This is in response to so many here lamenting USU's inability to compete with both the dynamics of the transfer portal and the NIL landscape. Back in the day when Stew had the Spectrum rocking and football couldn't win a game (Brent Guy won just 9 games in 4 years in 05-08), I had this same thought looking at some of the cool bball programs of the time - VCU, Wichita, and of course Gonzaga. Maybe football simply stretches us/Laubs too thin? Not to mention the liability that feels inevitable to hit someday with CTE and other things that we aren't financially prepared to manage. There's a few other truths to consider:

- byu has recently had a 100th donor eclipse the $1M total athletics donations mark all-time. We're currently at like 3 ish all-time.
- even in our conference, there are multiple programs with annual collectives with budgets over $1M for each football and bball.
- our turnover is insane due to the portal (yes performance and coaching too, but we'll always be a feeder program)

If we just had to fund a collective that pays basketball and volleyball (as it currently does), and we as fans only focus there too, would that be more sustainable and better assure high performance and outcomes?

For comparison, our enrollment and finances are similar to VCU right now, but without football we'd certainly see a change. By percent revenue, I'd still expect us to outpace UVU overall financially.


Other references:
D1 programs without football: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... l_programs
D1 income and expenses: https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

After we've spent all that dough on facilities and such, it would be asinine to drop football.

I would go all in on a competitive rowing team. They could practice at first dam. That might be the school's best shot at an NCAA title. Second choice would be boxing. I think UNR is the only other school in the area that has a boxing team - except Air Force. I think all service academies still sponsor boxing.

Yossarian wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 3:52 pm

I would go all in on a competitive rowing team. They could practice at first dam. That might be the school's best shot at an NCAA title. Second choice would be boxing. I think UNR is the only other school in the area that has a boxing team - except Air Force. I think all service academies still sponsor boxing.

First dam isn't long enough, but I bet Logan City would let them use the sewer ponds.

BearLakeMonster wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 3:56 pm

Yossarian wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 3:52 pm

I would go all in on a competitive rowing team. They could practice at first dam. That might be the school's best shot at an NCAA title. Second choice would be boxing. I think UNR is the only other school in the area that has a boxing team - except Air Force. I think all service academies still sponsor boxing.

First dam isn't long enough, but I bet Logan City would let them use the sewer ponds.

Now you're thinking! There is a lot of water in the Cutler Marshes - that could be an alternative, as well.

BearLakeMonster wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 3:56 pm

Yossarian wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 3:52 pm

I would go all in on a competitive rowing team. They could practice at first dam. That might be the school's best shot at an NCAA title. Second choice would be boxing. I think UNR is the only other school in the area that has a boxing team - except Air Force. I think all service academies still sponsor boxing.

First dam isn't long enough, but I bet Logan City would let them use the sewer ponds.

The square lakes!

aggies22 wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 3:44 pm

After we've spent all that dough on facilities and such, it would be asinine to drop football.

As an economist, I feel obligated to bring up the sunk cost fallacy.

But... I agree.

Dropping Football is ridiculous. But I do think we should focus more on basketball.

I think we could continue to see similar results in football by continuing what we are currently doing. We keep the Dame budget and we will keep getting similar results. Which is admittedly somewhat average. Between 6 and 8 wins a year, once every 4 year or so we are competing for a conference championship. I am good with that. The problem is to elevate the football program to where we are winning 8 to 10 games a year and usually competing for conference championships, it would take a whole lot of money, like doubling our football budget. Is that worth it for an additional 2 wins a year? So keep the status quo, football is important to the university and the Athletic Department.

However, I think we could elevate the basketball program much more with less money. Setting up NIL for 15 guys and paying the coaching staff more in basketball is a much easier lift and could make us a perennial ncaa team, probably a top 25 program with runs in the ncaa tournament.

So if the athletic department had an extra million and they were trying to decide how to allocate it, spend it on basketball, while not taking away from what we're are already putting into football.

In economic terms, the marginL benefit of an extra dollar in football is probably pretty low, the marginal benefit in basketball is substantial higher.

Gotta say I'm really surprised so far, given how many don't think we can or will be able to compete with the NIL and portal stuff. I love the football legacy as much as anyone but I just feel like the competitive landscape isn't gonna get better. The portal and money in play just increase the gap between the haves and have nots, and we are definitely have nots in the money space. That and I'd rather have an awesome basketball program than meh basketball and football programs.

AmericanAggie wrote:Gotta say I'm really surprised so far, given how many don't think we can or will be able to compete with the NIL and portal stuff. I love the football legacy as much as anyone but I just feel like the competitive landscape isn't gonna get better. The portal and money in play just increase the gap between the haves and have nots, and we are definitely have nots in the money space. That and I'd rather have an awesome basketball program than meh basketball and football programs.

We haven't won a tournament game in two decades. We've come closer to major football success than basketball in that time I'd argue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The transfer portal creates a challenge, but it seems like a fair system to me. The real problem right now is that the NIL rules became a way to funnel an unlimited amount of non-NIL money to players. That puts all but the richest of schools in a disadvantageous position for all money-making sports.

I don't think that the NIL situation, or the insane TV contracts fueling it, will be sustainable for very long. I think the way college athletics works will be completely different in 5-10 years. If we can hold on long enough, then keeping both sports is the right answer. You don't have to be competitive during that time. You just have to stay alive.

If budget balancing truly forces you to make a change, then moving football to FCS is probably your only option. Completely getting rid of either sport is a mistake. The cost to restart it is prohibitively high. You'll never be able to undo that decision.

Even without doing the "focus on bball thing", We already have a basketball roster full of kids who can't leave after this season cause of having already used their one transfer. We have a good share of football players who can't leave having used their one transfer, and with time putting more emphasis on transfers and less on high schoolers, can get it to be a bigger and bigger portion of the roster.

One thing that can also be done in basketball is putting more focus on international kids who lack the ability to collect NIL money not being a citizen. There is some speculation that we wouldn't have been able to hold on to Queta under the current rules, but we actually would have been cause he wouldn't be able to collect money.

CodingAggieBlue wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 8:35 pm

If budget balancing truly forces you to make a change, then moving football to FCS is probably your only option. Completely getting rid of either sport is a mistake. The cost to restart it is prohibitively high. You'll never be able to undo that decision.

You don't drop to the current FCS as it is right now. You wait for the top 40 schools to break away as the new FBS, then join FCS with the other G5 schools when that becomes the new FCS, rather than dropping to the current FCS which would be the new D2 after G5 becomes the new FCS.

GameFAQSAggie wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 9:23 pm

CodingAggieBlue wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 8:35 pm

If budget balancing truly forces you to make a change, then moving football to FCS is probably your only option. Completely getting rid of either sport is a mistake. The cost to restart it is prohibitively high. You'll never be able to undo that decision.

You don't drop to the current FCS as it is right now. You wait for the top 40 schools to break away as the new FBS, then join FCS with the other G5 schools when that becomes the new FCS, rather than dropping to the current FCS which would be the new D2 after G5 becomes the new FCS.

100% agree. That seems to be where things are headed. I'd love to be in that Top 40 group. But if the fall of the PAC has taught us anything, it's that some of the "power" schools ahead of us are also in the "have not" group.

We hold on as long as we can. If we can wait it out, we'll end up in a newly formed middle tier of Division 1 college football. It's more or less where we are right now. However, the cost of competing becomes lower, since we'll have been kicked out of the FBS arms race.

aggies22 wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 3:44 pm

After we've spent all that dough on facilities and such, it would be asinine to drop football.

Some on this board have a narrative on this board about taking eliminating football.

918AGG wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 5:36 pm

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 4:33 pm

aggies22 wrote: ↑

November 1st, 2023, 3:44 pm

After we've spent all that dough on facilities and such, it would be asinine to drop football.

As an economist, I feel obligated to bring up the sunk cost fallacy.

But... I agree.

I always knew that I liked you.

Are you guys gonna kiss?

Now really, if all resources went into bball and we forever and always had a top tier bball program and game environment like that, wouldn't that be awesome? Gonzaga has a good thing going, and I doubt they've even considered football in the past decades. Not to mention the possible NCAA changes that could really make football challenging at a top level. Focus on basketball because we can actually have a chance to be relevant and matter there. If given the choice, would you rather have a perennial top bball team in the country, or both football and basketball that never get beyond a mid major vibe?

Or is this just crazy talk?

What would be the end goal? National attention? Consistent electric environments? The chance to win a national championship? I agree that Gonzaga has a good thing, but outside of Spokane I don’t think anyone really cares about Gonzaga basketball. The only basketball programs getting any kind of national attention are the dominant blue bloods. It would be fun to have a consistent top program but I don’t think you can drop football. Football drives interest and exposure. It also has the potential to generate more revenue.

Football drives the bus

Gonzaga is a one of one. This was a 25 year process to get them where they are. Retiring football won't change anything, could potentially make it worse. Best case is we become Saint Mary's.

I believe that the transfer portal issue will work itself out once all of the Covid year players are graduated and out of the system.

TrueAG wrote: ↑

January 7th, 2024, 1:56 pm

Gonzaga is a one of one. This was a 25 year process to get them where they are. Retiring football won't change anything, could potentially make it worse. Best case is we become Saint Mary's.

Yep, no guarantee that getting rid of football helps the basketball program, and it would hurt our overall athletic department and take us down a level in collegiate athletics. How good would our basketball program need to be to offset not having football for future conference realignment?

Beyond that, I love Aggie football. I went to the Potato Bowl and froze my arse off in the freezing cold for a 6-6 team. To give up Aggie football, I would at minimum need us to have Gonzaga level results and probably much better than that. We'd need to become a regular national title contender that is constantly making deep tourney runs for me to even contemplate it being worth it to give up football and possibly not even then.

Aggie formerly in Hawaii wrote: ↑

January 7th, 2024, 5:31 pm

TrueAG wrote: ↑

January 7th, 2024, 1:56 pm

Gonzaga is a one of one. This was a 25 year process to get them where they are. Retiring football won't change anything, could potentially make it worse. Best case is we become Saint Mary's.

Yep, no guarantee that getting rid of football helps the basketball program, and it would hurt our overall athletic department and take us down a level in collegiate athletics. How good would our basketball program need to be to offset not having football for future conference realignment?

Beyond that, I love Aggie football. I went to the Potato Bowl and froze my arse off in the freezing cold for a 6-6 team. To give up Aggie football, I would at minimum need us to have Gonzaga level results and probably much better than that. We'd need to become a regular national title contender that is constantly making deep tourney runs for me to even contemplate it being worth it to give up football and possibly not even then.

Same for me. I also went to the Potato Bowl. I’m into football too much to dump it. I’d have to have a guarantee of Kansas and North Carolina level success to even think about getting rid of football.

Getting rid of football would have a huge detrimental effect on the athletic department as a whole, so this whole conversation is a complete nonstarter. If our athletic budget is $25 mil/year, it’s not like getting rid of football means that you then have all that football expenditure to suddenly just give to men’s basketball. You’re just lopping that $$ amount off the budget and then also killing a large amount of donations to the athletic department as well.