FCS school football pages and 2014 media guides

Just as it did in 2013, SBNation has a post listing and linking 2014 FBS football pages/media guides, so I figured I would try to do something similar for FCS (just as I did in 2013).

Included are the schools’ football web pages, 2014 football media guides, and occasionally something extra (more often than not an additional record book that is separate from the regular media guide).

A few schools have standalone football websites that are separate from their football web pages; those are listed (as “FB website”) too.

Some of the guides are called prospectuses or supplements (or are extended “notes” packages); these usually have fewer pages.

A few schools may not have a media guide and/or supplement. When that is the case, I will link to the appropriate “fact sheet” or general notes/stats packages.

This will be a work in progress. I’ll link to media guides or prospectuses as they are released by the individual schools. In some cases, that won’t happen before the season actually begins.

 

Big Sky 2014 Guide
Cal Poly 2014 Guide
Eastern Washington 2014 Guide
Idaho State 2014 Stats Records History Video
Montana 2014 Guide
Montana State 2014 Guide
North Dakota 2014 Guide
Northern Arizona 2014 Guide
Northern Colorado 2014 Stats
Portland State 2014 Guide
Sacramento State 2014 Guide
Southern Utah 2014 Stats
UC Davis 2014 Guide
Weber State 2014 Guide
Big South 2014 Guide
Charleston Southern 2014 Facts
Coastal Carolina 2014 Guide
Gardner-Webb 2014 Guide
Liberty 2014 Stats Record Book
Monmouth 2014 Guide
Presbyterian 2014 Info
CAA 2014 Guide
Albany 2014 Guide Record Book
Delaware 2014 Guide
Elon 2014 Guide Record Book
James Madison 2014 Guide 2014 Facts
Maine 2014 Guide
New Hampshire 2014 Guide
Rhode Island 2014 Stats Record Book
Richmond 2014 Guide Record Book
Stony Brook 2014 Guide Record Book
Towson 2014 Guide
Villanova 2014 Guide
William & Mary 2014 Notes Archival Information
FCS Independent
Charlotte 2014 Guide
Ivy League 2014 Guide
Brown 2014 Guide Records
Columbia 2014 Guide
Cornell 2014 Stats Record Book FB website
Dartmouth 2014 Facts Records
Harvard 2014 Guide
Pennsylvania 2014 Guide
Princeton 2014 Info Record Book
Yale 2014 Preview 2014 Facts FB website
MEAC 2014 Notes
Bethune-Cookman 2014 Notes
Delaware State 2014 Guide
Florida A&M 2014 Stats
Hampton 2014 Stats
Howard 2014 Notes
Morgan State 2014 Guide
Norfolk State 2014 Stats
North Carolina A&T 2014 Stats
North Carolina Central 2014 Stats Record Book
Savannah State 2014 Guide
South Carolina State 2014 Stats
MVFC 2014 News Record Book
Illinois State 2014 Notes
Indiana State 2014 Guide
Missouri State 2014 Guide
North Dakota State 2014 Stats Records and Results
Northern Iowa 2014 Guide
South Dakota 2014 Guide
South Dakota State 2014 Guide
Southern Illinois 2014 Guide
Western Illinois 2014 Guide Record Book
Youngstown State 2014 Guide
NEC 2014 News
Bryant University 2014 Notes Records
Central Connecticut State 2014 Facts Record Book
Duquesne 2014 Guide
Robert Morris 2014 Guide
Sacred Heart 2014 Stats Record Book
St. Francis (PA) 2014 Stats Record Book
Wagner 2014 Guide
OVC 2014 Guide
Austin Peay 2014 Guide
Eastern Illinois 2014 Guide Record Book
Eastern Kentucky 2014 Guide
Jacksonville State 2014 Guide
Murray State 2014 Guide
Southeast Missouri State 2014 Guide
Tennessee State 2014 Guide
Tennessee Tech 2014 Guide
UT Martin 2014 Guide
Patriot League 2014 Guide Record Book
Bucknell 2014 Guide
Colgate 2014 Guide Record Book
Fordham 2014 Guide
Georgetown 2014 Stats
Holy Cross 2014 Guide
Lafayette 2014 Guide
Lehigh 2014 Info Record Book
Pioneer League 2014 News
Butler 2014 Facts Record Book
Campbell 2014 Guide
Davidson 2014 Stats
Dayton 2014 Stats
Drake 2014 Guide
Jacksonville 2014 Stats
Marist 2014 Guide
Morehead State 2014 Guide
San Diego 2014 Facts Records and Results
Stetson 2014 Guide Historical overview
Valparaiso 2014 Stats Records and Results
SoCon 2014 Guide
The Citadel 2014 Stats 2014 Facts Record Book
Furman 2014 Guide Record Book
Mercer 2014 Guide
Samford 2014 Guide
UT-Chattanooga 2014 Guide
Virginia Military Institute 2014 Guide
Western Carolina 2014 Guide
Wofford 2014 Guide
Southland 2014 Guide
Abilene Christian 2014 Guide
Central Arkansas 2014 Guide
Houston Baptist 2014 Guide
Incarnate Word 2014 Guide
Lamar 2014 Guide
McNeese State 2014 Guide
Nicholls State 2014 Guide
Northwestern State 2014 Guide
Sam Houston State 2014 Guide Record Book
Southeastern Louisiana 2014 Guide
Stephen F. Austin 2014 Guide
SWAC 2014 Stats
Alabama A&M 2014 Stats
Alabama State 2014 Guide
Alcorn State 2014 Facts
Jackson State 2014 Stats
Mississippi Valley State 2014 Stats
Arkansas-Pine Bluff 2014 Stats
Grambling State 2014 Preview
Prairie View A&M 2014 Guide
Southern University 2014 Stats
Texas Southern 2014 Stats

John Feinstein’s misguided column about FBS-FCS matchups

Normally, I don’t post on this blog about specific articles, but I felt compelled to write something after reading John Feinstein’s recent column in The Washington Post.

Let’s start at the beginning, with the column heading:

College football: FBS vs. FCS games need to be limited

Feinstein then lists the scores of four one-sided games played last Saturday:  Florida A&M-Ohio State, Florida International-Louisville, Idaho State-Washington, and Savannah State-Miami (FL). Immediately it is apparent that there is a conflict between his theme and the column heading — namely that one of these matchups is not an FBS-FCS affair (FIU-Louisville). That doesn’t stop Feinstein:

Games like this have to stop. They have to stop because they are unfair — first and foremost — to the overmatched players who are publicly humiliated and beaten up playing against opponents who are much bigger, much stronger and much faster at every position. Florida A&M and Florida International combined for 100 yards of offense on Saturday against teams that totaled 148 points.

This is competition?

Later, he writes:

Some routs occur because reasonably good programs are having down seasons: Maryland-West Virginia is clearly a game worth playing even if it wasn’t worth seeing Saturday….Even Baylor’s 70-7 embarrassment of Louisiana-Monroe wasn’t a game that should not have been played. Monroe was coming off a big win (for it) over Wake Forest and got down quickly, and the game got way out of hand.

So it’s okay that ULM lost 70-7 to Baylor, but FIU’s 72-0 loss to Louisville led to its players being “publicly humiliated”. Got it. Never mind that ULM is in an FBS league (the Sun Belt) that FIU just left in a move “up” the ladder.

An unaware reader wouldn’t have known that FIU was actually an FBS squad until three-quarters of the way through the article:

Of course, Florida International is an FBS school. Schools like Old Dominion, Georgia Southern and Charlotte have all made the decision to transition into the FBS. Massachusetts, which won what was then the Division I-AA national title in 1998 and played in the championship game in 2006, is in its second season as an FBS team. The Minutemen are 1-15 so far and, to meet FBS stadium requirements, moved their home games 91 miles from campus to Gillette Stadium. On Saturday, an announced crowd of a little more than 16,000 watched U-Mass. lose 24-7 to Vanderbilt in the 68,000-seat stadium.

Clearly, there need to be stricter limits on who is allowed to move into the FBS….

…How’s it working out at U-Mass. so far? Old Dominion, also a very good FCS program, opened its season by giving up 99 points to East Carolina and Maryland.

Feinstein makes a decent point about a school possibly overreaching (UMass playing in Gillette), but ruins it with comparisons to ODU and Charlotte. The comment about Charlotte, in particular, is off the mark. The 49ers are only transitioning to FBS in the sense that the school needed a couple of years to get its brand-new program up to the necessary scholarship levels.

Old Dominion was a “very good FCS program”, to be sure, but one that only re-started its program four years ago. It has little history as an FCS school.

Also, I’m not sure giving up 99 points to ECU and Maryland says much about ODU’s future prospects in FBS. For one thing, the Monarchs only lost to ECU by 14 points.

ODU did lose to Maryland by 37 points.  Two weeks later, that same Maryland squad beat West Virginia by…37 points. For some reason, though, Feinstein thought that Maryland-WVU was “clearly a game worth playing”.

Feinstein also proposed this idea:

The question then becomes how do you tell North Dakota State or other quality FCS programs they can schedule FBS teams but tell Savannah State, Florida A&M and Eastern Kentucky they cannot schedule them…

…Pass a rule that allows any FCS school that qualifies for the 20-team NCAA tournament to schedule one future game against an FBS school. Each time you make the tournament, you get the right to schedule another game…

If you aren’t good enough to make the FCS tournament, you aren’t good enough to schedule an FBS school…

What’s more, any FBS school that schedules an FCS team is automatically ineligible for that season’s four-team national championship playoff…

There will still be plenty of FBS schools that will play FCS schools…

This is so bad, I hardly know where to start…

I guess I’ll begin by correcting an error in the column. This year, the FCS tournament will include 24 teams, not 20.

Feinstein’s idea that only FCS playoff participants should be allowed to schedule FBS schools falls apart for numerous reasons. Just to mention some of them:

- The 24-team playoff field includes automatic qualifiers from leagues with schools that don’t offer the full 63-scholarship allotment. One of those conferences, the Pioneer League, consists of institutions that don’t offer any scholarships at all.

So in that scenario, Northern Iowa (which did not make the FCS playoffs last year) can’t schedule an FBS opponent unless it returns to the postseason; UNI is a member of the very competitive Missouri Valley Football Conference. However, a school like Drake could schedule the likes of Iowa or Iowa State if it won the Pioneer League.

I am using the Iowa schools as examples because this season, Northern Iowa played an FBS school, Iowa State — and defeated the Cyclones in Ames, 28-20. As it happens, UNI played Drake the following week, and won that game 45-14.

- Another problem with this suggestion is it eliminates the SWAC schools from being able to schedule FBS teams, because that conference doesn’t participate in the FCS playoffs. (Neither does the Ivy League.)

- Feinstein believes there “will still be plenty of FBS schools” that would schedule FCS squads even if doing so made those FBS schools ineligible for the postseason playoff. I suspect otherwise.

He names a number of FBS schools, mostly well-regarded academic institutions like Vanderbilt and Duke. I don’t think there is a chance that any of the BCS member schools would schedule an FCS team in that situation; I seriously doubt their conferences would permit it.

Imagine if Vanderbilt won the SEC but couldn’t compete in the national playoffs because it had played Tennessee State during the season. Do you think Mike Slive would allow even that slim possibility to happen?

Feinstein mentioned certain schools that aren’t considered by most people to be serious contenders for their respective league titles, now or in the future. Notice a couple of similar schools that he doesn’t mention, though — Stanford and Northwestern. Ten years ago, Stanford would have been in that same sentence with Vandy and Duke.

I don’t think most of the non-BCS schools would schedule FCS schools under those circumstances, either. Maybe a few would, but not many.

- He does add that exceptions can be made for traditional matchups, mentioning Villanova-Temple. This would obviously lead to issues with fairness, and also what constitutes a “traditional” game. Besides, what is really different from that and (for example) Clemson or South Carolina annually playing an FCS school from the Palmetto State? Not much.

There may be a legitimate case to be made that the number of FBS-FCS matchups in college football should be reduced. I don’t really believe that, to be honest, but I’m willing to acknowledge a decent argument.

John Feinstein’s column is not such an argument.

FCS school football pages and 2013 media guides

Update: here is the link for the 2014 FCS football pages and guides

SBNation has a post listing and linking FBS football pages/media guides, so I figured I would try to do something similar for FCS.

Included are the schools’ football web pages, 2013 football media guides, and occasionally something extra (more often than not an additional record book that is separate from the regular media guide).

A few schools have standalone football websites that are separate from their football web pages; those are listed (as “FB website”) too.

Some of the guides are called prospectuses or supplements (or are extended “notes” packages); these generally have fewer pages.

A few schools may not have a media guide and/or supplement. When that is the case, I will link to the appropriate “fact sheet” or general notes/stats packages.

This is going to be a work in progress. I’ll link to media guides or prospectuses as they are released by the individual schools.

 

Big Sky 2013 Guide
Cal Poly 2013 Guide
Eastern Washington 2013 Guide
Idaho State 2013 Stats Records
Montana 2013 Guide
Montana State 2013 Guide Record Book
North Dakota 2013 Guide
Northern Arizona 2013 Guide
Northern Colorado 2013 Guide
Portland State 2013 Guide
Sacramento State 2013 Notes
Southern Utah 2013 Guide
UC Davis 2013 Guide
Weber State 2013 Guide
Big South 2013 Guide
Charleston Southern 2013 Notes
Coastal Carolina 2013 Guide
Gardner-Webb 2013 Guide
Liberty 2013 Guide
Presbyterian 2013 Stats
Virginia Military Institute 2013 Guide Record Book
CAA 2013 Guide
Albany 2013 Stats Record Book
Delaware 2013 Guide
James Madison 2013 Stats
Maine 2013 Guide
New Hampshire 2013 Guide
Rhode Island 2013 Guide
Richmond 2013 Guide Record Book
Stony Brook 2013 Guide Record Book
Towson 2013 Guide
Villanova 2013 Guide
William & Mary 2013 Notes Archival Information
FCS Independents
Abilene Christian 2013 Guide
Charlotte 2013 Guide FB website
Houston Baptist 2013 Stats
Incarnate Word 2013 Guide
Monmouth 2013 Guide
Ivy League 2013 Guide
Brown 2013 Guide Records
Columbia 2013 Guide
Cornell 2013 Facts Record Book FB website
Dartmouth 2013 Notes Records
Harvard 2013 Guide
Pennsylvania 2013 Guide
Princeton 2013 Guide Record Book FB website
Yale 2013 Stats FB website
MEAC 2013 Guide
Bethune-Cookman 2013 Notes
Delaware State 2013 Guide
Florida A&M 2013 Stats
Hampton 2013 Guide
Howard 2013 Stats
Morgan State 2013 Guide
Norfolk State 2013 Guide
North Carolina A&T 2013 Stats
North Carolina Central 2013 Guide Record Book
Savannah State 2013 Guide
South Carolina State 2013 Guide
MVFC 2013 News Record Book
Illinois State 2013 Notes
Indiana State 2013 Guide
Missouri State 2013 Guide
North Dakota State 2013 Guide
Northern Iowa 2013 Guide
South Dakota 2013 Guide
South Dakota State 2013 Guide
Southern Illinois 2013 Roster
Western Illinois 2013 Guide
Youngstown State 2013 Guide Record Book
NEC 2013 News
Bryant University 2013 Guide Records
Central Connecticut State 2013 Notes Record Book
Duquesne 2013 Guide
Robert Morris 2013 Guide Records
Sacred Heart 2013 Notes
St. Francis (PA) 2013 Stats
Wagner 2013 Guide
OVC 2013 Guide
Austin Peay 2013 Guide
Eastern Illinois 2013 Guide Record Book
Eastern Kentucky 2013 Guide
Jacksonville State 2013 Guide
Murray State 2013 Guide
Southeast Missouri State 2013 Guide
Tennessee State 2013 Guide
Tennessee Tech 2013 Guide
UT Martin 2013 Guide
Patriot League 2013 Preview Record Book
Bucknell 2013 Guide
Colgate 2013 Guide Record Book
Fordham 2013 Guide
Georgetown 2013 Guide
Holy Cross 2013 Guide
Lafayette 2013 Guide
Lehigh 2013 Info Record Book
Pioneer League 2013 News
Butler 2013 Stats Record Book
Campbell 2013 Guide
Davidson 2013 Guide
Dayton 2013 Guide
Drake 2013 Guide
Jacksonville 2013 Stats
Marist 2013 Guide
Mercer 2013 Guide FB website
Morehead State 2013 Guide
San Diego 2013 Facts Record Book
Stetson 2013 Guide Historical overview
Valparaiso 2013 Facts Records and Results
SoCon 2013 Guide
Appalachian State 2013 Guide
The Citadel 2013 Preview Record Book
Elon 2013 Guide Record Book
Furman 2013 Guide
Georgia Southern 2013 Guide
Samford 2013 Guide
UT-Chattanooga 2013 Guide
Western Carolina 2013 Guide
Wofford 2013 Guide
Southland 2013 Guide
Central Arkansas 2013 Guide
Lamar 2013 Guide
McNeese State 2013 Guide
Nicholls State 2013 Guide
Northwestern State 2013 Guide
Sam Houston State 2013 Guide Record Book
Southeastern Louisiana 2013 Guide
Stephen F. Austin 2013 Guide
SWAC 2013 Guide
Alabama A&M 2013 Stats
Alabama State 2013 Guide
Alcorn State 2013 Roster
Jackson State 2013 Guide
Mississippi Valley State 2013 Notes Record Book
Arkansas-Pine Bluff 2013 Guide
Grambling State 2013 Roster
Prairie View A&M 2013 Guide
Southern University 2013 Guide
Texas Southern 2013 Stats

Conference realignment, SoCon style: the football/hoops conundrum

Previously:

It is definitely nitty-gritty time now for the SoCon

A look at the varsity sports portfolios of SoCon candidate schools

After Georgia Southern and Appalachian State announced they would be leaving the Southern Conference for the Sun Belt last week, SoCon commissioner John Iamarino held a media teleconference. All in all, he did a good job, sounding reasonably confident about his league’s future. Among other things, he had this to say:

If we assume we’re adding three schools to replace the three we are losing, you don’t get that opportunity often. We could strategically look at what can help us where we need help, and I’ve said I’d like us to get better in basketball.

But we also have to look at football. We are losing two outstanding programs, and football matters in this league and in this part of the country.

This came on the heels of an interview in the Chattanooga Times Free Press in which Iamarino stated:

No matter how much success we’ve had in football, and we’ve had a lot of it, FCS football doesn’t pay off on a national level the way winning games in the NCAA tournament does for you.

Unfortunately, it’s becoming more and more evident that the one common component of the mid-majors who’ve had some of the greatest success in basketball — Gonzaga, Butler, Davidson — is that they don’t play scholarship football. It’s difficult to find a FCS program that’s also successful in basketball.

He isn’t wrong. Part of the reason for that is schools that spend the most money on their men’s basketball programs tend to be the most successful, and schools that field scholarship football teams at the FCS level generally don’t have the resources to commit to both sports (in some cases, they have the resources but not the focus).

Only one school with a full-scholarship FCS program is ranked in the Top 60 in men’s basketball expenditures. Villanova is 31st.

Note: all references to expenses are per the 2011-12 school year, as reported to the U.S. Department of Education.

It is not an accident that four of the eight schools that advanced to the NCAA regional finals in men’s basketball this season also rank in the top 8 in terms of money spent on hoops. Duke ranked first, with almost $16 million in expenses, followed by Louisville. Syracuse was fourth, and Marquette eighth. Kentucky was third; the Wildcats missed the NCAAs this season, but won the national title the previous year.

Another regional finalist, Florida, wasn’t far out of the top 8 (thirteenth). The exception, in a sense, was Wichita State (68th), but basketball is clearly a focal point for the school, as it does not field a football team.

A majority of SoCon schools don’t put that type of emphasis on men’s basketball. Southern Conference institutions averaged about $1.44 million in men’s hoops expenditures (that includes the three departing schools), while spending a total on average of $14,117,677. That means only 10.2% of expenses went towards men’s basketball.

Iamarino mentioned Gonzaga, Butler, and Davidson. Men’s basketball accounted for 28.6% of Gonzaga’s expenses and 26.6% of Butler’s. For Davidson, that number was a more modest 16.3% — but that percentage is the highest in the SoCon.

Davidson may not spend the most money on hoops in the league (in 2011-12 Samford did), but clearly it puts more emphasis on the sport than any other school in the league. In smaller leagues, that may matter almost as much as the actual gross expenses. It certainly goes a long way to explaining Davidson’s success in basketball within the conference itself.

In contrast, men’s basketball expenses for South Carolina ranked 20th nationally ($7.3 million), but only made up 8.39% of its total expenses. The Gamecocks are still searching for their first NCAA tournament victory since 1973.

Before the Southern Conference adds schools, the powers that be are probably going to have to decide whether to begin a transition to a hoops-first league, or continue as a conference that historically values football over basketball. While Davidson is clearly a “basketball school”, as is UNC-Greensboro (since it has no football program), most of the current membership savors fall Saturdays above all else. This is certainly true for The Citadel and Furman, the two schools with the longest continuous membership in the league.

The conference’s dilemma may perhaps be best demonstrated by comparing Furman and Davidson. They are fairly similar private schools, though Furman is larger and has a much bigger budget for varsity athletics.  Furman offers (or will offer) 20 varsity sports. Davidson offers 21 varsity sports. Furman plays scholarship football and treasures it; Davidson fields a team, but doesn’t offer schollies in the sport.

– Furman total athletic expenses: $20,531,292. Davidson total athletic expenses: $10,603,460.
— Furman men’s basketball expenses: $1,679,288. Davidson men’s basketball expenses: $1,727,330.

Davidson spends more money on men’s basketball despite Furman spending twice as much money on its total sports portfolio.

The major difference is football, of course. Furman’s athletic expenses in football for 2011-12 were $5,414,705. Davidson spent only $790,295 on football.

Football may be part of the reason why 45% of Furman’s expenses are for athletic aid (scholarships), while Davidson, with comparable tuition costs, spent 28% of its total expenses on athletic aid.

I put together a spreadsheet that lists various athletic expenses for a cross-section of Division I schools. Most of these schools are not candidates to join the Southern Conference, but I wanted to show (and also get an idea myself) of how schools in general spend money, at least at the non-BCS level.

There are 75 schools listed on the spreadsheet. All are in non-BCS leagues and most of them are east of the Mississippi. I included every SoCon school, and a majority of schools from the Big South, Atlantic Sun, CAA, Patriot League, and Atlantic 10. I also noted the current league affiliation for each school (through the 2012-13 school year).

The spreadsheet can be accessed at the following link:

2012 expenses, varsity athletics — selected schools

A few (okay, more than a few) caveats: I’m not an accountant, but I do know that some of these numbers could be a little…tricky. Different schools may have different ways of counting expenses, etc. Exact comparisons can be dicey, especially when you take a look at the numbers of, say, the Ivy League institutions.

Also, I try to avoid referring to budgets rather than expenses, because there is a difference.

I compiled five expense categories: total expenses, football expenses, men’s basketball expenses, athletic aid, and coaching salaries. It wasn’t hard to do, just a touch monotonous.

Observations about various schools that are in the SoCon, that are candidates for the SoCon, and a few that aren’t:

- Richmond spent $5.56 million on football, more than any Southern Conference school, and more than any FCS school on the list except James Madison ($6.6 million), Delaware ($5.6 million), and Liberty ($8.3 million). Old Dominion also spent more than Richmond, but ODU is transitioning to FBS. Richmond also spent $3.9 million on basketball.

- William & Mary spent $4.5 million on football, fitting comfortably in the middle of a group that includes Furman, Samford, Elon, and The Citadel.

- Athletic aid is a significant part of expenses for all schools, but especially private schools. Of those schools I surveyed, fifteen of the sixteen that had the largest percentage of athletic expenses allocated to athletic aid were private. The one exception: The Citadel.

Of The Citadel’s total expenses, 40.4% were for athletic aid. It is possible that is the highest percentage for a public school in all of Division I.

- Schools that had 20% or more of their expenses go for coaches’ salaries included Davidson, Georgia Southern, Western Carolina, VMI, and North Florida. Among the schools below 12% in that category: Furman, Wofford, Presbyterian, James Madison, and Tennessee Tech.

- Not referenced in the spreadsheet but of interest: UNC-Wilmington has formed a committee to review its varsity sports programs, after its chancellor said the department had been neglected for a decade.

- Unless you consider Belmont and JMU serious candidates, UNCW is the only school regularly or even semi-regularly mentioned as a possible addition to the Southern Conference that spent as much money or more on men’s basketball as did Samford, Davidson, or Furman — despite the fact that several candidate schools (Mercer, Kennesaw State, and East Tennessee State, just to name three) didn’t have football programs in 2011-12.

Of course, Florida Gulf Coast’s spending on men’s hoops would have put it in the bottom half of the SoCon, and that school seems to have done all right. It should also be pointed out that Mercer had a fine team this past season and finished ahead of FGCU in the Atlantic Sun standings. I think the real conclusion to draw is that the Mercers and the ETSUs of the world are going to have to seriously ramp up their fundraising as they add football, especially if they move to a new conference, and that additional money will be spent on other sports besides football.

- When it comes to total expenses, James Madison and Liberty probably wouldn’t have many issues in moving to FBS, as both schools compare favorably to most Sun Belt and MAC schools. Appalachian State is a little behind them, but not totally out of line (though I wonder about travel expenditures). Georgia Southern has a lot of work to do. A lot.

I wrote about GSU when if first considered making the FBS jump, back in 2009 (when it released its initial “Football Reclassification Analysis“). I thought it would be a mistake then, and I’m still a bit dubious today, even with (or perhaps because of) the changing landscape of college athletics.

- Davidson has been mentioned as a candidate for the Atlantic 10. One problem the school would have is that its current men’s hoops budget would be the lowest among all A-10 schools, and there would be a major increase in travel expenses (not unlike last year’s proposed move to the CAA that Davidson declined to make). One A-10 member, Rhode Island, spent $4.6 million on men’s basketball in 2011-12, almost $3 million more than Davidson. Of course, the Rams have a cumulative record over the last two seasons of 15-45.

There were a few expense-related items not contained in the spreadsheet I wanted to briefly mention, for no particular reason other than I thought they were interesting, if not surprising.

- When Duke lost to Lehigh in the 2012 NCAA tournament, it was a case of a men’s basketball team with $15.9 million in expenses losing to a team with $1.4 million in expenses. That may be some kind of record.

- While Texas has the largest varsity athletics budget ($129 million, including over $20 million in coaching salaries alone), it appears that Alabama spent the most on football in 2011-12: $36.9 million. Right behind Alabama in football expenses was Ohio State, with $34 million. Alabama has won three of the last four BCS titles; Ohio State was undefeated last season. I guess they got their money’s worth.

- SEC schools as a group spent $262 million on football in 2011-12. That did not include the expenses for Texas A&M or Missouri.

- Kentucky ranked fifteenth nationally in total athletic expenses. That was only the eighth-highest total for an SEC school.

There is another aspect to the football/basketball emphasis question that has to be considered. It was most recently mentioned by John Iamarino after the Barry Alvarez “we’re not playing FCS schools anymore” brouhaha in February. While being interviewed about that, Iamarino said:

The only reason to have 63 scholarships is to be eligible to play FBS teams and count toward their bowl eligibility. If those games go away, the entire subdivision would have to look at if 63 is the right number. Could we save expenses by reducing the number of scholarships? It would seem to me that’s one thing that would have to be looked at.

This may be the elephant in the room.

First, I believe Iamarino was mistaken when he said that “the only reason” to have 63 scholarships is to count to bowl eligibility for FBS opponents, but that’s not really the issue here. Saving money is the issue.

If the Southern Conference wants to become a hoops-centric league while maintaining viable scholarship football, it may be that the league will push for the division as a whole to lower scholarship limits. My guess is that the new limit would be around 50, a significant reduction but still distinguishable from the Division II maximum of 36.

The money saved from reducing scholarships and related expenses could be used to improve men’s and women’s basketball, or perhaps it could be spread around to enhance athletic programs across the board. However, I suspect the league wouldn’t make the move unless the entire division did the same. I am more than a little unsure about that, though.

There are two main problems with reducing scholarships. One is the risk of devaluing the product. At a certain point, customers (and donors) will conclude that the quality of what is being offered is not worth their time or their money.

The more immediate concern is the reduction in opportunities for potential students. One would hope that the scholarships not used in football would at least be used to fund scholarships in other varsity sports, but there is no guarantee that would happen.

I don’t know if this subject will come up when league officials and school administrators meet on April 10, but I would be mildly surprised if it doesn’t. It could be a factor in how the league approaches adding new schools, even if the potential reduction wouldn’t come to fruition for several years down the road.

In a few weeks’ time, league observers should have a very good idea of the SoCon’s strategy moving forward, both in terms of membership additions and any philosophical change in its outlook on football and basketball.

Or maybe we won’t have any idea at all…

If FBS schools no longer play FCS schools in football, what are the ramifications?

If you follow college football at all, you probably are familiar with last week’s story out of Wisconsin, where Barry Alvarez was quoted as saying that Big 10 schools would not schedule FCS opponents going forward:

“The nonconference schedule in our league is ridiculous,” Alvarez said on WIBA-AM. “It’s not very appealing…

“So we’ve made an agreement that our future games will all be Division I schools. It will not be FCS schools.”

A couple of quick points:

- Obviously, FCS schools are members of Division I. You would think the director of athletics at a D-1 institution would know that.

- Alvarez claimed that the Big 10’s non-conference schedule “is ridiculous”, yet he is the same AD who in recent years scheduled multiple FCS schools from all over the country, including The Citadel, Wofford, Northern Iowa, South Dakota, Austin Peay, and Cal Poly. The Badgers will play Tennessee Tech in 2013.

Alvarez’s comment drew a lot of attention, understandably so, although it is not a lock that the Big 10 will enforce such an edict. Northern Iowa’s AD was blunt:

I would tell you the loss of the Big Ten schools will be devastating, to UNI and to a lot of our peers. Not just because we wouldn’t play Iowa and have the guarantee, if you think this will stop at the Big Ten…I look at things happening in the equity leagues in fives, and so I have to believe this might lead to additional dominoes…It impacts our ability to generate money in football. It closes the ranks, it closes us out a little bit more.

Samford’s AD had a similar reaction:

If the SEC and ACC make the same decision, we’ve all got to sit back and reevaluate how we’re going to replace our money. If you eliminate those guarantee teams, it puts us in a tough situation at a private school where we don’t get any state funding.

Of course, not everyone is upset. Some in the media welcome the move, eager for what they perceive as “better” scheduling (though suggesting New Mexico State would be a significant improvement over a decent FCS squad strikes me as a bit puzzling). Most members of the college football press/blogosphere, however, understand the potential issues associated with such a decision and the nuances at play. Not all of them do, though — or if they do, they simply don’t care.

The best (worst?) example of this attitude is probably Yahoo! Sports columnist Frank Schwab, who couldn’t be more thrilled with the no-FCS proposal. After writing (in a headline) that “hopefully everyone follows [the Big 10's] suit”, he added:

…hopefully other conferences (and by “other conferences” we mostly mean you, SEC) stop the practice of wasting a precious Saturday afternoon in the fall on FCS opponents. The FCS teams benefit with a large payday, and that’s great for the bean counters at those schools. It’s not good for anyone else.

It stinks for the season-ticket holders that have to pay for a sham of a game. It’s nothing worth watching on television. The FBS team has nothing to gain, because a win is expected but a loss goes down in infamy. And while the FCS team will get enough money to build a new weight room, the most common result is getting pounded by 40 or 50 points, which can’t be that enjoyable for those players.

Some Big Ten-Sun Belt game in September might not be a ratings bonanza either, but at least it’s better than a parade of FCS opponents.

I thought Schwab’s overall tone was a bit much, to be honest. I sent him a tweet, trying to be as polite as possible:

You seem to have a very flippant attitude about the FCS.

His reply:

Oh, make no mistake, no “seem” about it

Okay, then…

My first thought when I read Schwab’s piece was that it was clearly the work of someone who does not understand FCS football, or who has no connection to it at all (Schwab is a Wisconsin alum). Saying that FCS players can’t enjoy the experience suggests he has never spoken to any of them about it. Most small-school players relish the challenge of “playing up”. In fact, such games are often a recruiting tool for FCS coaches. It’s not all about the money.

Earlier in this post I listed six FCS schools Wisconsin has played in recent years. Of those matchups, the Badgers had to hang on to beat Northern Iowa by five points, were tied at halftime with The Citadel, and frankly should have lost to Cal Poly (winning in OT after the Mustangs missed three extra points). I’m not really getting the “sham of a game” vibe with those contests. Now if you want to talk about the 2012 Big 10 championship game against Nebraska in those terms, go right ahead.

Schwab singles out the SEC as the worst “offender” when it comes to playing FCS schools. I think it is only fair to point out that Big 10 schools currently have a total of 37 FCS teams on their future schedules, while SEC schools have 32. (I’m sure the SEC will eventually add a few more.)

Oh, and to quickly dispose of one canard (which in fairness to Schwab, he does not suggest): some people occasionally claim that allegedly easy FCS matchups have given the SEC a leg up on winning BCS titles, because they play fewer quality non-conference opponents. You only have to look at the Big 10 to see that isn’t the case.

The SEC has played more FCS schools in the past than has the Big 10. However, despite that, Big 10 schools have actually lost more games to FCS opposition since 2005 than has the SEC. In fact, no BCS league has lost as many such games (six) or had as many different schools lose them (four) in that time period.

Not playing FCS schools won’t hide the Big 10’s real problem, which is illustrated to a degree by this article, written in August of 2012:

Iowa has four nonconference football dates. It has chosen to fill two of them this year with games against teams from the Mid-American Conference

The reason for this: The Hawkeyes wanted two games they would have very good chances to win.

That’s not exactly a revelation. But perhaps you aren’t aware of just how pronounced Iowa’s (and the Big Ten’s) dominance over MAC teams has been.

The columnist wrote that the MAC was “the Big 10’s football piñata”, which in years past it may have been. Unfortunately for the Big 10 (and to the undoubted surprise of the writer), it would lose three games to MAC schools in 2012, and that was just part of a trend — MAC teams have beaten Big 10 squads twelve times since 2008. (MACtion, indeed.)

As for the Hawkeyes and the “two games they would have very good chances to win”…Iowa lost one of them by one point, and won the other by one point.

The truth is the Big 10 just hasn’t been that good in football in recent years, which doesn’t have anything to do with playing FCS opposition. Dropping FCS schools from Big 10 schedules won’t change things, either. SEC schools aren’t winning all those BCS titles because they play FCS teams; they’re winning them because SEC schools have the best players and (in some cases) the best coaches.

So what happens if the Big 10 follows through and has its members drop all FCS opponents? What happens if other leagues do the same thing?

You’ve seen the quotes from ADs at schools that would be affected. Then there is this take from agent/event promoter Jason Belzer:

If other conferences follow the Big Ten’s lead and stop scheduling games against FCS opponents, the institutions that compete at that level will have two options: 1) look to make up the funds elsewhere, or 2) essentially be forced to stop competing at the same level as the larger institutions. Because it is  unrealistic to believe that any institution can begin to make up the difference in loss of football guarantee revenue by playing any number of additional such games in basketball, it is more likely that the second option will occur. With the loss of revenue, the gap between schools in BCS conferences and those who are not will continue to grow ever wider, leading to what may be the eventual breakup of the approximately 340 schools that compete at the NCAA Division I level.

How soon this may occur remains to be seen, but the the additional millions in revenue the new college football playoff will provide BCS conferences, coupled with their decision to eliminate the one source in which smaller schools could obtain a piece of those funds, will almost certainly accelerate the timetable for any such  fracturing.

I think that is a distinct possibility. I also think it may be the ultimate aim of the Big 10.

Not everyone agrees that the outlook is so dire, and at least one observer believes there are other ways for smaller schools to generate revenue:

FCS schools can take steps to enhance revenue streams outside of the on-field competitions with big schools. For example, very few schools FCS schools have media rights deals. Yet there are an increasing number of regional sports networks (RSNs) and national networks that are looking for programming. In fact, NBC Sports Network signed a media rights deal with the FCS Ivy League to “broadcast football, men’s basketball. and lacrosse.” FCS schools can and should continue to pursue these deals to be less dependent on paycheck changes…
…many institutions do not lobby at the federal or state level for their athletic programs or rely the schools’ lobbyists for their athletic programs. As schools like UNI receive more state funding, it is unclear how much of that funding will go to its athletic department. Therefore, FCS can and should make larger commitments to lobby on their athletic programs’ behalf, especially if paycheck games are eliminated.

That comes from a blog by a group (or maybe just one individual) called Block Six Analytics. I’ll be honest. I don’t buy either of those options.

I think many smaller institutions already lobby on varsity sports interests, and at any rate in most cases there would be a ceiling for actual results. To use The Citadel as an example, the school has in recent years begun to play Clemson and South Carolina in football on a more regular basis, as do several other FCS schools in the Palmetto State.

This outcome was basically due to a request by the state legislature to the two larger schools, neither of which had any real problem with it. However, The Citadel can’t play Clemson and/or South Carolina every year, since there are numerous other FCS programs in the state (Furman, Wofford, South Carolina State, Coastal Carolina, Presbyterian, and Charleston Southern).

The first point, that FCS schools should have media rights deals…um, it’s not like they haven’t tried. I’m sure the Southern Conference would like to have a profitable contract with CBS or ESPN or Al-Jazeera, but that’s not likely to happen. Even the mid-major conferences that do have deals (like the CAA has with NBC Sports) usually only get the benefit of exposure. That’s great, but it’s not a big cash situation.

I’m trying to imagine what reaction SoCon commissioner John Iamarino would have if he was told that he should go right out and find a big-money media rights deal for his league. Eye-rolling? Uncontrollable laughter?

Speaking of Iamarino, he had some comments on the FCS vs. FBS situation that were fairly ominous:

The only reason to have 63 scholarships is to be eligible to play FBS teams and count toward their bowl eligibility. If those games go away, the entire subdivision would have to look at if 63 is the right number. Could we save expenses by reducing the number of scholarships? It would seem to me that’s one thing that would have to be looked at.

I disagree with Iamarino that “the only reason” to have 63 scholarships is to play FBS schools (but I digress).

I’m guessing it hasn’t occurred to some of the more FBS-focused among the media that there could be a potential loss of football scholarships if the Big 10’s big idea comes to pass. No one thinks that would be good for the health of the sport. It would also be an sizable number of lost opportunities for potential students.

Iamarino doesn’t give a number, but I could see the FCS maximum dropping to around 50, based on scholarship costs and the lost income from not playing those games. That’s not much more than the D-2 maximum of 36.

This wouldn’t be the first time a Big 10 proposal had the potential to eliminate athletic scholarships at other schools, of course. As far back as 1948 the NCAA, then largely controlled by the Big 10, enacted the Sanity Code, an attempt to get rid of all athletic scholarships. It was a rule seen by many as benefiting the Big 10 at the expense of mostly southern schools.

Famously, the Sanity Code would not last long, and it is a pleasure to note that The Citadel was one of the “Seven Sinners” at the heart of its eventual destruction. I would hate to see the school have to reduce opportunities for prospective students after all these years.

Block Six Analytics did make one good point, which is that the FCS schools do have one other string in their collective bow, namely the NCAA basketball tournament:

One may argue that it is madness to have such a seemingly large organization completely dependent on one deal. However, this deal also means the NCAA will do everything in its power to ensure that there are enough Division I basketball programs to continue “March Madness” (also known as the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship). This requires that schools outside of the BCS have basketball programs that compete at the Division I level. In addition, this dynamic may allow smaller schools to actually ask for an increased amount of subsidies from the NCAA – especially given the elimination of paycheck games.

This may be the biggest obstacle to the Big 10 (and other power leagues) breaking away from the NCAA sooner rather than later. There is a lot of money in that tournament, and the event works in part because the country is enchanted with the “David vs. Goliath” component that is traditionally the major drawing card of the first two rounds. A basketball tournament only open to 65-75 larger schools wouldn’t be nearly as valuable (whether administrators at the BCS schools all understand this point is another issue).

Having said that, I have my doubts the smaller schools could extract a larger pound of flesh for their participation in the event.

A couple of other thoughts:

- If the Big 10 eliminates games against FCS schools, it will be harder for its member institutions to become bowl-eligible. This could be even more of a problem if the league moves to a 10-game conference schedule, which is reportedly under consideration.

If dropping FCS schools from FBS schedules was done across the board, there wouldn’t be enough eligible teams for all the existing bowl spots. Either the rules would have to be changed to allow 5-7 teams to play in bowls, or a bunch of bowl games would have to be cut.

- Frank Schwab wrote that a “Big Ten-Sun Belt game in September might not be a ratings bonanza either, but at least it’s better than a parade of FCS opponents”. I believe all but one of the current Sun Belt schools were once FCS (I-AA) programs. It’s not that big a difference from playing these schools versus competing against a quality FCS squad.

In addition, if FBS-FCS matchups go by the wayside, then a bunch of FCS schools will likely move up to FBS — more than are already planning to do so.

It’s possible that Alvarez’s comments to a local radio station are just the rantings of one man. I hope so, but I’m not confident that is the case. I think this is probably going to happen (though perhaps not next year). It will have a limited impact unless leagues like the SEC and ACC do the same thing. Then it will become a problem.

When it comes to maintaining financially stable sports programs, smaller schools already have too many problems.

2012 College Football TV Listings, Week 12

This is a list of every game played during week 12 of the college football season involving at least one FBS or FCS school.  All games are listed, televised or not.  For the televised games (only live broadcasts are listed), I include the announcers and sideline reporters (where applicable).  I put all of it on a Google Documents spreadsheet that can be accessed at the following link:

College Football TV Listings 2012, Week 12

Additional notes:

– I include ESPN3.com games; they are denoted as “ESPN3″.

– The SEC Network has a “split national” telecast this week, with two games. Local affiliates for both the Western Carolina-Alabama and Arkansas-Mississippi State games can be found here: Link

– I’ve listed the regional nets carrying the SEC Network “regional” game of the week (Samford-Kentucky) in a comment on the document.

- Local affiliates for the ACC Network “national” game of the week (Virginia Tech-Boston College) can be found here: Link

– I’ve listed the regional nets carrying the ACC Network “regional” game of the week (South Florida-Miami [FL]) in a comment on the document.

- The local affiliates for the Southland Network game of the week (Northwestern State-Stephen F. Austin) can be found here: Link

- The local affiliates for the MAC game of the week (Kent State-Bowling Green) can be found here: Link

- I’ve listed the regional network affiliates for the Big East Network game of the week (Rutgers-Cincinnati) in a comment on the document. A listing of local affiliates can be found here: [Link when available]

– Also listed on the document in a comment are the regional nets carrying the following games: UCF-Tulsa, Texas Tech-Oklahoma State, and Iowa State-Kansas.

– There are comments in the document with additional information for several other games.

– ABC/ESPN2 coverage maps for the 3:30 pm ET games: [Link when available]

– BTN (formerly Big Ten Network) “gamefinder”:  Link

– BCS Standings (FBS):  Link

– FCS Coaches’ Poll:  Link

A lot of the information I used in putting this together came courtesy of Matt Sarzyniak’s alarmingly comprehensive and completely indispensable website College Sports on TV, which cannot be lauded enough. It’s a must-bookmark for any fan of college sports, to say the least. Also to be credited, as always, are the indefatigable information gatherers (and in some cases sports-TV savants) at the 506.com.  I am also assisted on occasion by helpful athletic media relations officials at various schools and conferences.

2012 College Football TV Listings, Week 11

This is a list of every game played during week 11 of the college football season involving at least one FBS or FCS school.  All games are listed, televised or not.  For the televised games (only live broadcasts are listed), I include the announcers and sideline reporters (where applicable).  I put all of it on a Google Documents spreadsheet that can be accessed at the following link:

College Football TV Listings 2012, Week 11

Additional notes:

– I include ESPN3.com games; they are denoted as “ESPN3″.

– The SEC Network has a “split national” telecast this week, with two games. Local affiliates for both the ULL-Florida and Missouri-Tennessee games can be found here: Link

- Local affiliates for the ACC Network game of the week (Georgia Tech-North Carolina) can be found here: Link

– I’ve listed the regional nets carrying the ACC Network “regional” game of the week (Wake Forest-North Carolina State) in a comment on the document.

- The local affiliates for the Southland Network game of the week (Sam Houston State-Northwestern State) can be found here: Link

- I’ve listed the regional network affiliates for the Big East Network game of the week (Cincinnati-Temple) in a comment on the document. A listing of local affiliates can be found here: Link

– Also listed on the document in a comment are the regional nets carrying the following games: Kansas-Texas Tech, William & Mary-Old Dominion, Baylor-Oklahoma, and Southern Mississippi-SMU.

– There are comments in the document with additional information for several other games.

– ABC/ESPN2 coverage maps for the noon ET and 3:30 pm ET games: Link

– BTN (formerly Big Ten Network) “gamefinder”:  Link

– BCS Standings (FBS):  Link

– FCS Coaches’ Poll:  Link

A lot of the information I used in putting this together came courtesy of Matt Sarzyniak’s alarmingly comprehensive and completely indispensable website College Sports on TV, which cannot be lauded enough. It’s a must-bookmark for any fan of college sports, to say the least. Also to be credited, as always, are the indefatigable information gatherers (and in some cases sports-TV savants) at the 506.com.  I am also assisted on occasion by helpful athletic media relations officials at various schools and conferences.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 693 other followers