The Unofficial Furman Football Page
https://gopaladins.com/
Absolutely, brisket and burnt ends are great. So is a tomahawk steak, or a beautiful filet mignon. None of them are barbecue.Davemeister wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 3:32 pmGrowing up in the Carolinas, pulled pork will always be "BBQ" to me.
Having said that, a Texas-sized brisket sandwich - marbled, not lean - is some serious eaten'.
Just an update - anecdotal, obviously - related to where we left off with this topic…and certainly supportive of FUBeAR’s contention (bolded above)FUBeAR wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 8:02 amAqualung is assuming infinite demand for an FU education.aqualung wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 7:38 amI think that FUBear is overthinking this a bit. There is no incremental gain or loss to FU by a student paying their tuition and also playing football as a walk-on. If 35 walk-ons go away, the admissions dept. just opens up the spigot a bit and admits 35 additional qualified applicants in. Easy peasy.FUBeAR wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 12:01 amNope … FUBeAR would need to review ALL of FU’s financial records to understand fully how athletics scholarships are treated.
FUBeAR does know they are NOT accounted for by Athletics writing a check to the University in a manner similar to how athletics might pay for athletic tape and book it as an expense. The ‘cost’ of athletics scholarships, most likely, involves a much more complex and nuanced financial treatment within FU’s financial records.
BUT…related to that … here’s another matter associated with this NCAA ‘plan’ to handle these lawsuits and restructure - “Roster Size Limits are “in” / Scholarship limits are “out”. Again, we would need to see the fine print of a final plan, but FUBeAR is reading that Football roster sizes will be capped at 85 and scholarship limits will be eliminated. That works great for the big schools as they all ‘fully funded’ their 85 allowed scholarships AND in recent years expanded their rosters by using NIL Collective Funding to fully ‘scholarship’ as many “walk-on’s” as they desired - typically 10-20. Now, they won’t have to ‘waste’ that NIL money on the ‘worst’ 10-20 Players and can use it to distribute more to the 85 Roster Players whose ‘scholarship expenses’ they will also cover…knowing their competitors are playing on a level field … roster-size-wise.
So…your 1st thought may be, “Wow, that means 1,340-2,680 ‘FBS Quality’ Players are gonna be ‘off-rostered’ by FBS Teams and available to play FCS Football. FCS Foootball is going to be so much better!” And, you would be correct about the numbers, but FUBeAR would disagree with you about a significant quality uptick. The bottom 10-20 Players on an FBS roster, would probably fall into the 35-55 ranking level of Players on an FCS roster - so, some more barely visible quality depth. Great to have, but not really very ‘sexy’ in the big picture.
OTOH …Furman had around 120 Players on last year’s roster. So, way oversimplifying the ‘math’, FU was receiving full tuition from 57 ‘students’ (whole or partial ‘students’) who happened to also be on the Football roster. In the new world, FU will only be able to receive full tuition from 22 whole or partial ‘students’ that also happen to be on the Football roster. So…further over-simplifying the math, that’s 35 x 80k = $2.8 million in tuition revenue that FU’s VP of Enrollment management has to find from elsewhere …cuz in most cases, those young men aren’t coming to Furman if they don’t get to wear their purple jerseys in Paladin Stadium on Saturday’s in the Fall. They can take their tuition $’s to Alabama or Clemson or to MIT and also NOT play D1 Football instead.
So…that certainly hurts the Football Team’s overall contribution to the University. And, also…Furman’s FCS competitors may also be in a better financial position to ‘fund’ an 85 man (non-tuition-generating) roster than Furman is…further compounding the economic issues with this whole thing. Maybe not, but maybe so.
Stay tuned…
Economics, inflation, cost of capital, etc., etc., etc, may very well have a chilling effect on the demand for education services / experiences such as those provided by Furman University in the near future.
With what we witnessed on college campuses this spring, that chilling may come much sooner than expected.
We all know how it feels to turn that tap and only hear a sucking sound. 35 extra at-the-ready pours can go a long way to quenching a school’s revenue thirst!
Quite a leap is right. Even so, it all relates to the many things Furman does to remain strong overall.Davemeister wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:40 pmQuite a leap from BBQ to Emerson College, where they probably think BBQ is grilling.
Colgate, Richmond, Elon, Campbell, Bucknell, and Abilene Christian apparently among some additional schools that have FBS opponents for 2028 or 2029. This scheduling situation is worthy of attention but not to worry about yet. But we certainly need to “get our pro games against Clemson and USC” at the same or better frequency as any other FCS schools get those, including especially Wofford. My guess is that the uncertainty of future alignments of the 65 or so “pro teams” and the existence of the other FBS “pro teams” beyond the 65 has some effect on our not getting ANY of the “pro teams” scheduled as far ahead as has been done in the past.apaladin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:18 pmClempson just added East Carolina to their 2029 schedule giving them 3 ooc games without their usual in-state FCS game. It should be FU’s time in 2029 as they play Citadel this year and again in 2028, so FU next year and again in 2029 if this holds true. Our last announced future FBS game was shortly after JD got here which was probably already a done deal. FWIW FU and MU are the only 2 SoCon schools without a scheduled game past 2027. Seems these 2 are not proactive in scheduling right now the rest are. .
Re-checked the info:Affirm wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:06 pmColgate, Richmond, Elon, Campbell, Bucknell, and Abilene Christian apparently among some additional schools that have FBS opponents for 2028 or 2029. This scheduling situation is worthy of attention but not to worry about yet. But we certainly need to “get our pro games against Clemson and USC” at the same or better frequency as any other FCS schools get those, including especially Wofford. My guess is that the uncertainty of future alignments of the 65 or so “pro teams” and the existence of the other FBS “pro teams” beyond the 65 has some effect on our not getting ANY of the “pro teams” scheduled as far ahead as has been done in the past.apaladin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:18 pmClempson just added East Carolina to their 2029 schedule giving them 3 ooc games without their usual in-state FCS game. It should be FU’s time in 2029 as they play Citadel this year and again in 2028, so FU next year and again in 2029 if this holds true. Our last announced future FBS game was shortly after JD got here which was probably already a done deal. FWIW FU and MU are the only 2 SoCon schools without a scheduled game past 2027. Seems these 2 are not proactive in scheduling right now the rest are. .
Still not to worry about yet, but to comment on and emphasize: Furman not only does not have a “pro team” on the schedule beyond 2027, we do not have one beyond 2026. I was thinking we had one in 2027 - we do not!Affirm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:19 amRe-checked the info:Affirm wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:06 pmColgate, Richmond, Elon, Campbell, Bucknell, and Abilene Christian apparently among some additional schools that have FBS opponents for 2028 or 2029. This scheduling situation is worthy of attention but not to worry about yet. But we certainly need to “get our pro games against Clemson and USC” at the same or better frequency as any other FCS schools get those, including especially Wofford. My guess is that the uncertainty of future alignments of the 65 or so “pro teams” and the existence of the other FBS “pro teams” beyond the 65 has some effect on our not getting ANY of the “pro teams” scheduled as far ahead as has been done in the past.apaladin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:18 pmClempson just added East Carolina to their 2029 schedule giving them 3 ooc games without their usual in-state FCS game. It should be FU’s time in 2029 as they play Citadel this year and again in 2028, so FU next year and again in 2029 if this holds true. Our last announced future FBS game was shortly after JD got here which was probably already a done deal. FWIW FU and MU are the only 2 SoCon schools without a scheduled game past 2027. Seems these 2 are not proactive in scheduling right now the rest are. .
DROP Bucknell from my list of 6, but ADD Lindenwood as another private college FCS that has a “pro game” on their schedule for 2028 or 2029.
So that number still is only 6.
Also made a mistake overlooking Wofford, which of course should never happen. My list of 6 was private schools, but only non-SoCon. Wofford has a “pro opponent” in 2028 , USC - which is also an opponent for Wofford in 2024.
So the list is 7 private FCS schools with games versus “pro teams” in 27 or 28 or both.
… Oops … WAIT!! … 2 more:
Bethune-Cookman plays USF in 2028.
Saint Francis plays WVU IN 2030.
So the number is 9 private FCS schools scheduled against “pro teams” beyond 2027.