Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[Toddzilla]

Knowing first-hand (VT) the history of how the Big East people operate, Villanova can expect 3-5 years of thoroughly getting jerked around.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Knowing first-hand (VT) the history of how the Big East people operate, Villanova can expect 3-5 years of thoroughly getting jerked around.

I don't know that you can really equate the situations since Villanova is already a member of the conference, but I see where you are coming from.

I would say that ECU is most likely to be the one to get the VT and Temple treatment as football-only until the Big East's hand is forced. Apparently, the idea was floated to TCU and UCF, but both were clear that they were not interested in football-only memberships. ECU has reportedly been more receptive to it (as has Temple).

[britrock88]

As a pure cost-benefit analysis, it might behoove Villanova to move up, since they're set to land in a BCS conference. Would the additional football revenue -- TV contracts, bowl revenue, BCS payout -- cover facilities upgrades, the cost of additional scholarships, not to mention any women's sports they might have to add to maintain Title IX compliance? It's certainly possible.

[RedKingGold]

I think on a pure cost-benefit analysis, NCAA D-I programs are not as profitable as you think.

[britrock88]

I know only a small fraction (18-20?) of the 120 FBS schools turn profits for their entire athletic department. But I bet Villanova might be able to run their athletic department at less of a deficit with BCS-level football than without it. Duke/Northwestern/Vandy's numbers might shed some light on that, but they're private schools that don't have to release their financial data.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by britrock88

I know only a small fraction (18-20?) of the 120 FBS schools turn profits for their entire athletic department. But I bet Villanova might be able to run their athletic department at less of a deficit with BCS-level football than without it. Duke/Northwestern/Vandy's numbers might shed some light on that, but they're private schools that don't have to release their financial data.

The cost of I-A football vs. I-AA football is DRAMATIC.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by wade moore

The cost of I-A football vs. I-AA football is DRAMATIC.

Exactly. Think the difference between 21-24-27, and THIRTY.

[wade moore]

Let's take an example.

Appalachian State - A successful I-AA program - not the most profitable, but up their in profit and success - football revenue 678k, expense 1.92mil

Rutgers - I think arguably on a similar level to what Nova would hope to be (and a BE school) - footbal revenue 10.7mil, expense 10.7mil.

Admittedly, Rutgers looks better than I thought they would - but I would argue that Villanova would have a VERY hard time getting as much support as Rutgers has. They get 46k a game, Nova's stadium they're using only fits 20k.

Cincinnati, the BE team with the lowest attendance (35k) has 5.2mil in revenue and 7.1mil in operating expenses.

So, no, I do not think football at VU would be a revenue generator.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Thinking outside the box, there is always the possibility that the Pac 12 tries to pull out the Texas/Oklahoma block again and some combination of Kansas/Missouri/Kansas State/Iowa State become options.

I would absolutely shocked if the Pac-12 doesn't try again with Texas & Oklahoma and whatever other two schools are needed to make it work. The last-minute deal to "save" the Big-12 is not going to last long, and the Pac-12 is going to sign a huge TV deal soon which will grab everyone's attention. The main sticking point (beyond Texas state politics) will be how to integrate the Longhorn Network with the soon to be created Pac-12 Network.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I would absolutely shocked if the Pac-12 doesn't try again with Texas & Oklahoma and whatever other two schools are needed to make it work. The last-minute deal to "save" the Big-12 is not going to last long, and the Pac-12 is going to sign a huge TV deal soon which will grab everyone's attention. The main sticking point (beyond Texas state politics) will be how to integrate the Longhorn Network with the soon to be created Pac-12 Network.

Not too sure about that. The Big 12 is about to sign a deal that would more than triple their regional network dollars. Add in that there are two less members of the conference and the renegotiation of the national contract in a couple years, and it's a huge jump in revenue for the conference on a per school basis. The predictions of a quick death for the Big 12 appear pretty premature at this point, especially with UT and OU able to do their own networks under the current setup.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Not too sure about that. The Big 12 is about to sign a deal that would more than triple their regional network dollars. Add in that there are two less members of the conference and the renegotiation of the national contract in a couple years, and it's a huge jump in revenue for the conference on a per school basis. The predictions of a quick death for the Big 12 appear pretty premature at this point, especially with UT and OU able to do their own networks under the current setup.

Sounds like the Haith Effect is doing work for the Big 12.

[Butter]

I heard that the Longhorn Network is throwing out the first pitch at this weekend's Cardinals game.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Not too sure about that. The Big 12 is about to sign a deal that would more than triple their regional network dollars. Add in that there are two less members of the conference and the renegotiation of the national contract in a couple years, and it's a huge jump in revenue for the conference on a per school basis. The predictions of a quick death for the Big 12 appear pretty premature at this point, especially with UT and OU able to do their own networks under the current setup.

...and there goes the Big 12.

[sterlingice]

Aw crap. I, for one, welcome our new basketball home for Kansas in the CUSA

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Deal is done. Roughly $1 billion over 13 years for the Big 12's secondary TV contract on Fox Sports. It's actually bigger than Beebe even promised. Kudos to him for making a deal that most thought was impossible a year ago.

Big 12, Fox Sports announce 13-year deal

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Deal is done. Roughly $1 billion over 13 years for the Big 12's secondary TV contract on Fox Sports. It's actually bigger than Beebe even promised. Kudos to him for making a deal that most thought was impossible a year ago.

Big 12, Fox Sports announce 13-year deal

The Big12 won't even last for the next 5 years. Nice deal, but it isn't going to hold.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The Big12 won't even last for the next 5 years. Nice deal, but it isn't going to hold.

It will hold for as long as Texas wants it to stay together, which I bet will be more than 5 years. The deal will keep Texas, ATM, and Oklahoma fat, give Tech and Oklahoma State a leg up on the bottom half of the conference, and give enough scraps to Kansas/KSU/Missouri/Iowa State/Baylor so that they will be making more than they could anywhere else (that will have them).

It will continue to keep the big three in the driver's seat of the conference, but the other seven don't have any other viable options (the Big Ten is done expanding, the SEC is not going to expand to twelve w/ A&M unless other conferences start moving, and, although I am sure that Kansas/KSU/Mizzou could find an immediate home in the Big East, it wouldn't pay as much as what the Big 12 deal does).

I think the lesson from this round of expansion is that the networks don't want conferences larger than 12.

[RedKingGold]

Yeah, keeping Texas happy is key. I think the Big 12 stays together unless the Longhorns go the Notre Dame route, which is not all that far-fetched.

Probably the most surprising thing to me, which I must have missed earlier, is that the Big 12 is scrapping its title game format. Definitely a good idea and I wish other teams would follow suit.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Probably the most surprising thing to me, which I must have missed earlier, is that the Big 12 is scrapping its title game format. Definitely a good idea and I wish other teams would follow suit.

Unless they appealed to the NCAA, they didn't have a choice since their membership dropped below 12 teams.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It will hold for as long as Texas wants it to stay together, which I bet will be more than 5 years. The deal will keep Texas, ATM, and Oklahoma fat, give Tech and Oklahoma State a leg up on the bottom half of the conference, and give enough scraps to Kansas/KSU/Missouri/Iowa State/Baylor so that they will be making more than they could anywhere else (that will have them).

If what the conference members got was 'scraps', we want more of that. The non-UT teams got HUGE increases over the last deal. This deal doesn't even include the money that all schools will split from NU and CU buyouts and the apparent Big 12 network that will be created by the other nine schools (it appears that OU may opt not to create their own network).

[Cuckoo]

Personally, I'll miss the Big 12 Championship game, but that's mostly because OU is in it every year (Ping: cartman) ;-)

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If what the conference members got was 'scraps', we want more of that. The non-UT teams got HUGE increases over the last deal. This deal doesn't even include the money that all schools will split from NU and CU buyouts and the apparent Big 12 network that will be created by the other nine schools (it appears that OU may opt not to create their own network).

Only the bottom five teams got scraps. Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma got filets.

It is a good deal and great news for Kansas/KSU/Missouri/Baylor/Iowa State, as it still keeps them in the neighborhood, but they are living in the smallest houses while their conference mates are living in mansions and have vacation homes. It is a great deal for the other five teams (and particularly the Big 3).

Everyone (ACC, PAC 12, Big 12) that was up for renegotiations got HUGE increases over their last deals. Live sports are among the best advertising bang for your buck nowadays (low DVR rates) and they hit a tough to reach demographic (young to middle aged males), so networks are willing to pay.

The problem for the bottom five teams is that they have to directly compete on an uneven playing field. So, good news that their athletic departments will have considerably more money to play with, but bad news that they will have to be considerably more efficient with that money in order to consistently compete within their conference.

[Swaggs]

I believe Nebraska's Big 12 buyout has already been satisfied by the conference withholding its payout from last season: " + artTitle.replace("-","") + " - " + "Daily Nebraskan" + " - " + "Sports" + "

Looks like Colorado and Nebraska will combine to pay $16.1-million (withheld already, so presumably collected). Not sure how it will be distributed.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Looks like Colorado and Nebraska will combine to pay $16.1-million (withheld already, so presumably collected). Not sure how it will be distributed.

It's all going to Texas. Every last penny.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Personally, I'll miss the Big 12 Championship game, but that's mostly because OU is in it every year (Ping: cartman) ;-)

I guess you do always remember fondly your final win of the season.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

The problem for the bottom five teams is that they have to directly compete on an uneven playing field. So, good news that their athletic departments will have considerably more money to play with, but bad news that they will have to be considerably more efficient with that money in order to consistently compete within their conference.

Mizzou has been the exception from that group. They run a profitable AD and have regularly put both money programs in the top 25 over the last few years. Facilities are excellent in basketball and good in football. If they didn't have a B12 championship, we would have seen Mizzou playing for a national championship in 2007.

Now, we'll have to see what happens to basketball in the upcoming seasons, but this isn't a situation like MLB like you're painting it. Any of those programs can turn things around very quickly.

[dawgfan]

The Big-12 TV deal is very good news for the Pac-12. It will be interesting to see how the Pac-12 splits compare with the "haves" in the Big-12...

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by cartman

I guess you do always remember fondly your final win of the season.

Particularly when it's more than your fifth...

[Butter]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Unless they appealed to the NCAA, they didn't have a choice since their membership dropped below 12 teams.

I did enjoy how they tried to spin that like it was their idea to avoid having the title game knock out a Big 12 team from the BCS championship game.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The Big-12 TV deal is very good news for the Pac-12. It will be interesting to see how the Pac-12 splits compare with the "haves" in the Big-12...

2.3B over 10 years

[Solecismic]

I'll believe in the death of a major conference when I see a major conference successfully managing more than 12 schools.

The numbers people are throwing around with these new television deals effectively prove the Pac 10-12 was acting irrationally in its quest for Texas.

If the time arrives for 16-school conferences, the Big Ten and the SEC will decide whether the ACC or the Big 12 gets eaten along with the Big East.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The numbers people are throwing around with these new television deals effectively prove the Pac 10-12 was acting irrationally in its quest for Texas.

Couldn't disagree more strongly Jim. Grabbing Texas - and the HUGE TV interest that the Longhorns bring with them, as well as Oklahoma - not only would have brought a great deal of additional eyeballs to the Pac-16 (even considering the dilution of the additional schools needed to make it happen) and thus driven up the overall attractiveness of the conference from a TV rights perspective, it would have also effectively killed the Big-12 as a major conference.

THAT would have had even greater implications in the current TV deal windfall we're seeing, and it's exactly why the Big-12 was able to get promises from the networks that mollified Texas and thus saved the conference. One less major conference would have meant that much less "product" out there for sports networks, and thus driven up the price for the Pac-16 even more than just adding Texas and Oklahoma would have done in a vacuum.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...202/28551497/1

If the time arrives for 16-school conferences, the Big Ten and the SEC will decide whether the ACC or the Big 12 gets eaten along with the Big East.

Incorrect. As always, it will be Texas and Notre Dame that control whether the major conferences attempt to expand to 16. Texas is the big fish and lynch-pin to the Big-12 surviving as a major conference. If and when they decide to bolt for greener pastures, it will be them making the call and the Pac-12, Big Ten and SEC doing their best to lure them in. Same thing with Notre Dame.

And I see no good reason why a major conference couldn't handle managing 16 teams; if the Pac-12 is able in the future to lure Texas and Oklahoma (and whatever other two teams are required to make that happen - likely Oklahoma State and Texas Tech), I think what we'll see is effectively two 8-team conferences with their own division leadership and a shared, conference-wide commissioner.

[Solecismic]

If Texas believed a share of a 16-team pie was better than a continued share of their 10-team pie, it would have partaken.

At a certain point, expanding the pie means less for everyone - rights are dependent on who belongs, and there are only a handful of schools (Texas and Notre Dame being in that group) that could truly make a difference.

Maybe that decision makes sense for the Pac-12 with Texas, but it doesn't make sense without Texas and it doesn't make sense for Texas.

You have two eight-team divisions and you don't see teams in the other division at home for 16 years. Might as well be in different conferences as you at least can develop a strong inter-conference rivalry instead.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If Texas believed a share of a 16-team pie was better than a continued share of their 10-team pie, it would have partaken.

I'm not sure we'll ever know just how close Texas came to jumping to the Pac - some reports have it being very, very close; others would say that was just posturing on the part of Texas.

Jumping from the Big-12 to form a Pac-16 would have been a terrifically bold move on the part of Texas. They would have endured a huge amount of protest from Texas citizens upset at them for breaking up the conference, and for splitting up the rivalry with A&M (and leaving Baylor behind), and there would have been a lot of tremendously hurt feelings among the Big-12 schools left behind. That may not mean much to us fans, but I'd bet it means more to University Presidents that would have to face their colleagues.

When it became clear that the broadcasters feared the break-up of the Big-12 and the rest of the conference agreed to concessions to give Texas an even bigger slice of the pie, it was a safe choice for them to stay put. I'm not sure even they could foresee just how much money was out there to be spent on college sports TV rights; at the time, speculation was the Pac-10/12 was looking at maybe a $150-160M deal; now we're hearing at least a $220M deal, and the network in question ponying up most of the start-up costs of a Pac-12 network. Texas may yet regret not jumping if the Pac-12 gets the kind of money that is being speculated, especially when you consider that Texas jumping would have killed the Big-12 as a major conference, and thus driven up prices for the Pac-16 deal even higher due to less supply on the open market of TV rights available to bid on.

At a certain point, expanding the pie means less for everyone - rights are dependent on who belongs, and there are only a handful of schools (Texas and Notre Dame being in that group) that could truly make a difference.

True, which is why the Pac-10 was so hard after Texas. Texas (and to a lesser extent Oklahoma) was big enough to justify also bringing along Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Now, Texas has a pretty good deal going in the Big-12 by being able to command a bigger slice of the pie - how much they'd have been able to do so in a Pac-16 is unclear.

Maybe that decision makes sense for the Pac-12 with Texas, but it doesn't make sense without Texas and it doesn't make sense for Texas.

It remains to be seen whether it doesn't make sense for Texas. Jon Wilner, who has been all over the Pac-12 media rights story from the start, has been reporting that the idea of Texas jumping at some point to create a Pac-16 is not dead, and that the Longhorn Network is not necessarily a deal-breaker. Ultimately it's all about the money, and while the Big Ten and SEC regions unquestionably have a higher percentage of die-hard fans in their population, the areas of the current Pac-12 and especially a potential Pac-16 encompass areas of significant population expansion, and by sheer volume the number of TV eyeballs in that area could overtake the Big Ten.

You have two eight-team divisions and you don't see teams in the other division at home for 16 years. Might as well be in different conferences as you at least can develop a strong inter-conference rivalry instead.

It would be an interesting set-up for sure - it would feel more like two conferences in partnership. But having a locked-in rotation of games between the west and east divisions would be pretty interesting, and it would certainly make the Pac-16 Championship Game more interesting IMO.

[Swaggs]

Looks like the Big East and ESPN are now re-negotiating, as well: ESPN, Big East in talks on extension - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

The Big East will most likely get less than the ACC, but it will still be a huge, huge increase (both in raw numbers and proportionally vs where they were in relation to the other BCS conferences) over what they were getting on their last deal (which, unfortunately, was made just after the ACC raid). From the numbers being floated in the article, I'd guess that ESPN is willing to overpay in order to keep the hybrid together.

[Logan]

The increase is great. But the league splitting and putting the league rights on the open market would get even more money for each team.

[BishopMVP]

UMass's announcement is allegedly written and ready to go, with "one hurdle" to clear. Unfortunately that hurdle appears to be actually being given an invitation by the MAC. Reportedly it may come down to whether Temple stays in the MAC (in which case we'd get an invite), or gets the offer to join CUSA (presumably to replace teams leaving for the Big East), in which case the MAC would stay at 12 and not invite us. The deadline for Temple leaving is I believe June 1, and the deadline for us announcing our move either June 1st or July 1st, so we may be in a holding pattern for the next 6 weeks.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Logan

The increase is great. But the league splitting and putting the league rights on the open market would get even more money for each team.

Definitely agree with this one.

[Abe Sargent]

I still think UMass has got to be on the Big East's radar to see how they do for a few years, and if they can move up, for so many reasons. I think UMass fits a lot better than Memphis, East Carolina, Marshall, UCF, etc

[Young Drachma]

UMass set to join MAC - College Football Nation Blog - ESPN

Welp. That settles that. Football-only.

The MAC is expected to officially announce that Massachusetts will join the league Wednesday at a joint news conference with the school.

UMass would become the 14th member of the league and be a football-only member. The school would remain on the FCS level for 2011 before playing a full conference slate in 2012. UMass would become eligible for bowls and the MAC conference championship game beginning in 2013.

The move has been speculated for a few months after league officials toured the campus in December and got a tour of Gillette Stadium, where the New England Patriots play. The news conference will be held at the stadium, perhaps an indication that the Minutemen would play their home games there. UMass and Temple would be the two football-only members of the league. Up for discussion with the move is alignment of the divisions.

[wade moore]

There are some that are talking doom and gloom for the CAA, but I'm not buying it - even if Villanova goes Big East (which I don't think they are).

[Swaggs]

It's kind of interesting to hear that so many teams are moving up from the FCS (or starting from scratch) when we keep hearing how much of a money-drain most football teams are on schools.

Off the top of my head, I know that Texas State, Texas-San Antonio, South Alabama, UMass, and Western Kentucky are all in transition to make the move. I think GSU and UNC-Charlotte are somewhere in the process. And, I have heard (or there have been rumors, at least) that VCU, Appy State, Villanova, and Montana are or have considered it.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It's kind of interesting to hear that so many teams are moving up from the FCS (or starting from scratch) when we keep hearing how much of a money-drain most football teams are on schools.

Off the top of my head, I know that Texas State, Texas-San Antonio, South Alabama, UMass, and Western Kentucky are all in transition to make the move. I think GSU and UNC-Charlotte are somewhere in the process. And, I have heard (or there have been rumors, at least) that VCU, Appy State, Villanova, and Montana are or have considered it.

Umm, VCU doesn't have a football team, so I'm not sure who you mean there...

ODU? JMU?

Anyway, I think the others are accurate. I'd be surprised if Appy moves up, I think there's a decent chance Montana does, and Villanova I already said I believe is dead in the water.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It's kind of interesting to hear that so many teams are moving up from the FCS (or starting from scratch) when we keep hearing how much of a money-drain most football teams are on schools.

I guess it depends on the state of your football program, but I would bet that for most FBS athletic departments, football turns a profit and subsidizes the sports other than men's basketball (not enough in most cases for the entire department to break even or turn a profit though).

As well, I would guess these schools look at FBS football as another way of marketing their school and building up the prestige of the entire athletic department.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I guess it depends on the state of your football program, but I would bet that for most FBS athletic departments, football turns a profit and subsidizes the sports other than men's basketball (not enough in most cases for the entire department to break even or turn a profit though).

As well, I would guess these schools look at FBS football as another way of marketing their school and building up the prestige of the entire athletic department.

I've looked this up because of some arguments folks were making about Villanova.

There are actually not very many FBS programs that "pay for themselves". There is a site out there that gives specific numbers for each school ( NCAA Financial Reports Database | IndyStar.com ) , but teams in non-BCS conferences generally are not "paying for themselves".

For instance.

Miami of Ohio, in the MAC, 4.5 mil in revenue (with 2.5 mil being student fees), 4.5 mil operating costs. (they seem to have something setup, probably the fees, to break even here)

So, they break even.

Eastern Michigan, in the MAC, 3.1 mil revenue (with 1.2 mil being student fees), 4.3 mil operating costs.

I could go on and on, but the idea that for most FBS schools, football pays for their other sports is just a big time misconception.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I guess it depends on the state of your football program, but I would bet that for most FBS athletic departments, football turns a profit and subsidizes the sports other than men's basketball (not enough in most cases for the entire department to break even or turn a profit though).

As well, I would guess these schools look at FBS football as another way of marketing their school and building up the prestige of the entire athletic department.

Yeah, in the case of UMass, I think it came down to timing and realizing that the gains of spending the requisite amount of cash as a flagship outweighed playing at the lower level. UConn's football ascent probably hasn't hurt in terms of a roadmap for a fellow New England flagship sans the wildly successful basketball part.

I think Montana would've made the move if they weren't tethered with Montana State and for those programs in football-mad locales (Texas schools), it's probably worth it in the long run because you get to differentiate yourself from the regional schools in the area that can't or won't make the move up, even if it costs you.

The increased donations probably offset the move up in the longrun for a lot of these institutions too.

What was the last school to kill D-1A/FBS football? Unless there was one after this, Pacific was the last one in 1995.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Umm, VCU doesn't have a football team, so I'm not sure who you mean there...

ODU? JMU?

Ummm, I meant JMU.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Ummm, I meant JMU.

JMU I think is a likely candidate. They just put like $40 mil into their stadium to increase up to like 25k or 30k seats.

I think they are going to make the move - I just don't know when, or under what circumstances.

Some say GSU and ODU and maybe Delaware will try to make the move.

So..

There are some fans that want the CAA to try and move up as a conference, but that's a huge obstacle if anyone were to ever seriously consider it.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yeah, in the case of UMass, I think it came down to timing and realizing that the gains of spending the requisite amount of cash as a flagship outweighed playing at the lower level. UConn's football ascent probably hasn't hurt in terms of a roadmap for a fellow New England flagship sans the wildly successful basketball part.

I think Montana would've made the move if they weren't tethered with Montana State and for those programs in football-mad locales (Texas schools), it's probably worth it in the long run because you get to differentiate yourself from the regional schools in the area that can't or won't make the move up, even if it costs you.

The increased donations probably offset the move up in the longrun for a lot of these institutions too.

What was the last school to kill D-1A/FBS football? Unless there was one after this, Pacific was the last one in 1995.

It looks like the last group to die off were some of the California schools in the early to mid-90s. Cal. State Long Beach in '91, Cal. State Northridge in '92, and Pacific in '95.

To piggyback on to my earlier post, Jacksonville State is another school that is exploring a move up: http://www.jsugamecocksports.com/new...418110329.aspx

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I've looked this up because of some arguments folks were making about Villanova.

There are actually not very many FBS programs that "pay for themselves". There is a site out there that gives specific numbers for each school ( NCAA Financial Reports Database | IndyStar.com ) , but teams in non-BCS conferences generally are not "paying for themselves".

For instance.

Miami of Ohio, in the MAC, 4.5 mil in revenue (with 2.5 mil being student fees), 4.5 mil operating costs. (they seem to have something setup, probably the fees, to break even here)

So, they break even.

Eastern Michigan, in the MAC, 3.1 mil revenue (with 1.2 mil being student fees), 4.3 mil operating costs.

I could go on and on, but the idea that for most FBS schools, football pays for their other sports is just a big time misconception.

OK, I'll amend my statement - I'd bet that at most (if not all) BCS conference schools, football turns a profit. Just a quick check of that list, and all the Pac-10 schools turn a profit, ranging from ~$2M for WSU to ~$13 for Washington.

It's a valid point though - a school looking to move up from FCS into a non-BCS conference is probably going to lose money. The money disparity between the BCS conferences and the others is likely growing exponentially with the recent TV deals we're seeing.