor these student-athlete-defenders-of-our-freedom!

[Redrum]

that the out-of bounds twisting horse-collar tackle of Evan Moore was chicken-**** and the Midshipman who did it has been busted down a rank.

[Redrum]

that the out-of bounds twisting horse-collar tackle of Evan Moore was chicken-**** and the Midshipman who did it has been busted down a rank.

[CTcard]

- First off, here is a link to the ESPN article
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-schedules

- The article says that 46 percent (30 of 65) of the big-5 conference coaches would prefer a schedule consisting only of other big-5 teams. They call that a majority in the title. An earlier version of the story called that "A simple majority" and I see they have changed that now to "Many". It seems at least somebody at ESPN knows what the word majority means.

- 65 big-5 conference teams apparently includes Notre Dame (there are 64 teams in the Big-5 conferences). That likely chaps BYU's hide.

While I generally favor stronger schedules, I think the Big Five-only idea seems a little incestuous. I think it's useful to play schools like BYU once in a while as a check on our own bs. And the occasional Appalachian State upset of Michigan is a good thing for college football.

- Just using your comment to make a point that playing Appalachian State et al. (FBS) is a different issue from playing BYU, SJS et al. (BCS - non-big 5 conference). Some conferences are moving toward not having FBS games, as far as I know there is no actual movement toward having Big 5 only schedules.

- I thought Bill Snyder's (Kansas State) comments were probably the most truthful.
"Kansas State's Bill Snyder was against it. Snyder's reasoning was that the Wildcats annually need seven home games because of the amount of money brought into the Manhattan, Kansas, community. By playing only Power Five opponents, Snyder said K-State would not be able to schedule seven home games each season."

- In another articles on ESPN Snyder wails about the professionalization and corruption of college sports, but in a sort of "this is terrible, but everyone is doing it so we must too" kind of way.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...k-sold-out

- Snyder's comments point out an interesting dilemna on the financial effect of such a move. For some schools it would hurt - i.e. the extra home game deal. For some schools it might help - does Stanford make enough home gate that paying for an extra home game vs a patsy helps the bottom line? The cost of such games is already one reason the Pac 12 and Big 12 have gone to 9 conference games.
Anyway, the finances might lead to ADs having a different opinion than coaches.

- Such a move have a brobdingnagian impact on our recent discussion of whether big time football was financially feasible/defensible at SJS or not. It would seem it would even further erode a difficult financial picture (70% of AD budget subsidized by student/state funds). In addition I would think it would lower the motivation to keep an expensive football team around (if you cannot even have a game against the big boys, can you keep up the illusion that you are one of them?)

[CTcard]

- First off, here is a link to the ESPN article
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-schedules

- The article says that 46 percent (30 of 65) of the big-5 conference coaches would prefer a schedule consisting only of other big-5 teams. They call that a majority in the title. An earlier version of the story called that "A simple majority" and I see they have changed that now to "Many". It seems at least somebody at ESPN knows what the word majority means.

- 65 big-5 conference teams apparently includes Notre Dame (there are 64 teams in the Big-5 conferences). That likely chaps BYU's hide.

While I generally favor stronger schedules, I think the Big Five-only idea seems a little incestuous. I think it's useful to play schools like BYU once in a while as a check on our own bs. And the occasional Appalachian State upset of Michigan is a good thing for college football.

- Just using your comment to make a point that playing Appalachian State et al. (FBS) is a different issue from playing BYU, SJS et al. (BCS - non-big 5 conference). Some conferences are moving toward not having FBS games, as far as I know there is no actual movement toward having Big 5 only schedules.

- I thought Bill Snyder's (Kansas State) comments were probably the most truthful.
"Kansas State's Bill Snyder was against it. Snyder's reasoning was that the Wildcats annually need seven home games because of the amount of money brought into the Manhattan, Kansas, community. By playing only Power Five opponents, Snyder said K-State would not be able to schedule seven home games each season."

- In another articles on ESPN Snyder wails about the professionalization and corruption of college sports, but in a sort of "this is terrible, but everyone is doing it so we must too" kind of way.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...k-sold-out

- Snyder's comments point out an interesting dilemna on the financial effect of such a move. For some schools it would hurt - i.e. the extra home game deal. For some schools it might help - does Stanford make enough home gate that paying for an extra home game vs a patsy helps the bottom line? The cost of such games is already one reason the Pac 12 and Big 12 have gone to 9 conference games.
Anyway, the finances might lead to ADs having a different opinion than coaches.

- Such a move have a brobdingnagian impact on our recent discussion of whether big time football was financially feasible/defensible at SJS or not. It would seem it would even further erode a difficult financial picture (70% of AD budget subsidized by student/state funds). In addition I would think it would lower the motivation to keep an expensive football team around (if you cannot even have a game against the big boys, can you keep up the illusion that you are one of them?)

[71Bear]

OF - There was an excellent article in the NY Times recently that detailed the impact of a Big 5 breakaway. 

[71Bear]

OF - There was an excellent article in the NY Times recently that detailed the impact of a Big 5 breakaway. 

[Papa John]

Wasn't it the BCS Six just a few years ago? I'm sure we haven't seen the last of conference realignment, especially with the current five-conference-champions-vying-for-four-playoff-spots setup. Also, the issue will not be as pressing if the college football playoff expands to 8 teams before 2026.

For the time being, I would favor the following rule changes:
(1) All FBS teams play the same number of regular-season conference games.
(2) FCS games don't count towards bowl eligibility; it takes six FBS victories to go bowling.
(3) FCS games do count towards strength of schedule, however that is determined.

[Papa John]

Wasn't it the BCS Six just a few years ago? I'm sure we haven't seen the last of conference realignment, especially with the current five-conference-champions-vying-for-four-playoff-spots setup. Also, the issue will not be as pressing if the college football playoff expands to 8 teams before 2026.

For the time being, I would favor the following rule changes:
(1) All FBS teams play the same number of regular-season conference games.
(2) FCS games don't count towards bowl eligibility; it takes six FBS victories to go bowling.
(3) FCS games do count towards strength of schedule, however that is determined.

[81alum]

Maybe the Big 5 should be their own division of football, Division 1+ or something, and all those schools without access to brobdingnagian TV contracts and giant fan bases should be a lower division.

I do not mind the Big 5 only playing themselves, if everyone else were released from the arms race.  But I am struggling with the knowledge that San Jose State subsidizes its athletics program more than Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Oregon, and UCLA combined just so it can play "with the big boys."  There is something rotten about that system.  Should there be greater financial parity so that the SJSUs of the world do not have to deprive their regular students of classes in order to field a football team, or should the SJSUs of the world simply all be Division 2?  The big schools would probably say the latter, but the smaller schools might reasonably claim that they are in a subordinate position because the big schools operate like a cartel.  Without access to play "the big boys" for guaranteed money the smaller schools would simply be starved to death.

It is a tough question, but personally, I do not think there is enough money and fan interest to sustain the number of Division I football programs in the country, and there just need to be fewer of them.

[81alum]

Maybe the Big 5 should be their own division of football, Division 1+ or something, and all those schools without access to brobdingnagian TV contracts and giant fan bases should be a lower division.

I do not mind the Big 5 only playing themselves, if everyone else were released from the arms race.  But I am struggling with the knowledge that San Jose State subsidizes its athletics program more than Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Oregon, and UCLA combined just so it can play "with the big boys."  There is something rotten about that system.  Should there be greater financial parity so that the SJSUs of the world do not have to deprive their regular students of classes in order to field a football team, or should the SJSUs of the world simply all be Division 2?  The big schools would probably say the latter, but the smaller schools might reasonably claim that they are in a subordinate position because the big schools operate like a cartel.  Without access to play "the big boys" for guaranteed money the smaller schools would simply be starved to death.

It is a tough question, but personally, I do not think there is enough money and fan interest to sustain the number of Division I football programs in the country, and there just need to be fewer of them.

[71Bear]

To date, CoachDykes is 1-0 v. non-Big 5 competition in the UC career.  He has two chances to extend his unbeaten record this year:  v. Sacramento State and v. BYU...

[71Bear]

To date, CoachDykes is 1-0 v. non-Big 5 competition in the UC career.  He has two chances to extend his unbeaten record this year:  v. Sacramento State and v. BYU...

[needle]

It is a tough question, but personally, I do not think there is enough money and fan interest to sustain the number of Division I football programs in the country, and there just need to be fewer of them.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but then why are schools like Old Dominion and Georgia State moving up to "Division 1"?

[needle]

It is a tough question, but personally, I do not think there is enough money and fan interest to sustain the number of Division I football programs in the country, and there just need to be fewer of them.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but then why are schools like Old Dominion and Georgia State moving up to "Division 1"?

[BostonCard]

- Snyder's comments point out an interesting dilemna on the financial effect of such a move. For some schools it would hurt - i.e. the extra home game deal. For some schools it might help - does Stanford make enough home gate that paying for an extra home game vs a patsy helps the bottom line? The cost of such games is already one reason the Pac 12 and Big 12 have gone to 9 conference games.
Anyway, the finances might lead to ADs having a different opinion than coaches.

One word: Television

The gate receipts from a home game pale in comparison to the money brought in by television.  And, let us face it, hosting Southeast Missouri State (as Kansas does on Sept. 6) will appeal to no one outside of the states of Kansas and Missouri.  On the other hand, a game between, say, Kansas and Venderbilt would be much more palatable to the television powers that be (and even that would be limited).

I think more games between teams in the big five conferences would be better.  Generally speaking, while the Appalachian State thing is fun to see on the rare occasions it happens, how many people actually watched it (and, let's face it, most were in the Big House and not at all happy about it).  More games between top teams would give more excitement to the slate, and would also make it easier to determine which the best team is.  But I don't necessarily think it should be exclusively about the big 5 conferences.  As others note, there are good teams outside of the big 5.

As a start, I think that teams should stop scheduling FCS teams (yes, that includes us and Sac State), and I'm sorry, 7 home games is not a good excuse.  I would favor slates of 6 home games, 5 away games, and a neutral site game.

By the way, I believe the term that ESPN was looking for is "plurality".

BC

[BostonCard]

- Snyder's comments point out an interesting dilemna on the financial effect of such a move. For some schools it would hurt - i.e. the extra home game deal. For some schools it might help - does Stanford make enough home gate that paying for an extra home game vs a patsy helps the bottom line? The cost of such games is already one reason the Pac 12 and Big 12 have gone to 9 conference games.
Anyway, the finances might lead to ADs having a different opinion than coaches.

One word: Television

The gate receipts from a home game pale in comparison to the money brought in by television.  And, let us face it, hosting Southeast Missouri State (as Kansas does on Sept. 6) will appeal to no one outside of the states of Kansas and Missouri.  On the other hand, a game between, say, Kansas and Venderbilt would be much more palatable to the television powers that be (and even that would be limited).

I think more games between teams in the big five conferences would be better.  Generally speaking, while the Appalachian State thing is fun to see on the rare occasions it happens, how many people actually watched it (and, let's face it, most were in the Big House and not at all happy about it).  More games between top teams would give more excitement to the slate, and would also make it easier to determine which the best team is.  But I don't necessarily think it should be exclusively about the big 5 conferences.  As others note, there are good teams outside of the big 5.

As a start, I think that teams should stop scheduling FCS teams (yes, that includes us and Sac State), and I'm sorry, 7 home games is not a good excuse.  I would favor slates of 6 home games, 5 away games, and a neutral site game.

By the way, I believe the term that ESPN was looking for is "plurality".

BC

[CrazedZooChimp]

I think one reason a lot of people would be opposed to it would be the effect on a lot of regional rivalries, in our own conference things like Utah never being able to play BYU or Colorado never playing CSU.  That could irk a lot of people in places where those rivalries are historic, even if often one sided.  Of course, there's also the aspect that usually there are a couple non "big 5" teams that are good (Recently teams like Boise, Utah, TCU, etc.).

Of course, you could say something like at least 10 games need to be against "Big-5" conferences and still be able to maintain the one or two games a year against regional rivals or similar schools or whatever.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I think one reason a lot of people would be opposed to it would be the effect on a lot of regional rivalries, in our own conference things like Utah never being able to play BYU or Colorado never playing CSU.  That could irk a lot of people in places where those rivalries are historic, even if often one sided.  Of course, there's also the aspect that usually there are a couple non "big 5" teams that are good (Recently teams like Boise, Utah, TCU, etc.).

Of course, you could say something like at least 10 games need to be against "Big-5" conferences and still be able to maintain the one or two games a year against regional rivals or similar schools or whatever.

[BostonCard]

71Bear....

Your comment reminds me of the (in)famous British Headline:

British left waffles on Falklands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity

Man, would some of our guys have a field day with that one.

BC

[BostonCard]

71Bear....

Your comment reminds me of the (in)famous British Headline:

British left waffles on Falklands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity

Man, would some of our guys have a field day with that one.

BC

[71Bear]

BC...

I was not familiar with that headline.  Thanks for sharing.  It is a classic.

[71Bear]

BC...

I was not familiar with that headline.  Thanks for sharing.  It is a classic.

[CTcard]

... why are schools like Old Dominion and Georgia State moving up to "Division 1"?

That's a very good question. There's about 10 such schools recently.
[Strictly speaking they are already division 1, they are trying to move up from FCS (former Div 1-AA) to FBS (former Div 1-A).]

Broadly speaking they are not moving up for financial reasons.* Take Ga State. They only began a football team in 2010. I think it is essentially impossible that football itself hasn't been, and won't, lose money. The USA Today chart on college athletics financing notes that Ga State subsidizes their AD at an 85% rate on a budget of $27 million. At Old Dominion it's only 73% subsidized on a budget of $36 million.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Now it might be possible that going to FBS will increase revenues more than expenses, and they'll be ahead of where they were in FCS. Again by the USA Today chart, the atheltic departments with the biggest subsidies are mixed between FCS and FBS. Of the schools with the 20 biggest absolute subsidies (over $20 million), 12 are FBS and 8 FCS. Also, 6 are among the schools who have either recently moved to FBS, or are about to do so.


My guess as to why in most cases is ego and pressure.
Many administrators, alums, and locals view having a top-level football team as a certification of being a top level university - or at least as defining "Big Time" in some broad sense. Career administrators are looking to establish something they built to put on their resume for the next job - and a football team is high profile, alums want to cheer for their team on TV (look at us), and locals (and thus their elected politicians) often see more connection to a football team than anything else a university does.



* I can think of an exception to the "not for financial reasons" statement, but it didn't work out well in the end. UConn moved to FBS football in 2000 - 2002. In their case they had a guaranteed entry into a BCS conference (the now defunct Big East) and while there wasn't that much state interest in football, they felt they needed high level football to protect their basketball program. More recently, UConn has been perhaps the biggest loser in the conference reshuffling, as Louisville beat them out for ACC membership. Now UConn transitions from a major conference team to a minor conference team. Cincinnati and South Florida also find themselves with a drop in status, but they had only just moved into the Big East as replacements for those fleeing.

[CTcard]

... why are schools like Old Dominion and Georgia State moving up to "Division 1"?

That's a very good question. There's about 10 such schools recently.
[Strictly speaking they are already division 1, they are trying to move up from FCS (former Div 1-AA) to FBS (former Div 1-A).]

Broadly speaking they are not moving up for financial reasons.* Take Ga State. They only began a football team in 2010. I think it is essentially impossible that football itself hasn't been, and won't, lose money. The USA Today chart on college athletics financing notes that Ga State subsidizes their AD at an 85% rate on a budget of $27 million. At Old Dominion it's only 73% subsidized on a budget of $36 million.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Now it might be possible that going to FBS will increase revenues more than expenses, and they'll be ahead of where they were in FCS. Again by the USA Today chart, the atheltic departments with the biggest subsidies are mixed between FCS and FBS. Of the schools with the 20 biggest absolute subsidies (over $20 million), 12 are FBS and 8 FCS. Also, 6 are among the schools who have either recently moved to FBS, or are about to do so.


My guess as to why in most cases is ego and pressure.
Many administrators, alums, and locals view having a top-level football team as a certification of being a top level university - or at least as defining "Big Time" in some broad sense. Career administrators are looking to establish something they built to put on their resume for the next job - and a football team is high profile, alums want to cheer for their team on TV (look at us), and locals (and thus their elected politicians) often see more connection to a football team than anything else a university does.



* I can think of an exception to the "not for financial reasons" statement, but it didn't work out well in the end. UConn moved to FBS football in 2000 - 2002. In their case they had a guaranteed entry into a BCS conference (the now defunct Big East) and while there wasn't that much state interest in football, they felt they needed high level football to protect their basketball program. More recently, UConn has been perhaps the biggest loser in the conference reshuffling, as Louisville beat them out for ACC membership. Now UConn transitions from a major conference team to a minor conference team. Cincinnati and South Florida also find themselves with a drop in status, but they had only just moved into the Big East as replacements for those fleeing.

[CTcard]

One word: Television

The gate receipts from a home game pale in comparison to the money brought in by television.  And, let us face it, hosting Southeast Missouri State (as Kansas does on Sept. 6) will appeal to no one outside of the states of Kansas and Missouri.  On the other hand, a game between, say, Kansas and Venderbilt would be much more palatable to the television powers that be (and even that would be limited).

I am not quite sure if that is supposed to bolster my point or counter it, or just be a comment.

At any rate, every game Alabama plays is on TV, so they cannot get any more televised games. Now in the long run, cutting out their home games versus Florida Atlantic, Southern Miss, and Western Carolina (a state my geography class forgot to mention) would probably increase their TV ratings a bit and thus their eventual future TV contract a bit. But probably more important to them, it wouldn't help their advantage over their rivals. So, for teams like Alabama, the differential in their income does largely come from gate receipts.

The calculus is different for different teams, and different leagues. That's one reason they have differing number of conference games and types of OOC schedules.


... and yes indeed, the word is plurality.

[CTcard]

One word: Television

The gate receipts from a home game pale in comparison to the money brought in by television.  And, let us face it, hosting Southeast Missouri State (as Kansas does on Sept. 6) will appeal to no one outside of the states of Kansas and Missouri.  On the other hand, a game between, say, Kansas and Venderbilt would be much more palatable to the television powers that be (and even that would be limited).

I am not quite sure if that is supposed to bolster my point or counter it, or just be a comment.

At any rate, every game Alabama plays is on TV, so they cannot get any more televised games. Now in the long run, cutting out their home games versus Florida Atlantic, Southern Miss, and Western Carolina (a state my geography class forgot to mention) would probably increase their TV ratings a bit and thus their eventual future TV contract a bit. But probably more important to them, it wouldn't help their advantage over their rivals. So, for teams like Alabama, the differential in their income does largely come from gate receipts.

The calculus is different for different teams, and different leagues. That's one reason they have differing number of conference games and types of OOC schedules.


... and yes indeed, the word is plurality.

[81alum]

[quote author=needle link=topic=10316.msg93829#msg93829 date=1407434568]
... why are schools like Old Dominion and Georgia State moving up to "Division 1"?

That's a very good question. There's about 10 such schools recently.
[Strictly speaking they are already division 1, they are trying to move up from FCS (former Div 1-AA) to FBS (former Div 1-A).]

Broadly speaking they are not moving up for financial reasons.* Take Ga State. They only began a football team in 2010. I think it is essentially impossible that football itself hasn't been, and won't, lose money. The USA Today chart on college athletics financing notes that Ga State subsidizes their AD at an 85% rate on a budget of $27 million. At Old Dominion it's only 73% subsidized on a budget of $36 million.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Now it might be possible that going to FBS will increase revenues more than expenses, and they'll be ahead of where they were in FCS. Again by the USA Today chart, the atheltic departments with the biggest subsidies are mixed between FCS and FBS. Of the schools with the 20 biggest absolute subsidies (over $20 million), 12 are FBS and 8 FCS. Also, 6 are among the schools who have either recently moved to FBS, or are about to do so.


My guess as to why in most cases is ego and pressure.
Many administrators, alums, and locals view having a top-level football team as a certification of being a top level university - or at least as defining "Big Time" in some broad sense. Career administrators are looking to establish something they built to put on their resume for the next job - and a football team is high profile, alums want to cheer for their team on TV (look at us), and locals (and thus their elected politicians) often see more connection to a football team than anything else a university does.



* I can think of an exception to the "not for financial reasons" statement, but it didn't work out well in the end. UConn moved to FBS football in 2000 - 2002. In their case they had a guaranteed entry into a BCS conference (the now defunct Big East) and while there wasn't that much state interest in football, they felt they needed high level football to protect their basketball program. More recently, UConn has been perhaps the biggest loser in the conference reshuffling, as Louisville beat them out for ACC membership. Now UConn transitions from a major conference team to a minor conference team. Cincinnati and South Florida also find themselves with a drop in status, but they had only just moved into the Big East as replacements for those fleeing.
[/quote]
Absolutely correct.  I had one university President tell me that there were three reasons he could never eliminate a perennially money-losing Division I football program.  1) Prestige.  Presidents themselves believe they and their universities have higher status if they have a well recognized program.  Presidents from schools with large and successful athletics programs tend to associate together and not with presidents from "lesser" universities,  2) Intense pressure from alums.  Alums who never give a dollar or attend a game will still get angry if they think their alma mater is being "downgraded" in some way.  3) Fundraising quotas.  Boards evaluate Presidents on how much money they raise and they don't usually care what they raise it for.  Having a money-losing football program nevertheless makes it possible to raise a lot of athletic contributions that otherwise would not come in.  It may be a net loser for the University, but it is a big positive for the President as he struggles to make his quota.  Call it a perverse incentive where the imperative to raise money actually costs money. 

[81alum]

[quote author=needle link=topic=10316.msg93829#msg93829 date=1407434568]
... why are schools like Old Dominion and Georgia State moving up to "Division 1"?

That's a very good question. There's about 10 such schools recently.
[Strictly speaking they are already division 1, they are trying to move up from FCS (former Div 1-AA) to FBS (former Div 1-A).]

Broadly speaking they are not moving up for financial reasons.* Take Ga State. They only began a football team in 2010. I think it is essentially impossible that football itself hasn't been, and won't, lose money. The USA Today chart on college athletics financing notes that Ga State subsidizes their AD at an 85% rate on a budget of $27 million. At Old Dominion it's only 73% subsidized on a budget of $36 million.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Now it might be possible that going to FBS will increase revenues more than expenses, and they'll be ahead of where they were in FCS. Again by the USA Today chart, the atheltic departments with the biggest subsidies are mixed between FCS and FBS. Of the schools with the 20 biggest absolute subsidies (over $20 million), 12 are FBS and 8 FCS. Also, 6 are among the schools who have either recently moved to FBS, or are about to do so.


My guess as to why in most cases is ego and pressure.
Many administrators, alums, and locals view having a top-level football team as a certification of being a top level university - or at least as defining "Big Time" in some broad sense. Career administrators are looking to establish something they built to put on their resume for the next job - and a football team is high profile, alums want to cheer for their team on TV (look at us), and locals (and thus their elected politicians) often see more connection to a football team than anything else a university does.



* I can think of an exception to the "not for financial reasons" statement, but it didn't work out well in the end. UConn moved to FBS football in 2000 - 2002. In their case they had a guaranteed entry into a BCS conference (the now defunct Big East) and while there wasn't that much state interest in football, they felt they needed high level football to protect their basketball program. More recently, UConn has been perhaps the biggest loser in the conference reshuffling, as Louisville beat them out for ACC membership. Now UConn transitions from a major conference team to a minor conference team. Cincinnati and South Florida also find themselves with a drop in status, but they had only just moved into the Big East as replacements for those fleeing.
[/quote]
Absolutely correct.  I had one university President tell me that there were three reasons he could never eliminate a perennially money-losing Division I football program.  1) Prestige.  Presidents themselves believe they and their universities have higher status if they have a well recognized program.  Presidents from schools with large and successful athletics programs tend to associate together and not with presidents from "lesser" universities,  2) Intense pressure from alums.  Alums who never give a dollar or attend a game will still get angry if they think their alma mater is being "downgraded" in some way.  3) Fundraising quotas.  Boards evaluate Presidents on how much money they raise and they don't usually care what they raise it for.  Having a money-losing football program nevertheless makes it possible to raise a lot of athletic contributions that otherwise would not come in.  It may be a net loser for the University, but it is a big positive for the President as he struggles to make his quota.  Call it a perverse incentive where the imperative to raise money actually costs money. 

[BostonCard]

I don't think there's much TV financial upside to any particular game for most Big Five conference members. They get a lump sum from ESPN/Fox for their rights, and -- at least in the case of the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12 -- their conference TV channel, which covers rights to all their home games. (In the case of the Pac-12, when the network started up, Stanford and other schools actually had to buy back the rights to some individual games that had been sold to regional channels like Fox Sports Bay Area.) So if Alabama were to drop Hooterville State in order to schedule University of Second Choice., the only extra money available would be from tickets, which apparently are sold out anyway.

At some point those contracts will be renegotiated, and when, say, the P12 renegotiates its contract, it would be on much stronger ground saying it can deliver 9 conference games per team, plus at least 3 non-conference games against other big5 conference teams per team (divided by two, because other conferences will own the rights to some of them), instead of saying 9 conference games plus 3 non-conference games against body bag opponents.  Moreover, when the P12 is shopping around to, say, direct TV, it would be in a much stronger position if it can say that it will be carrying some nationally significant games between power conferences instead of boring games against bad opponents.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't think there's much TV financial upside to any particular game for most Big Five conference members. They get a lump sum from ESPN/Fox for their rights, and -- at least in the case of the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12 -- their conference TV channel, which covers rights to all their home games. (In the case of the Pac-12, when the network started up, Stanford and other schools actually had to buy back the rights to some individual games that had been sold to regional channels like Fox Sports Bay Area.) So if Alabama were to drop Hooterville State in order to schedule University of Second Choice., the only extra money available would be from tickets, which apparently are sold out anyway.

At some point those contracts will be renegotiated, and when, say, the P12 renegotiates its contract, it would be on much stronger ground saying it can deliver 9 conference games per team, plus at least 3 non-conference games against other big5 conference teams per team (divided by two, because other conferences will own the rights to some of them), instead of saying 9 conference games plus 3 non-conference games against body bag opponents.  Moreover, when the P12 is shopping around to, say, direct TV, it would be in a much stronger position if it can say that it will be carrying some nationally significant games between power conferences instead of boring games against bad opponents.

BC

[StanFan88]

I don't have an issue with playing one game per season - usually a home opener - against a lower-division FBS school.  Where I take issue is when there are FCS schools on the schedule which is clearly a complete creampuff game, or when a school scheduled 3 or 4 lower division/FCS games (hello B1G/SEC).

Everyone should play 8-9 conference games, 2-3 OOC games against Big 5 teams, and 1 game against a lower division FBS team.

[StanFan88]

I don't have an issue with playing one game per season - usually a home opener - against a lower-division FBS school.  Where I take issue is when there are FCS schools on the schedule which is clearly a complete creampuff game, or when a school scheduled 3 or 4 lower division/FCS games (hello B1G/SEC).

Everyone should play 8-9 conference games, 2-3 OOC games against Big 5 teams, and 1 game against a lower division FBS team.