The Future of Furman Football

[The Jackal]

In this new era, what prohibits schools from signing players to contracts with buyout clauses for transferring? Why isn't that a thing that schools are doing? I'm sick of players running the system.

I think if you are going to treat it like free agency, then treat it like free agency.

[FUTex]

In this new era, what prohibits schools from signing players to contracts with buyout clauses for transferring? Why isn't that a thing that schools are doing? I'm sick of players running the system.

Yes, what Bootie said. As it stands, if Furman fosters an athlete that ends up being a stand-out performer they will just leave. Well, Stoneking excepted. But its not a hard point to miss - An investment in a young man can leave and Furman is left empty-handed.

Look, I've got all four years of my eligibility remaining, and I'm ready when Coach Hendrix calls my name. Put me in at LT. I'm a beastly 5'11" 180 pound. Oh, that defenseman ain't seen nothing like five seconds of old-man-whoopass. My Achilles heel is a do fall down and get hurt a lot, even while doing housework. So maybe I'm not a great choice.

Put Bootie in a uniform and make him play. Yeah, he's only like 5'5" and 140 pounds, but he won the American Ninja Warrior thing like five times and he's a human monkey-hawk that can climb up a man and perch on his head, claw out a tiny hole on the top of his cranium then suck a man's heart out through it... all before that man has time to swat him off. Its a beautiful thing to behold. Striking, really.

[gofurman]

In this new era, what prohibits schools from signing players to contracts with buyout clauses for transferring? Why isn't that a thing that schools are doing? I'm sick of players running the system.

Bootie, I agree. This was done at the "U". Miami signed a basketball player to 800K but it was 400K PER YEAR. Good. If he left he forfeits the rest of the money. and put extra poison pills if you leave. these are just contracts like any other - i THINK - so if you offer a kid X money he has to pay 3X to leave. Now if we have a super stud like Evan James and we are paying 30K the BIG10 will cover the poison pill and way more. Not much I see that we can do there. SEC / BIG can cover a buyout and far more. but for the all-conference Southern player who is worth maybe 70K a poison pill or buyout clause could keep him at Furman (say, maybe Herbert at LB or someone?).

A positive - not that we need defense - but did you all see that great play Herbert- back in lineup maybe two series - made against TTU ? NICE

[Bootie]

In this new era, what prohibits schools from signing players to contracts with buyout clauses for transferring? Why isn't that a thing that schools are doing? I'm sick of players running the system.

Bootie, I agree. This was done at the "U". Miami signed a basketball player to 800K but it was 400K PER YEAR. Good. If he left he forfeits the rest of the money. and put extra poison pills if you leave. these are just contracts like any other - i THINK - so if you offer a kid X money he has to pay 3X to leave. Now if we have a super stud like Evan James and we are paying 30K the BIG10 will cover the poison pill and way more. Not much I see that we can do there. SEC / BIG can cover a buyout and far more. but for the all-conference Southern player who is worth maybe 70K a poison pill or buyout clause could keep him at Furman (say, maybe Herbert at LB or someone?).

A positive - not that we need defense - but did you all see that great play Herbert- back in lineup maybe two series - made against TTU ? NICE

gf, to clarify, I don’t care about keeping the player at furman as much as I do about being compensated for the investment we put into him. Let him leave if he wants, I just want us to get the money back to put it toward the next player.

And Tex, the only dispute I have with your post is that I’ve never weighed 140 in my life. Everything else appears mostly accurate.

[gofurman]

In this new era, what prohibits schools from signing players to contracts with buyout clauses for transferring? Why isn't that a thing that schools are doing? I'm sick of players running the system.

Bootie, I agree. This was done at the "U". Miami signed a basketball player to 800K but it was 400K PER YEAR. Good. If he left he forfeits the rest of the money. and put extra poison pills if you leave. these are just contracts like any other - i THINK - so if you offer a kid X money he has to pay 3X to leave. Now if we have a super stud like Evan James and we are paying 30K the BIG10 will cover the poison pill and way more. Not much I see that we can do there. SEC / BIG can cover a buyout and far more. but for the all-conference Southern player who is worth maybe 70K a poison pill or buyout clause could keep him at Furman (say, maybe Herbert at LB or someone?).

A positive - not that we need defense - but did you all see that great play Herbert- back in lineup maybe two series - made against TTU ? NICE

gf, to clarify, I don’t care about keeping the player at furman as much as I do about being compensated for the investment we put into him. Let him leave if he wants, I just want us to get the money back to put it toward the next player.

And Tex, the only dispute I have with your post is that I’ve never weighed 140 in my life. Everything else appears mostly accurate.

Bootie, Understood. I personally would like the kid to stay in addition. or make it a poison pill for them to leave... easy to do. Just make a contract where the kid forfeits all future monies + 100K (sure this 100K would come from a bigger ACC / BIG / SEC school like Evan James for Iowa) if they leave once signing a contract. That would both pay us for the investment put into the player AND allow us to go hunting another super all-conference player with the new money we just acquired.

But yes, I see your point.

[Affirm]

Furman spends about $8,500,000.00 annually on Football. Football directly brings in about $2,500,000.00. Our football spending is similar to that of the other private National Liberal Arts Colleges that have FCS Football (such as Richmond, Colgate, Lafayette, Holy Cross, Bucknell) and also similar to Mercer (which is not a National Liberal Arts College), in terms of our annual Football program spending. All those schools spend between about $8 million and about $9 million.
I am not convinced that the approximate $6,000,000.00 annual loss by Furman Football is completely made up by donors (alumni, etc.) who would stop giving if Furman were to move to Pioneer Football League. Yes, there would likely be some loss, but not $6,000,000.00.
Davidson apparently spends about $2,500,000.00 annually on Football. Davidson reportedly has a Football Program surplus of about $750,000.00 annually in the most recent year.
Furman would not be moving in the wrong direction merely on account of deciding to move to Pioneer Football League. Of course a lot of the outcomes from such a move could depend upon exactly what conferences(s) we would be able to play all of our other sports in.
The economics of college sports have changed, as we are all aware.
We do need to consider how our rival Wofford would respond if we made a move. Would they be happy to not have to share with us on the money games with FBS schools? Would that matter to Furman? Would letting that stop us be like “cutting off our nose to spite our face”?

[Paul C]

From what I’ve been told, most of that “spending” is the cost of 60+ scholarships at roughly $70k per year. We can argue about whether it’s “spending” or not. It’s an accounting cost, not a cash cost. An opportunity cost. But when you compare our football spending to a Montana or ND St where tuition is a fraction of what it is at Furman it looks like we “spend” similar amounts on football but their actual cash investments are much higher. I think.

[apaladin]

From what I’ve been told, most of that “spending” is the cost of 60+ scholarships at roughly $70k per year. We can argue about whether it’s “spending” or not. It’s an accounting cost, not a cash cost. An opportunity cost. But when you compare our football spending to a Montana or ND St where tuition is a fraction of what it is at Furman it looks like we “spend” similar amounts on football but their actual cash investments are much higher. I think.

Yep, if it ain’t coming out of your bank account it ain’t spending. Just an argument for all those who are against athletics.

[FUATT]

From what I’ve been told, most of that “spending” is the cost of 60+ scholarships at roughly $70k per year. We can argue about whether it’s “spending” or not. It’s an accounting cost, not a cash cost. An opportunity cost. But when you compare our football spending to a Montana or ND St where tuition is a fraction of what it is at Furman it looks like we “spend” similar amounts on football but their actual cash investments are much higher. I think.

And considering that many of those 60+ are taking up space in housing that would otherwise go unfilled, then that accounting cost is even less "real."

[Furmanoid]

Furman spends about $8,500,000.00 annually on Football. Football directly brings in about $2,500,000.00. Our football spending is similar to that of the other private National Liberal Arts Colleges that have FCS Football (such as Richmond, Colgate, Lafayette, Holy Cross, Bucknell) and also similar to Mercer (which is not a National Liberal Arts College), in terms of our annual Football program spending. All those schools spend between about $8 million and about $9 million.
I am not convinced that the approximate $6,000,000.00 annual loss by Furman Football is completely made up by donors (alumni, etc.) who would stop giving if Furman were to move to Pioneer Football League. Yes, there would likely be some loss, but not $6,000,000.00.
Davidson apparently spends about $2,500,000.00 annually on Football. Davidson reportedly has a Football Program surplus of about $750,000.00 annually in the most recent year.
Furman would not be moving in the wrong direction merely on account of deciding to move to Pioneer Football League. Of course a lot of the outcomes from such a move could depend upon exactly what conferences(s) we would be able to play all of our other sports in.
The economics of college sports have changed, as we are all aware.
We do need to consider how our rival Wofford would respond if we made a move. Would they be happy to not have to share with us on the money games with FBS schools? Would that matter to Furman? Would letting that stop us be like “cutting off our nose to spite our face”?

It should also be noted that even with far less FB crazy locations like Indy, upstate NY & San Diego, the PL averages 1700 more fans per game. You have a higher travel budget but every team has seen it more than offset by cost reduction (scholarships).Plus more people actually go to games & buy stuff.. And I think its 50/50 we could get Wofford to go too.

[tim]

Do it then and report back. You aren’t doing anything here but annoying folks. I’m sure that’s the goal anyway.

[apaladin]

Do it then and report back. You aren’t doing anything here but annoying folks. I’m sure that’s the goal anyway.

Amen Tim!

[Affirm]

Furman spends about $8,500,000.00 annually on Football. Football directly brings in about $2,500,000.00. Our football spending is similar to that of the other private National Liberal Arts Colleges that have FCS Football (such as Richmond, Colgate, Lafayette, Holy Cross, Bucknell) and also similar to Mercer (which is not a National Liberal Arts College), in terms of our annual Football program spending. All those schools spend between about $8 million and about $9 million.
I am not convinced that the approximate $6,000,000.00 annual loss by Furman Football is completely made up by donors (alumni, etc.) who would stop giving if Furman were to move to Pioneer Football League. Yes, there would likely be some loss, but not $6,000,000.00.
Davidson apparently spends about $2,500,000.00 annually on Football. Davidson reportedly has a Football Program surplus of about $750,000.00 annually in the most recent year.
Furman would not be moving in the wrong direction merely on account of deciding to move to Pioneer Football League. Of course a lot of the outcomes from such a move could depend upon exactly what conferences(s) we would be able to play all of our other sports in.
The economics of college sports have changed, as we are all aware.
We do need to consider how our rival Wofford would respond if we made a move. Would they be happy to not have to share with us on the money games with FBS schools? Would that matter to Furman? Would letting that stop us be like “cutting off our nose to spite our face”?

It should also be noted that even with far less FB crazy locations like Indy, upstate NY & San Diego, the PL averages 1700 more fans per game. You have a higher travel budget but every team has seen it more than offset by cost reduction (scholarships).Plus more people actually go to games & buy stuff.. And I think its 50/50 we could get Wofford to go too.

Not agreeing with Furmanoid here.
And the unfriendly responses by Tim and apaladin did not help the discussion.
Just asking for some true discussion on the topic represented by the thread’s title, “THE FUTURE OF FURMAN FOOTBALL”.
Please realize I am not totally dug in on my opinion about Pioneer and money.
I have now seen that the total of annual donations received by Furman is about $50,000,000.00. Do not know how much of that is from alumni and football-specific donors; but if we somehow lost 10% of $50,000,000.00 due to going Pioneer, and without adequately greater financial net gain by being in A-10 (or other) for all non-football sports combined with lower football expenditure, then why make the change? Would being in Pioneer and A-10 (or other) cause us to become sufficiently more attractive to more potential students (and corporate donors plus new fans, particularly A-10) in the future?

[FU Hoopla]

Furman spends about $8,500,000.00 annually on Football. Football directly brings in about $2,500,000.00. Our football spending is similar to that of the other private National Liberal Arts Colleges that have FCS Football (such as Richmond, Colgate, Lafayette, Holy Cross, Bucknell) and also similar to Mercer (which is not a National Liberal Arts College), in terms of our annual Football program spending. All those schools spend between about $8 million and about $9 million.
I am not convinced that the approximate $6,000,000.00 annual loss by Furman Football is completely made up by donors (alumni, etc.) who would stop giving if Furman were to move to Pioneer Football League. Yes, there would likely be some loss, but not $6,000,000.00.
Davidson apparently spends about $2,500,000.00 annually on Football. Davidson reportedly has a Football Program surplus of about $750,000.00 annually in the most recent year.
Furman would not be moving in the wrong direction merely on account of deciding to move to Pioneer Football League. Of course a lot of the outcomes from such a move could depend upon exactly what conferences(s) we would be able to play all of our other sports in.
The economics of college sports have changed, as we are all aware.
We do need to consider how our rival Wofford would respond if we made a move. Would they be happy to not have to share with us on the money games with FBS schools? Would that matter to Furman? Would letting that stop us be like “cutting off our nose to spite our face”?

It should also be noted that even with far less FB crazy locations like Indy, upstate NY & San Diego, the PL averages 1700 more fans per game. You have a higher travel budget but every team has seen it more than offset by cost reduction (scholarships).Plus more people actually go to games & buy stuff.. And I think its 50/50 we could get Wofford to go too.

Not agreeing with Furmanoid here.
And the unfriendly responses by Tim and apaladin did not help the discussion.
Just asking for some true discussion on the topic represented by the thread’s title, “THE FUTURE OF FURMAN FOOTBALL”.
Please realize I am not totally dug in on my opinion about Pioneer and money.
I have now seen that the total of annual donations received by Furman is about $50,000,000.00. Do not know how much of that is from alumni and football-specific donors; but if we somehow lost 10% of $50,000,000.00 due to going Pioneer, and without adequately greater financial net gain by being in A-10 (or other) for all non-football sports combined with lower football expenditure, then why make the change? Would being in Pioneer and A-10 (or other) cause us to become sufficiently more attractive to more potential students (and corporate donors plus new fans, particularly A-10) in the future?

Did you watch the JD interview?

He makes no mention of non-scholarship football.

It’s looking like A10 for hoops and Patriot for football.

Basketball levels up in a big way…..
Football gets fun games with Villanova, William and Mary, Richmond, Lehigh…..
Everyone will stay happy…..

[Furmanoid]

Furman spends about $8,500,000.00 annually on Football. Football directly brings in about $2,500,000.00. Our football spending is similar to that of the other private National Liberal Arts Colleges that have FCS Football (such as Richmond, Colgate, Lafayette, Holy Cross, Bucknell) and also similar to Mercer (which is not a National Liberal Arts College), in terms of our annual Football program spending. All those schools spend between about $8 million and about $9 million.
I am not convinced that the approximate $6,000,000.00 annual loss by Furman Football is completely made up by donors (alumni, etc.) who would stop giving if Furman were to move to Pioneer Football League. Yes, there would likely be some loss, but not $6,000,000.00.
Davidson apparently spends about $2,500,000.00 annually on Football. Davidson reportedly has a Football Program surplus of about $750,000.00 annually in the most recent year.
Furman would not be moving in the wrong direction merely on account of deciding to move to Pioneer Football League. Of course a lot of the outcomes from such a move could depend upon exactly what conferences(s) we would be able to play all of our other sports in.
The economics of college sports have changed, as we are all aware.
We do need to consider how our rival Wofford would respond if we made a move. Would they be happy to not have to share with us on the money games with FBS schools? Would that matter to Furman? Would letting that stop us be like “cutting off our nose to spite our face”?

It should also be noted that even with far less FB crazy locations like Indy, upstate NY & San Diego, the PL averages 1700 more fans per game. You have a higher travel budget but every team has seen it more than offset by cost reduction (scholarships).Plus more people actually go to games & buy stuff.. And I think its 50/50 we could get Wofford to go too.

Not agreeing with Furmanoid here.
And the unfriendly responses by Tim and apaladin did not help the discussion.
Just asking for some true discussion on the topic represented by the thread’s title, “THE FUTURE OF FURMAN FOOTBALL”.
Please realize I am not totally dug in on my opinion about Pioneer and money.
I have now seen that the total of annual donations received by Furman is about $50,000,000.00. Do not know how much of that is from alumni and football-specific donors; but if we somehow lost 10% of $50,000,000.00 due to going Pioneer, and without adequately greater financial net gain by being in A-10 (or other) for all non-football sports combined with lower football expenditure, then why make the change? Would being in Pioneer and A-10 (or other) cause us to become sufficiently more attractive to more potential students (and corporate donors plus new fans, particularly A-10) in the future?

If it would cause FB to lose even more than it does now, obviously we wouldn’t do it. But the teams in the league pretty much all report a financial BENEFIT. That’s a selling point. Travel goes up, scholarships about 80% of costs, go away. And on average they get 1700 more butts in seats. I’d love to see a good financial analysis. We have data from a league vs speculation about how much donors will back out. Not all of them will. Some might rather pay for equipment & facilities instead of scholarships. Why not ask?

Now for the insults.