Otherwise, the entire MAC is better suited at the FCS level.
I'm beginning to honestly believe this as well. While there are a handful of MAC schools that seem to manage to compete with P5 schools, I can't see how any of them can afford to sustain that given the economics of "big time" college football. And I know data suggests that the MAC is better off financially in the FBS, but at some point, my gut feeling would be that it can't last.
Recently, I was talking with someone about the move of UC, UCF, Houston, and BYU to the Big 12, and the trickle down effects of that. Obviously the AAC is going to look to fill the void left by those teams. My opinion is that now is the perfect time for many schools that get left behind from that to decide on their level of commitment to football.
First of all, the MAC is not now nor has ever been in an arms race against the P5. Miami is the Cradle of Coaches because as long as 60 years ago it wasn't going to pay the money the P5 does. Second, the business model of FCS isn't great. Less scholarships, yes. But the loss of revenue offsets that. That's why we've seen traditional FCS powers (like Appy State) go FBS.
I think, especially non-P5 schools, need to start seriously driving for endowment models. There is no reason that Ohio, with probably 800 to 1,000 living football alumni, should not be able endow 1 or .5 scholarships per year. Same for the other sports, they have fewer former players but fewer scholarships to cover. We've seen people pony up (BG baseball) when sports get taken away.
I don't post a ton but I've lurked forever, and as long as I've been around there's been a small-but-not-insignificant contingent of fans who want us to all but dump football to try to be Gonzaga in hoops. This sentiment always crops up when things go poorly on the football field, and now is no exception. It's always felt a little disingenuous to me... if you like basketball better as a sport and therefore want OU to put more into basketball, just say that. That's a legitimate opinion to have. In football? We're in the most stable conference in the country, for better or for worse, and dropping to FCS obviously hasn't penciled out enough for anyone to actually do it save Idaho.
At the top where the cut football to put resources into basketball argument fails is that universities are capable of printing their own money if they want to spend in athletics. The basketball program at Ohio is resourced well, it has the biggest budget already in the MAC.
At the next level FBS football is all but required to participate in a conference with a national TV deal. If you don't have FBS football you'll be left behind. The AAC is looking at programs that didn't have football until recent decades and now they do so they're being considered.
What Ohio has to decide is what type of FBS program do they want to have? If they are content with a low level one keep Albin, if not be prepared to pony up millions for it.
What evidence is there that Ohio University is capable of "printing money" if they want to spend more money on basketball? More or less every financial indicator seems to suggest the opposite. Can you expand on this point?
Also, the point about investing more in basketball is that having the highest budget in the MAC isn't good enough, and still leaves you well below the top mid-major basketball programs. There's a long list of mid major basketball programs that have taken a step up over the last decade or so. It includes schools like VCU, Wichita State, Butler, Creighton, Richmond, Loyola Chicago, and St. Mary's.
You can debate reasonably whether there's a realistic path for Ohio to get there, but it's surely not a coincidence that not a single school on that list fields an FBS football program.
Lastly, I think the notion that it only takes an investment of "millions" to change what sort of FBS program we have ignores the reality of where college football is headed, and our place in it. We have a tiny stadium, no real history, poor student and alumni support, and operate in a tiny media market -- surely one of the smallest in they country. And oh yeah, we have to share the larger media markets nearby with Ohio State, Cincinnati, and a half dozen other MAC schools. We're not an attractive realignment option, and we're also, you know, not actually any good at football.
The writing is on the wall, and it's very hard to see how a rational case can be made to spend exponentially more on football.
I've always been more of a basketball fan that football. The program becoming more relevant under Frank brought me into being a season ticket holder and following the team a lot more. In the last 3-4 years, I have become one who likes basketball A LOT more because of the way D1 football is run.
I totally hear the "left behind" mindset noted earlier in this thread in terms of the perception of what a school is if they don't have D1 football. At the same time, with the way the Ohio football program has been run since I've been associated with OU (1995), I'm not sure it's always a positive perception, and frankly, the opinion might be that we're essentially an FCS caliber football program anyway. It's not an unreasonable thought.
I'm not necessarily suggesting Ohio alone should dump football. I'm suggesting that some MAC schools, along with another two dozen schools should be evaluating whether it's worth it to stay, or not. Right now, today, the Media/TV money seems to dictate the answer is yes. When it comes to football, will it be in the near future for the MAC, AAC, Sunbelt, etc? I don't know the answers because I don't know all the info. I just know that I think decision time is near for G5 schools, and it will all depend on how the new (**cough, cough**) "Playoff" is structured. I agree with Loves Sense of Shame, and that's where my thoughts were kind of pointing towards, that a point might be coming soon when G5 schools will be forced to decide if the outlay on football is worth it, or not.
Here's one thing I do know right now: Ohio football is boring, or at least it frequently is to me. I'm worn out on one of the highlight moments being a halftime marching band performance. Nothing against the 110 and the work they put in, and entertainment they provide, but we shouldn't be excited about their performance as the best part of the 3-4 hours we're in the stadium. And it's been this way for a few years, and it WAS this way during the years Frank Ball primarily ran the option offense. There were two windows of time when Ohio had both the QB, and the athletes to be fun to watch. The Tettleton years, and the N. Rourke years are those years. The rest, let's be honest, we're great.
To me, the biggest aspiration for Ohio football should be to provide the best possible entertainment for students and fans. Entertainment should be fun. Fun, in modern, football means modern offense. And short of those years I mentioned, OUr offense was often dreadfully boring. I'm not often on board with his thoughts, but greencat has some legit one's regarding things that could potentially be done to help. Ohio needs a coach that they know will ultimately leave for greener pastures. The younger guy that recruits and plays uptempo football. The next PJ Fleck, or Brian Kelly, if you will. And they need to recruit the transfers better. A lot better. After that, do whatever UC is doing to get people involved and apply it here. Fun and winning sells tickets. Fun brings alumni back to watch games on a Thursday night. And right now (not just this season) Ohio football isn't all that fun to watch.
It wasn't that long ago that we saw weekend crowds of nearly 25k. After that, in my opinion, everything became stagnant. Like it or not, some of that is Frank Ball (recruiting deficiencies? stagnant coaching staff?), some of it is in the AD's office, etc., and now, in 2020-21 some of it is COVID related. We're stuck with COVID. We're not stuck with anything else.
OR.....
There are other options I suppose. As BL's Sense of shame said, we could focus on being a dynamic basketball program and cast football to the side. That could mean getting out of D1 football (not likely), or it could mean, as Club Hyatt said, staying the current course, and spending as little as necessary to fund D1 football.
I just think it's kind of silly to try to be sort of competitive, stating the goal is to win MAC Championships while not really operating in such a way that allows those championships to realistically happen.
I'm not bashing Cromer for the contract she gave Albin. I think they could have had a better succession plan than we're seeing unfold, but that's over and done with now. At this point, how are they going to move forward?