What is Lamar's budget? 14 million?

[UNLV]

http://www.rcaf4ul.com/2012brochure.pdf
Lamar easily fits in the SBC.
page 7 shows SBC and CUSA budgets.

[SabineRavine]

Why are you on here ranting to essentially yourself about what Lamar should do??  You've been doing the same thing on this forum for three years.  Why are you not in Dr. Simmons' office getting direct information from him?  He is a "forward thinker", as you've stated repeatedly.  Or maybe I should ask why you are in fact not in his office telling him what Lamar should do? 

[UNLV]

If the fans had ranted up a storm, Lamar may not have dropped football and dropped down to your beloved SLC. BTW, where is Dr Simmons office?

[jdcurran235]

We are doing pretty good budget wise.

[UNLV]

[quote name="jdcurran235" post="1256792" timestamp="1346462574"]
We are doing pretty good budget wise.
[/quote]Someone correct me, but I think it is over 15 million.

[OldBuc77]

According to this site: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1 it was about 13.3 million.

Based on the USA Today information (provided by the various schools) the Sun Belt and WAC are the only two conferences in FBS that Lamar could hope to compete in financially. While the budget would compete with the bottom (financially) of the conferences they would be nowhere near the top. Lamar wouldn't have the smallest budget in FBS but they would be near the bottom. To legitimatly go FBS and hope to really compete financially and on the field, Lamar would need to at least double and preferably triple its budget.

The highest percentge subsidies of athletic budgets are in FBC, but on average the largest $ amount subsidies are FBS schools in nonautomatic BCS qualifying conferences (USA Today). Lamar's subsidy is already at 70%+. That could only get higher.

I'm all for going FBS if it makes sense, but we need to find a chunk of money somewhere first. Being a dreg in the FBS gets you no more respect than being in the FCS and the SLC.

The only reason for a move to FBS at this point would be a vain attempt to sooth feelings of FCS/SLC inadequacy.

If you know where Lamar could pick up another $20 mil a year then lets go for it ...

[UNLV]

[quote name="oldbuc77" post="1258561" timestamp="1346556025"]
According to this site: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1 it was about 13.3 million.

Based on the USA Today information (provided by the various schools) the Sun Belt and WAC are the only two conferences in FBS that Lamar could hope to compete in financially. While the budget would compete with the bottom (financially) of the conferences they would be nowhere near the top. Lamar wouldn't have the smallest budget in FBS but they would be near the bottom. To legitimatly go FBS and hope to really compete financially and on the field, Lamar would need to at least double and preferably triple its budget.

The highest percentge subsidies of athletic budgets are in FBC, but on average the largest $ amount subsidies are FBS schools in nonautomatic BCS qualifying conferences (USA Today). Lamar's subsidy is already at 70%+. That could only get higher.

I'm all for going FBS if it makes sense, but we need to find a chunk of money somewhere first. Being a dreg in the FBS gets you no more respect than being in the FCS and the SLC.

The only reason for a move to FBS at this point would be a vain attempt to sooth feelings of FCS/SLC inadequacy.

If you know where Lamar could pick up another $20 mil a year then lets go for it ...
[/quote]Lamar does not need $20 million to compete in the lower FBS conferences; CUSA, SBC, or MWC.Although $20 million would be nice...Lamar only need an extra $4 million for SBC or 7-10 million to compete regularly in a CUSA or MWC. Ark st is doing fine in the SBC with only a 15 million budget.

Also, in the case of the MWC, this move would benefit Lamar basketball far more than football.

[AggiesAreWe]

[quote name="UNLV" post="1258595" timestamp="1346557727"]
[quote author=oldbuc77 link=topic=100286.msg1258561#msg1258561 date=1346556025]
According to this site: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1 it was about 13.3 million.

Based on the USA Today information (provided by the various schools) the Sun Belt and WAC are the only two conferences in FBS that Lamar could hope to compete in financially. While the budget would compete with the bottom (financially) of the conferences they would be nowhere near the top. Lamar wouldn't have the smallest budget in FBS but they would be near the bottom. To legitimatly go FBS and hope to really compete financially and on the field, Lamar would need to at least double and preferably triple its budget.

The highest percentge subsidies of athletic budgets are in FBC, but on average the largest $ amount subsidies are FBS schools in nonautomatic BCS qualifying conferences (USA Today). Lamar's subsidy is already at 70%+. That could only get higher.

I'm all for going FBS if it makes sense, but we need to find a chunk of money somewhere first. Being a dreg in the FBS gets you no more respect than being in the FCS and the SLC.

The only reason for a move to FBS at this point would be a vain attempt to sooth feelings of FCS/SLC inadequacy.

If you know where Lamar could pick up another $20 mil a year then lets go for it ...
[/quote]Lamar does not need $20 million to compete in the lower FBS conferences; CUSA, SBC, or MWC.Although $20 million would be nice...Lamar only need an extra $4 million for SBC or 7-10 million to compete regularly in a CUSA or MWC. Ark st is doing fine in the SBC with only a 15 million budget.

[b]Also, in the case of the MWC, this move would benefit Lamar basketball far more than football.[/b]
[/quote]


True, but football is the driving force in just about everyone's athletic budget.

[UNLV]

[quote name="AggiesAreWe" post="1258600" timestamp="1346558027"]
[quote author=UNLV link=topic=100286.msg1258595#msg1258595 date=1346557727]
[quote author=oldbuc77 link=topic=100286.msg1258561#msg1258561 date=1346556025]
According to this site: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1 it was about 13.3 million.

Based on the USA Today information (provided by the various schools) the Sun Belt and WAC are the only two conferences in FBS that Lamar could hope to compete in financially. While the budget would compete with the bottom (financially) of the conferences they would be nowhere near the top. Lamar wouldn't have the smallest budget in FBS but they would be near the bottom. To legitimatly go FBS and hope to really compete financially and on the field, Lamar would need to at least double and preferably triple its budget.

The highest percentge subsidies of athletic budgets are in FBC, but on average the largest $ amount subsidies are FBS schools in nonautomatic BCS qualifying conferences (USA Today). Lamar's subsidy is already at 70%+. That could only get higher.

I'm all for going FBS if it makes sense, but we need to find a chunk of money somewhere first. Being a dreg in the FBS gets you no more respect than being in the FCS and the SLC.

The only reason for a move to FBS at this point would be a vain attempt to sooth feelings of FCS/SLC inadequacy.

If you know where Lamar could pick up another $20 mil a year then lets go for it ...
[/quote]Lamar does not need $20 million to compete in the lower FBS conferences; CUSA, SBC, or MWC.Although $20 million would be nice...Lamar only need an extra $4 million for SBC or 7-10 million to compete regularly in a CUSA or MWC. Ark st is doing fine in the SBC with only a 15 million budget.

[b]Also, in the case of the MWC, this move would benefit Lamar basketball far more than football.[/b]
[/quote]


True, but football is the driving force in just about everyone's athletic budget.
[/quote]Lamar does not need to follow other schools. Lamar football is so bad, basketball needs to lead until football catches up.

[jdcurran235]

On the field, the game looks similar. When it comes to money, the schools in the Football Championship Subdivision and the top-tier Football Bowl Subdivision play on different planets.
...
Five programs – Georgia State, Texas-San Antonio, South Alabama, Massachusetts and Texas State – are at various stages in the two-year transition process to FBS this season. Economically, the outcomes may vary widely from school to school. But overall, the difference between FCS and FBS is a matter of degree: much higher revenues, but also more expenses and, in many cases, much higher losses requiring the university to cover the difference.
Overall, a small majority of FBS football programs do generate more revenue than they cost – about $4 million on average, according to NCAA data collected by Daniel Fulks of Transylvania University (virtually no FCS programs turn a profit). The most profitable FBS programs clear up to $38 million, money that can be used to subsidize the rest of the athletic department and in some cases gets turned back over to the academic side of the university.
The problem is there’s a wide range around the median (the program whose results are precisely in the middle), and nearly half of FBS programs lose money ($2.9 million on average). It isn’t easy for a new FBS school to reach even the median level. When schools join FBS, they don’t jump into the Big Ten or Southeastern Conference (South Alabama, Texas State and Georgia State are joining the Sun Belt; UMass the Mid-American Conference and Texas-San Antonio is moving into the Western Athletic Conference).
On the revenue side, the typical FBS team generates about $16 million from sources like ticket sales and television – more than 20 times the typical FCS school. High-end FBS programs approach $100 million. But costs are higher, too. Programs don’t like losing, so inevitably feel compelled to fill all 85 scholarships FBS allows and to join in the arms race for top coaching talent.
“The majority of (transitioning) schools are going to lose more money,” Fulks said. “They’ll have fewer home games, they’ll have to travel more. If they’ve been winning in FCS, they’ll probably be losing at FBS at least for a while. At most institutions, it’s going to cost them, and it’s going to cost them on a long-term basis.”
There are other costs that don’t factor into the NCAA’s direct accounting of football programs. FBS membership often requires a new stadium, to generate revenue to fund the expanded program, and to meet the NCAA’s 15,000-per-game attendance requirement for FBS schools (UMass is moving this season to Gillette Stadium, home of the New England Patriots, where it won’t pay rent but which is nearly two hours from the Amherst campus).
FBS membership generally increases costs for other sports, too. Under NCAA rules, FBS schools must field at least 16 varsity teams and spend $4 million on grants for student athletes. Since football has no female equivalent, offering the maximum 85 FBS football scholarships can force schools to add women’s teams and scholarships to meet Title IX balance requirements.
Overall, the typical FBS athletic program costs about $11.5 million more than it generates (compared to $9.2 million in FCS) and must get the difference from the university whose name it carries. Essentially, that’s value that the typical FBS institution places on intercollegiate athletics – a tough sell to some at time of austerity budgets across higher education.
But, says Fulks: “If it’s worth having, it’s worth paying for, just like your music program or anything else.”
By JUSTIN POPE, The Huffington Post

[jdcurran235]

Our athletic budget has been able to increase every year through donations.  Cost wise, I don't see LU having trouble making up the difference.  We can't opt to move up to FBS on a whim now.  So we need to plan ahead and push to make the move otherwise we will never get to the FBS level.  Slowly but surely doors will shut on us.  I dont want to be on the outside looking in.  The end question is how much value do we put on our athletics.  There are unseen benefits to playing athletics at the higher level that are hard to put solid numbers to.  Recruiting new students to lamar, recruiting donations, community involvment, campus life (one of LU's biggest problems), getting our name in the public, etc.  All these unseen factors are part of what brings value to athletics.  It is impossible to do a total cost/benefit analysis FCS versus FBS.