FBS? FCS?

So, money has been on everyone's mind recently.  I thought I would poke around and see what might be available to help us see what's going on.

Obviously, we all know that baseball has been dropped.  There has been the expected backlash and the group claimed last night on social media to have $1.3M in pledges over 5-years.  I would guess the strategy is to offer to privately fund baseball through the crisis and then determine if it can fit back into the overall athletic funding model in better times.

Note that, to my knowledge, the university hasn't said they would restore baseball with a certain level of funding.  If a fundraising campaign solves the problem, then you have to wonder why they didn't do that in the first place.  Moosbrugger talked about support staff issues and needing to reduce the overall number of student-athletes.  But, its just one team...

If the university is not going to restore baseball, I think they should just say so and let these guys go on with their lives.  Perhaps that was already done privately and the group is trying to put pressure on the athletic department.  (Good luck.  Save BG Track was meeting for years).  Conversely, if there's donor support and it does solve the problem, why wasn't that tried in the first place?

There is an advocacy group out there saying dropping sports isn't the way to go...by which they mean that you should reduce football spending. And football is indeed the elephant in the room.  Why did a men's sport have to be cut?  Because of the 85 male-athlete football scholarships.  Why does a non-revenue sport have to be cut?  Because the athletic department is built around football.  It's crazy, but that's what it has become. 

So crazy yet true that BG almost used the same reasoning to cut its hockey program.

I heard a story once that BG got a big check for winning the NCAA Hockey Championship.  And the Coach went to the AD to talk about how to spend the money and the AD had already decided to use the money to help the football team.  Maybe it's not true.

In a way, you know it's bad for you but you can't stop.

So, the issue of going FCS has been around for a long time.  I can remember back in the 1970s that BG was forced to go I-AA for a short period of time.  I'm talking weeks.  Anyway, the idea of de-emphasizing football goes way back.  Long-term debate...which has clearly gained new currency since the middle of March.

Historically, the pressure to go down a level in football has come from both directions.  Yes, there are people who think college football has taken over universities (and they aren't wrong...note that a leading pressure for students to be on campus this Fall is so football can be played) and that it should be de-emphasized.  Also, though, the larger schools have been trying to jettison the G5 schools for four decades.  Many people think they will split off and leave the NCAA. 

That's not what we are talking about here.  We are talking about voluntarily dropping a level.  Note, also, that you can't go to DII without taking your entire athletic department to that level.  Used to be you could...Georgetown had DIII football, but they had to move to FCS and sponsor a non-scholarship football team in FCS. I believe Butler does, too.

David Briggs wrote an excellent column about this.  Essentially, it is a non-starter.  He directly quotes Mike O'Brien on this and indicates that he has heard that BG feels the same way. 

Here's the thing.  Below is the Knight Commission data on BG's athletic revenue sources from the most recent available year.  Yes, BG gets 57% of its revenue from student fees and institutional support and that would continue either way.

But look at the other wedges.  Ticket sales, conference distributions competition guarantees, donor contributions, and corporate sponsorship would all be impacted by dropping down a level.  Yes, some expenses would also be reduced, but revenue would be reduced more.  Briggs compares UT to North Dakota, the premier FCS program...the revenue hit would be significant.  And, FCS schools are under the same financial pressures as FBS schools or worse.

I think there have been a half-dozen new FBS schools in recent years...and only one left FBS.  It is crazy logic.  Football loses money and yet de-emphasizing it is worse.  Remedying the problem would mean dropping it, not de-emphasizing it, and that's clearly not likely to happen.

It's like the mafia...once you're in, it is apparently very difficult to get out.

Last thing on this part of the topic.  Briggs raises a valid point, which is that even if we accept all this, there are still ways to shave the budget.  The recent announcement that the football team would no longer stay in a hotel on the night before home games is a good example.  Yes, that can be shaved.  But I doubt we're talking even 1% of the total.  Could other things be shaved?  Probably, but again, you're just dancing around the edges. 

The problem is that three of those slices are dependent on having a good team...tickets, donor contributions, and corporate sponsorship.  If you aren't winning, those things are going to be reduced.  Similarly, you might be able to generate support for a good FCS program but if you cut and aren't competitive you're really going to struggle for support at a shitty FCS program.

Could shaving funds have been enough to save the baseball team?  I don't know that.  But, I do think it's clear that we're not voluntarily going FCS.  It might happen anyway, but we're going to fight it all the way.