Whip Gone?

[Dickie Dunn]

The MAC has seven bowl-eligible teams this season and only four official bowl tie-ins with one conditional spot. So being in the MAC this season wouldn’t be any more of a guarantee for UMass than being an independent had they won six games.

The latest projection I saw had 81 potential bowl teams (if all favorites win this week) for 78 spots.

[stevemaz]

Now that this is done, I think we're in for a very rough 2 year stretch before things even remotely get better. We need to have some tempered expectations at the start with whoever is the new coach.

one thing for sure is that we have our easiest schedule next year since the move to Independent status.

[stevemaz]

No idea who the next guy will be and understand that this may be a total rebuild, but we may have as many as 12 winnable games next year. Easily the most important thing to do player wise is to sure up the Defensive Line and Linebacker positions.

[Bay Area UMie]

Also the Globe:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2018 ... story.html

Until we make a serious commitment to paying for FBS-level salaries and FBS-appropriate facilities, as well as finding a conference, it's going to be a tough sell.

By any objective measurement (on field performance, alumni/fan interest, student support, financial results or impact on the UMass brand) this seven year upgrade/ transition to FBS has been an unmitigated disaster. My harsh assessment is not intended to disparage the fine student-athletes who have represented UMass well both on and off the field during the last 7 years-to all of you students I say thank you very much for your dedication, hard work and effort.

But, thanks to a poor strategic plan laden with flawed assumptions from the prior university leadership group (Hello, John McCucheon, Robert Holub and former Massachusetts school-boy and ND football star Ken MacAfee who headed up the Board of Regents sub-committee that approved the decision to upgrade) the current administration is stuck with an irrefutable mess that is draining financial resources and not exactly enhancing the UMass brand name (as a side, the most absurd operating assumption that this leadership group presented and the Regents approved-the program would become financially self-sufficient in 3 years!). I do not envy the position that Bamford, Subbaswammy and Meehan find themselves in trying to appease the small, enthusiastic group that supports FBS football and also weighting that constituency’s demands against how the university should best use declining state funding to achieve the school’s primary educational mission.

I have to admit like most folks in this community, I enthusiastically supported the plan to upgrade. But, those truly in the know who rigorously study the economics and realities of college athletics like renowned Smith College Economist Andrew Zimbalist, who 7 years ago called the decision to upgrade an “irresponsible use of University funds” were very skeptical of the upgrade. Well it is seven years later and after about $65m-$70m in institutional and student fee support (to cover annual football operating budget and capital expenses) the skeptics appear to be quite right.

If you look at publically available football financial information for 2017 (the last published data), a “fully-loaded” football specific P&L (with all related revenues and costs including the $2.6m annual interest payments on the debt for the performance center), the football program required a $6m subsidy compliments of the UMass operating budget and student fees to break even. In the private sector this cash-flow/financial performance is called a “technically insolvent” cash-flow situation. Those that think that winning a few more games a year say 6-7 wins or even an occasional 8 win season will result in “droves of fans” showing up and much stronger revenue streams and or an invitation into the AAC (very unlikely without a stadium upgrade) I say you are delusional. If we increase latest ticket sales data by a factor of 3x the incremental increase would only result in an extra $1.1m in revenue. Joining the AAC, would generate only $2m annually in Media revenue, compare that with the annual $40m “Media” fees that Cal and Stanford EACH receive annually from the PAC12 media contracts and it really adds some needed perspective into the UMass situation. Regarding upgrading the stadium, let’s not forget that a $50m-$80m general obligation bond funded upgrade (which is not an unreasonable estimate given we are located in the NE and UConn spent $121m in today’s dollars to build their place 18 yrs ago) adds another $2m-$3.2m in annual interest expense (at 4% borrowing costs) to the P&L plus a huge balloon payment due in 30 years.

From my perspective, the current football model even if results improve on the field or we get invited into the AAC is not sustainable. I don’t believe the university should be saddled with a $3m-$6m annual subsidy to put a football team on a field at a school where the university community has never really embraced football in large numbers (yes, I know we have played for 100+ long yrs and I respect the fine tradition achieved on the field but the community doesn’t exactly and never did shutdown to attend games like in the Midwest, South and Pac12 supports their teams). How does a large annual subsidy/ investment contribute to the educational mission of our very fine university? Let’s also not forget the huge $29m principle loan payment for the Performance Center due in 25 years and the $50m-$80m due in 30 yrs if we upgrade the stadium.
If this was the private sector an “exit strategy” would have been developed two years ago to get out of this situation-don’t spend good money after bad. To those of you that will respond “this isn’t the private sector and you shouldn’t apply business performance standards to our situation”, I say look at the rationale/goals the UMass administration stated when the upgrade was announced they were grounded in purely business related concepts/objectives; “1) enhance the UMass brand and 2) grow athletic revenues” (I assume they meant profitably). To those that say if we shutdown football we will have some huge contractual breach payments due-to that I say when you are losing $6m a year the $6m probably covers your annual obligations and you might have a 3 year payout to pay for all the canceled games (just speculation on my part).

Once again, I am very sympathetic to the position and tough decisions that Meehan and Subbaswammy need to make. With all due respect to our very talented AD, this is such an important decision I might bring in a 3rd party with significant expertise in the business/financial aspects of college athletics like Professor Zimbalist to assess the situation or even McKinsey & Company’s sports consultancy group or somebody with strong financial credentials in the Sports Management program at the B school. Give them 3 weeks to review the model (we need an answer before we hire a new coach)-what is it going to take to make this a viable option for the university? My sense, the people in the know, know that UMass football will always need financial life support. The easy decision is to bring a new coach in and “kick-the-can down the road” and 5 years from now we are in the same place but invested another $25m subsidy and possibly additional capital costs for a stadium upgrade to field a team that wins 60% of their games.I really hope that the administration has really thought thru and considered all options. Its time to face reality and really look this thing in the eye.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

[DEM]

^
Except that your analysis seems to ignore how poor a financial model FCS football is. FCS was no more sustainable for UMass, and the upside is/was significantly lower than FBS. My condolences about the Whipple firing by the way, I understand you are a huge supporter of his and it stinks for you (and all of us really) that it didn't work out. Anyway, happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

[Jack]

^
Except that your analysis seems to ignore how poor a financial model FCS football is. FCS was no more sustainable for UMass, and the upside is/was significantly lower than FBS. My condolences about the Whipple firing by the way. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

Yes of course this "analysis" ignores many things but bay area umie needs some type of lame excuse to hijack this thread, draft a 6 paragraph chicken little / sky is falling off topic tome trashing UMass Football and ball washing smith college professor andrew zimbalist who also opposes UMass Football....a totally clueless and out of touch off topic screed......... LOL Happy Thanksgiving Turkey. !!

[minutefanjsf]

^
Except that your analysis seems to ignore how poor a financial model FCS football is. FCS was no more sustainable for UMass, and the upside is/was significantly lower than FBS. My condolences about the Whipple firing by the way, I understand you are a huge supporter of his and it stinks for you (and all of us really) that it didn't work out. Anyway, happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

The cost for the upgrade does not equal a loss annually. It is a cost that the university is willing to take on. Is it a gamble, if you're looking at it in a business model as an investment expecting just cash flow to put it the university in the black? No. Because almost no college athletic departments do that. None of the athletic programs at UMass exist as to be self sufficient and that has never been the goal. The costs of all programming need to looked at. There are other measure to consider as well.

[McKinney]

^
Except that your analysis seems to ignore how poor a financial model FCS football is. FCS was no more sustainable for UMass, and the upside is/was significantly lower than FBS.

Exactly. FCS isn't really any better of a financial option. They both require at least some kind of institutional life support + pay games. And some of the issues that UMass faces at the FBS level they'd still face at the FCS level. For example, McGuirk is still not ADA-compliant. Let alone if you look at the stadiums that schools like JMU, Alabama State, and other FCS teams are building. Capital expenditures are an issue, but one that is thankfully being solved, albeit slowly, through private funding.

Until we make a serious commitment to paying for FBS-level salaries and FBS-appropriate facilities, as well as finding a conference, it's going to be a tough sell.

FBS-appropriate facilities are tricky. Like I said capital expenditures are a bit harder to get done. But operational expenditures we should be fine on. Unfortunately yes a lot the opex is funded through student fees (although not at an unreasonable or uncommon % of cost of attendance). But either way, at the end of the day we're bringing home $48M... AAC/MWC-type money. If we can't figure out how to pay FBS-level salaries with those kinds of resources, we have a larger issue at hand than football. The conference thing I believe will work itself out in time. As I said in my earlier post, currently our best available conference options (likely the MAC) aren't in a significantly different financial situation as we are in A10+Indy. I don't think anyone would say the MAC is going anywhere anytime soon, so by at least that definition, Indy isn't necessarily a terrible holding pattern.

I expect the department will revisit joining a G4 conference in all sports twice over the next 5 years. In 2020 when the AAC TV deal is renewed: if it's as high as the rumors predict, there's no way we're getting in without a miraculous on-field turnaround and significant capital expenditure. And in 2023 when the A10 TV deal is renewed. If it's as low as the rumors are saying and if the A10 is no longer a multi-bid conference, there may be little benefit over a conference like the MAC. But again, that situation isn't really cut and dry (see my previous post on MAC finances vs A10+Indy).

I do not envy the position that Bamford, Subbaswammy and Meehan find themselves in trying to appease the small, enthusiastic group that supports FBS football and also weighting that constituency’s demands against how the university should best use declining state funding to achieve the school’s primary educational mission.

From my perspective, the current football model even if results improve on the field or we get invited into the AAC is not sustainable. I don’t believe the university should be saddled with a $3m-$6m annual subsidy to put a football team on a field at a school where the university community has never really embraced football in large numbers (yes, I know we have played for 100+ long yrs and I respect the fine tradition achieved on the field but the community doesn’t exactly and never did shutdown to attend games like in the Midwest, South and Pac12 supports their teams). How does a large annual subsidy/ investment contribute to the educational mission of our very fine university?

I read somewhere that the institutional revenue the athletics department recieves no longer includes state-funding. I don't remember the source and unfortunately that level of financial detail has not been made public. But okay, worst case scenario, let's say that estimated $3-6M we subsidze football with is 100% covered by the state: that'd account for 0.09-0.17% of the $3.4B UMass-system budget or about 0.4-0.8% of state appropriations.

It's hardly a stretch to say that the football program accounts for at least 10 basis points worth of exposure. Which really maximum exposure should be the goal of the program as any significant financial gain is about as likely as joining the SEC. If you look at the public school's finances: there's something like 25 schools that turned a profit this year, 15 schools that made anything more than 5% margin, and only about 10 schools that could turn a profit consistently.

Joining the AAC, would generate only $2m annually in Media revenue, compare that with the annual $40m “Media” fees that Cal and Stanford EACH receive annually from the PAC12 media contracts and it really adds some needed perspective into the UMass situation. Regarding upgrading the stadium, let’s not forget that a $50m-$80m general obligation bond funded upgrade (which is not an unreasonable estimate given we are located in the NE and UConn spent $121m in today’s dollars to build their place 18 yrs ago) adds another $2m-$3.2m in annual interest expense (at 4% borrowing costs) to the P&L plus a huge balloon payment due in 30 years.

For me having an FBS football program isn't about competing with Cal and Stanford. It's much simpler than that. If schools like Louisiana Monroe, BGSU, NIU, Kent State, Coastal Carolina can have an FBS program, why can't UMass? There are quite literally at least three or four dozen schools that we would not consider peers by any other standard (sometimes not even by financial resources, support, or athletics facilities) in FBS.

[MJatUM]

With all due respect to our very talented AD, this is such an important decision I might bring in a 3rd party with significant expertise in the business/financial aspects of college athletics like Professor Zimbalist to assess the situation or even McKinsey & Company’s sports consultancy group or somebody with strong financial credentials in the Sports Management program at the B school.

Bro we don't need no McKinsey we have McKinney! 2 N's is better than 1

[Floyd]

That's pretty good there MJ

[dennisdent]

With all due respect to our very talented AD, this is such an important decision I might bring in a 3rd party with significant expertise in the business/financial aspects of college athletics like Professor Zimbalist to assess the situation or even McKinsey & Company’s sports consultancy group or somebody with strong financial credentials in the Sports Management program at the B school.

Bro we don't need no McKinsey we have McKinney! 2 N's is better than 1

A lot cheaper and more accurate!

[FightMass19]

I'm personally so sick and tired of people using the facilities, or lack there of, as an excuse as to why we can't compete in football. Coach Cal was able to win here with the Cage; the place where paint chips fell off the ceiling, puddles would form on the court when it rained, and the benches belonged to the School of Biology. Let alone the fact that there was a dirt floor underneath the basketball court and players would have to dust off the ball if it went out of bounds. Certainly the Cage was never a world class facility, although we love to romanticize it because of its atmosphere and importance in our programs history.

Would it be an easier sell if we had a 40k seat state of the art stadium? Of course, but that's not coming anytime soon so might as well deal with the reality of what we have. Find a coach who can identify undervalued talent, implement them effectively into their system, and instill the winning culture that this program so desperately needs. The school and surrounding area will support a winning team, or at least a team heading in the right direction. We saw it last year and this year with hockey. No one's asking UMass to beat Bama, but we damn well should be able to beat schools like Coastal Carolina.

[InnervisionsUMASS]

^

The facilities discussions in 1987 vs 2018 are a bit different. Times have changed and facilities are a pretty big piece of the puzzle now.

[FightMass19]

^
Respectfully, with the FPC and IPF on the way I don't see any reason that our facilities should hold us back from competing as a G5 program.

[dennisdent]

UConn has all the facilities (great indoor facility and relatively new stadium) and a conference and they stink! What is their excuse--COACHING!

How about Kansas--oh wait COACHING! Rutgers--COACHING!

Temple is the program that UMass needs to copy. Their coaches over the past ten years have built a CULTURE of toughness, hard nosed football. That is what UMass needs.