U Mass leaving MAC

[Fiji Bill 72]

U Mass is pulling out of the MAC at the end of the 2015 football season. Any thoughts on going that direction? I heard last week that there is an Illinois representative attempting to push either Southern or Illinois State to be invited into the Big 10! I know that is not even realistic, but interesting that someone thought they would be a fit.

 

[Jason Svoboda]

Their administration completely botched this process. Wonder what their plans for football are? Back to FCS? I don't think they realize how hard being a FBS independent is -- no conference media money, nobody wants to play you, etc.

 

[Jason Svoboda]

U Mass is pulling out of the MAC at the end of the 2015 football season. Any thoughts on going that direction? I heard last week that there is an Illinois representative attempting to push either Southern or Illinois State to be invited into the Big 10! I know that is not even realistic, but interesting that someone thought they would be a fit.

Honestly, with the pay-for-play and union stuff going on, I'm not interested in doing anything. In fact, I'd have a hard time not agreeing with the university closing down sports programs if all of that stuff came to fruition.

 

[bent20]

Hate to say it, but when it comes to a sport like football, most schools, including some current lower tier FBS schools, will eventually scale back so that they have very few, if any, scholarships going to football. I could see a future where most schools are playing non-scholarship football. Many will eventually drop football entirely. I don't see the game growing in terms of number of schools. I see a select few. Maybe the top 50, or even top 20-30 pricing themselves out of what everyone else can afford. At some point, many will realize it's not worth it to be a MAC, Conf. USA, Sun Belt school and those conferences will go away.

I agree with the recent argument Mark Cuban made about the NFL being too greedy. I think it will happen to college football as well, already has. The big boys getting fat on all of the profits will eventually price everyone out of the game and when you only have 20-30 top schools competing (no real under dogs) eventually interest will fade. They will kill themselves.

 

[Jason Svoboda]

Hate to say it, but when it comes to a sport like football, most schools, including some current lower tier FBS schools, will eventually scale back so that they have very few, if any, scholarships going to football. I could see a future where most schools are playing non-scholarship football. Many will eventually drop football entirely. I don't see the game growing in terms of number of schools. I see a select few. Maybe the top 50, or even top 20-30 pricing themselves out of what everyone else can afford. At some point, many will realize it's not worth it to be a MAC, Conf. USA, Sun Belt school and those conferences will go away.

I agree with the recent argument Mark Cuban made about the NFL being too greedy. I think it will happen to college football as well, already has. The big boys getting fat on all of the profits will eventually price everyone out of the game and when you only have 20-30 top schools competing (no real under dogs) eventually interest will fade. They will kill themselves.

Which will start a domino effect. If those schools no longer have scholarship football, it means they no longer have a need to have scholarships for Title IX requirements, which means those programs moved non-scholarship or closed down completely. I find it pretty funny how non revenue athletes are sitting back and not saying a word here. The writing is on the wall -- your programs are subsidized by revenue sports and if they want all of that money to themselves, something is going to be cut as a result. MOST schools already subsidize athletics through student funds, direct/indirect contributions, etc, so they're not going to just keep giving more from the endowment coffers.

It's basically athletic cannibalism.

 

[4Q_iu]

Which will start a domino effect. If those schools no longer have scholarship football, it means they no longer have a need to have scholarships for Title IX requirements, which means those programs moved non-scholarship or closed down completely. I find it pretty funny how non revenue athletes are sitting back and not saying a word here. The writing is on the wall -- your programs are subsidized by revenue sports and if they want all of that money to themselves, something is going to be cut as a result. MOST schools already subsidize athletics through student funds, direct/indirect contributions, etc, so they're not going to just keep giving more from the endowment coffers.

It's basically athletic cannibalism.

Agree - though won't Title IX still apply? It's not targeted AT football, it's just that football becomes a TARGET b/c of the scholarship numbers...

again, agree; should an "unionization" be approved OR even a significant increase in athletic scholarship value (i.e. stipends), schools will drop football; eventually a LOT of schools, perhaps the Pioneer Football League will become the 'model' for more schools... but I don't think the PFL has sell-out crowds does it?

 

[Bluethunder]

I guess the way many look at it is that in a Div. I football team, there are 85 scholarships or so (I think that is right), so basically there are 85 women's scholarships in various sports simply as a way to balance out the football team. So if you move football to non scholarship, you can then do away with the women's gymnastics team, women's tennis team, women's golf team and women's swimming team or any combination that adds up to 85, mainly because they don't make any money and you don't have to provide them now.

I am sure most schools won't WANT to cut women's sports, but the bottom line will force their hand.

 

[4Q_iu]

I guess the way many look at it is that in a Div. I football team, there are 85 scholarships or so (I think that is right), so basically there are 85 women's scholarships in various sports simply as a way to balance out the football team. So if you move football to non scholarship, you can then do away with the women's gymnastics team, women's tennis team, women's golf team and women's swimming team or any combination that adds up to 85, mainly because they don't make any money and you don't have to provide them now.

I am sure most schools won't WANT to cut women's sports, but the bottom line will force their hand.

Well if that analogy is true... then what of all of the NON-football sports with scholarship for men? 85 is the scholie number at the Div I-FBS schools; Div I-FCS, the number is 63 and at Div II, its ~30...

More on Title IX requirements: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/interath.html

 

[Jason Svoboda]

I guess the way many look at it is that in a Div. I football team, there are 85 scholarships or so (I think that is right), so basically there are 85 women's scholarships in various sports simply as a way to balance out the football team. So if you move football to non scholarship, you can then do away with the women's gymnastics team, women's tennis team, women's golf team and women's swimming team or any combination that adds up to 85, mainly because they don't make any money and you don't have to provide them now.

I am sure most schools won't WANT to cut women's sports, but the bottom line will force their hand.

I just re-read the Title IX stuff and I don't think this is true. There is a three pronged conditional and you have to meet one of the three items. I knew it was bad, but it doesn't even have to be scholarship/non-scholarship. It says opportunities so they have to match. What's worse, it has to be proportional to your student body, so technically it should be 46/54 male to female.

Bottom line, Title IX needs repealed IMO. It was probably necessary in the 70s. Today, no way.

 

[Bluethunder]

I just re-read the Title IX stuff and I don't think this is true. There is a three pronged conditional and you have to meet one of the three items. I knew it was bad, but it doesn't even have to be scholarship/non-scholarship. It says opportunities so they have to match. What's worse, it has to be proportional to your student body, so technically it should be 46/54 male to female.

Bottom line, Title IX needs repealed IMO. It was probably necessary in the 70s. Today, no way.

Thanks for the info, I always thought it was just based off of scholarship, but if you have to have the same numbers of sports/athletes even if they are in non scholarship sports, then yes that will make things very tricky for schools that may be forced to drop football due to added expenses.

 

[Jason Svoboda]

Thanks for the info, I always thought it was just based off of scholarship, but if you have to have the same numbers of sports/athletes even if they are in non scholarship sports, then yes that will make things very tricky for schools that may be forced to drop football due to added expenses.

I did as well. Makes it an even bigger kick in the nuts. Also explains why the basketball team, for example, doesn't have additional walk-ons like other schools. Some schools have 4-5 walk-ons at any given time.