ASU Athletics Feasibility Committee Final Report (2011)

Final Report of the Athletics Feasibility

Committee

Appalachian State UniversityDepartment of Athletics

November 2011

Executive Summary of the Athletics Feasibility Committee September 23, 2011

1

1APPALACHIAN

I. Introduction

In 1998, Appalachian State University engaged Bill Carr and Associates for a campus-wide study on University pursuing membership in a NCAA I-A football conference. Based on the study, the decision was made not to pursue I-A football at Appalachian. The study identified several specific areas for review and recommendations, including:

a. Is I-A Football consistent with the University mission? If so, then Appalachian

must embrace acceptable level of student fees and institutional support for I-A football and athletics program. However, a lack of revenue generation was mentioned as a most glaring area of concern.

b. Authorize a market study for support of I-A Football. The consensus from the market study revealed a lack of sufficient support to justify a move, so continue the pursuit of I-AA National Championships.

c. Establish an acceptable level of institutional support (excluding student fees) for the athletics department. At the time, the average institutional support of I-AA programs was 29% of total revenues.

d. Aggressively seek increased external revenue sources. Take advantage of the newly built Holmes Convocation Center and develop basketball as a revenue source.

After twelve years of University and athletics growth, including football national championships in 2005, 2006, and 2007 and the seismic victory at Michigan in 2007, the time arrived for a follow up discussion on Appalachian’s athletic membership. Therefore, in spring 2010, NACDA Consulting was retained to develop a benchmarking comparison for Appalachian State University with regard to examining the opportunity to transition from the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). NACDA Consulting initially provided an analysis of Appalachian’s status within its current conference, the Southern Conference (SoCon) as well as several FBS conferences that do not receive automatic bids to participate in the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). A comprehensive analysis was conducted which included the following comparisons: Institutional Profile, Marketplace Analysis, Sport Sponsorship, Competitiveness, Salaries, Staffing, Scholarship Equivalencies, Facilities, and Operating Budgets.

Based on the results of this exploratory study, on September 24, 2010, the University’s Board of Trustees gave formal approval for the Department of Athletics to engage in a feasibility study to examine the future of the athletics department.

II. Leadership

In January 2011, the Athletics Feasibility Committee (Committee) was formed. Mr. Larry Stone, COO, Lowe’s Corporation and Mr. G.A. Sywassink, President and CEO (retired), Standard Holding Corporation and Chair, Appalachian State University Board of Trustees were selected as co-chairs of the Committee. Other voting members of the Committee


2

1APPALACHIAN

included: Mr. Eric Barnes, Appalachian State Student Government Association Representative; Mr. John Blackburn, President, Linville Resorts; Mr. Mark Harrill, CEO, Foscoe Companies; Mr. Jay Howard, President, JHE Production Group; Mr. Derek Jenkins, Senior Vice President, Target; Mr. Doug Johnson, CEO, Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation; Mr. Jeff Shepard, CEO (Retired), Footstar; Mr. Tommy Sofield, CEO, US Buildings; and Mr. Brad Wilson, CEO, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina. Athletics Department staff members included in the committee were: Mr. Charlie Cobb, Director of Athletics; Mr. Rick Beasley, Senior Associate Director of Athletics; Mr. Jay Sutton, Associate Director of Athletics; and Mr. Mike Flynn, Assistant Athletics Director. Dr. Alan Hauser, Professor of Religion and Faculty Athletics Representative served as the faculty representative to the Committee.

Additionally, other individuals were valuable to the committee discussions, including: Ms. Susan Pettyjohn, Vice Chancellor for University Development; Mr. Rick Amme, President, Rick Amme Consulting: Dr. Glenda Treadaway, Dean, College of Fine and Applied Arts and Mr. Russell Wright, President, Collegiate Consulting LLC (formerly NACDA Consulting).

After the Committee performed a strategic review of information from staff and various stakeholder groups, the Committee’s charge was to develop a final report and issue a recommendation to Chancellor Ken Peacock regarding the athletic department’s future.

Members of the Committee and select other stakeholder representatives were divided into five specific subcommittees originally. These committees were:

a. Revenue Subcommittee – chaired by Mr. Jeff Shepard. Its charge was to examine

current NCAA Division I athletics generated and allocated revenues as compared with national averages, other universities in the peer study, and other potential conference affiliations to recommend potential and probable revenues for repositioning.

b. Expense Subcommittee – chaired by Mr. John Blackburn. Its charge was to examine current NCAA Division I athletics operating expenses as compared with national averages, other universities in the peer study, and other potential conference affiliations to recommend potential and probable expenses for repositioning.

c. NCAA Subcommittee – chaired by Mr. Jay Howard. Its charge was to examine current NCAA guidelines and requirements for reclassification, review potential upgrades to the FCS playoff system, and examine existing departmental plans and policies for rules compliance and effectiveness.

d. Facilities Subcommittee – chaired by Mr. Brad Wilson. Its charge was to review past, current, and future athletics facility plans and sources of funding with emphasis on how the future plans fit with University and community master development plans.


3

1APPALACHIAN

e. ASU Family Subcommittee – chaired by Mr. Doug Johnson. Its charge was to engage campus and the community regarding the athletics feasibility study by developing and hosting various stakeholder focus groups. It was also asked to determine mission and strategic fit for athletics within the University. Stakeholder Focus Groups included the University’s Board of Trustees, University academic leaders, campus and local community leaders, Engaged Appalachian State business leaders, Yosef Club Board of Directors, Appalachian State student leaders, and others as identified during the course of the study.

During the Committee’s early work, it was determined that consolidating the Revenues Subcommittee with the Expenses Subcommittee into one Revenues and Expenses Subcommittee chaired by Mr. Jeff Shepard was a more prudent way to study the financial issues related to repositioning. Therefore, ultimately, the Committee was divided into four subcommittees: Revenues and Expenses, NCAA, Facilities, and ASU Family.

III. Feasibility Study Key Questions

A primary directive of the Committee’s work was to evaluate a very emotional topic in very quantitative measures. Therefore, a series of key questions were initially developed to guide the discussion. These questions included:

A. What is the impact of repositioning on campus?

a. Does this fit with the University’s Mission? b. How would this integrate with the University’s Strategic Plan? c. How would this impact the future capital campaign? d. What is the effect on current campus resources?

B. Does change create a philosophical shift for the athletics program?

a. Does this fit with the departmental vision and goals? b. Do the current sports offerings align with repositioning? c. What is the effect on the current enthusiasm for athletics from alumni and

friends, prospective students, and current students?

C. What expansion of and/or improvements to existing facilities are required for competitive success?

a. How would these changes impact the current University’s Campus Master Plan?

b. How would facility operations on campus change? c. What funding models for existing and new projects are possible? d. What funding sources for annual maintenance and utilities are possible?

D. What is the anticipated impact to the community and campus infrastructure in terms

of economic impact and traffic, public safety, tailgating, and support for High Country infrastructure improvements, i.e. roads, turn lanes, signage?


4

1APPALACHIAN

E. What is the financial impact associated with repositioning?

a. What are the potential funding sources? i. Fundraising (Yosef Club)? ii. Ticket sales? iii. NCAA and conference revenues? iv. Sponsorships? v. Other self-generated sources? vi. Campus?

b. What are the potential costs? i. Increasing cost of attendance ii. Title IX and gender equity compliance iii. Diversity compliance iv. Program expansion and/or contraction based on fit with new league v. Team travel

1. Policies on non-conference scheduling 2. Accessibility for team travel

c. How do we create representative financial models for repositioning? i. Personnel ii. Scholarships iii. Operations iv. Fund facility expansion and/or improvements

IV. Committee Time Line

An orientation session was held with the Committee on January 18, 2011. Monthly meetings were held on February 14, 2011; March 25, 2011; April 14, 2011; and May 20, 2011. Originally, the Committee intended to complete the study and make a recommendation to Chancellor Peacock by June 16, 2011. However, in recognition of University issues related to North Carolina’s budget process, the Committee decided at its May 20, 2011, meeting to delay its recommendation to the chancellor. At its August 4, 2011 meeting, the Committee drafted a final recommendation statement to Chancellor Peacock that was approved by the group via teleconference on August 22, 2011. The statement reads: “The Appalachian State Athletics Feasibility Committee recommends that the Mountaineer Football program move to the Football Bowl Subdivision when the University Board of Trustees identifies the appropriate opportunity.”

Additionally, many presentations and focus groups were conducted as part of the study. Specifically, the following key stakeholders’ presentations are included below:

a. Appalachian State University Board of Trustees – March 24, 2011 Retreat Session

b. University academic leaders i. Faculty Senate – March 14, 2011


5

1APPALACHIAN

ii. Dean’s Council – March 23, 2011 iii. Open sessions (2) for faculty and staff – April 18, 2011 iv. Athletics Council – February 16, 2011

c. Campus and local community leaders i. Chancellor’s Cabinet – November 2010 ii. ASU Foundation Board – February 4, 2011 and August 26, 2011 iii. Engaged Appalachian business leaders – February 14, 2011 and August 4,

2011 d. Yosef Club Advisory Board - February 11, 2011 and September 16, 2011 e. Yosef Club Spring Tour – April 7, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21, 2011 f. Student-Athlete Advisory Board – February 28, 2011 g. Appalachian Alumni Council – March 26, 2011 h. UNC General Administration President Tom Ross – May 2, 2011 i. Select UNC Board of Governors Members– September 12, 2011

V. Results of the Feasibility Study

a. Revenues and Expenses Subcommittee

The department’s growth over the past six years provides a legitimate ‘window of opportunity’ for the University to pursue repositioning. Based on data provided by various sources, including the annual NCAA Financial Report, Appalachian looks like a mid-tier FBS school in almost all quantifiable metrics, especially in self-generated revenues and football game attendance.

The subcommittee evaluated various funding models and determined that it will take an increase of $6 million annually to provide the athletics department with the resources to competitively field teams. A copy of the proposed budget is provided as an attachment to this report. Two-thirds of the revenues would be self-generated by the athletics department through increased revenue production (i.e. ticket sales and fundraising) and NCAA and conference revenues and the remaining one-third would come from campus in the form of student fees either by increasing student enrollment and/or the athletics fee or in some other form.

A critical component developed by this subcommittee that became a core priority of the overall Committee is the importance of establishing geographic rivalries primarily as a means of revenue production, creating positive fan experiences and publicity, and cost containment for operating a multi-faceted Division I athletics program. In fact, this subcommittee strongly believes that the best opportunity for success is a conference of regional public universities who share similar missions and support for athletics. Additionally, this subcommittee believes that revenue growth from men’s basketball is needed and that this can happen with repositioning.

b. NCAA Subcommittee


6

1APPALACHIAN

The subcommittee noted that the Southern Conference Council of Presidents voted in 2011 not to pursue FBS football for the conference, so if our aspirations are for FBS football, then this would be opposite of the Southern Conference’s stated vision. During several discussions, it became evident that some FBS conference leaders are leery of FCS institutions attempting to make the transition from FCS to FBS because of the increased financial commitments required unless the FBS league is desperate for membership. In addition, the subcommittee noted an obvious concern with several existing FBS leagues Appalachian might aspire showing signs of a lack of congruency among member institutions because many of the individual schools are publicly and privately looking to join another FBS conference. As a result, the potential fluidity of these existing FBS conference is a concern. A gender review study was enacted to examine potential scenarios related to our current and potential operations for future rules compliance. Finally, the subcommittee recognized the creation of a new FBS league is certainly possible, but current NCAA restrictions, unless modified or challenged, pose financial and timing challenges.

c. Facilities Subcommittee

As part of its assistance, Collegiate Consulting LLC did a facilities review comparing Appalachian with aspirational FBS institutions (see attached assessment). In summary, to be competitive, to generate necessary revenues and to provide adequate seating that meets anticipated demand, two improvements must be made to Kidd Brewer Stadium. First, the seating capacity needs to increase. Secondly, fan-friendly and revenue producing amenities must be added. The subcommittee believes that a targeted goal of 35,000 permanent seats can be accommodated on the existing footprint. The facilities subcommittee identified several potential funding programs for this expansion. In addition, several other top facility priorities for the athletics department were identified, including the creation of a field hockey field and indoor tennis facility.

d. ASU Family Subcommittee

Without question, the subcommittee identified the positive energy and interest observed through the various focus groups and study presentations as a strong positive. From these meetings, the subcommittee made several important discoveries. First, even with the current uncertain economic climate in North Carolina, there is no ‘lightning rod’ opposition or issue against repositioning. Secondly, on campus, a majority of less-tenured faculty like potential alignments based on the respective Carnegie classification. This is an important observation because half of Appalachian’s tenured faculty members are within five years of retirement eligibility and the changing face of our faculty population complements the timing of this study. As it relates to student fees, the majority of what the subcommittee identified as engaged students like the thought of investing to help Appalachian compete in a bigger arena, especially given the strong directive from the Committee that Appalachian’s growth will not come primarily from student fee revenues. Third, ‘off the mountain,’ the question presented by most people is not ‘if Appalachian will reposition?,’ but rather ‘when?’ and


7

1APPALACHIAN

‘where?.’ Again, with the average age of the 100,000 living Appalachian alumni being 32, the subcommittee feels that this is an important fact identifying future support for the University and athletics.

e. Summary

Irrespective of the future direction of the discussion, the Athletics Feasibility Committee feels unlike several other aspirant institutions, our homework is nearly complete if or when any potential repositioning invitation occurs. For Appalachian to continue its athletics success, the study identified the following action plan:

a. Create a viable opportunity to reposition based on our core principle of creating

geographic rivalries. b. Develop support for Chancellor Peacock with internal and external stakeholders

for his decision-making process. c. Solidify the campus commitment for athletics growth as a priority in the

upcoming University Campaign and the University’s Strategic Plan. d. Identify funding models to minimize the financial impact on students. e. Expand external athletics funding sources. In other words, fundraise, develop

new corporate partnerships, and sell more tickets! f. Develop, fund, and construct Phase III of the Athletics Facilities Plan. g. Prioritize athletics operational resources.

List of Attached Documents

1. Athletics Feasibility Committee Exhibits 2. Proposed Budget 3. USA Today Analysis of University Athletics Funding for Select Regional FBS and

FCS Institutions 4. Collegiate Consulting Facilities Assessment 5. Athletics Feasibility Committee Press Release 6. Athletics Feasibility Committee Frequently Asked Questions

Exhibits

Final Report of the�Athletics Feasibility�

Committee

Background Information

A Rich History. An Envied Tradition. Expectations of Success. A Vision for the Future.

Hotels & Restaurants

Youth Sports

HR & OECD

SoCon Staff

SoCon Schools

Media (ASN, Local, National,

Print, TV, Internet, New Media)

IMG College & Corporate Sponsors

Boone & the High

Country

Local Schools

Government

Medical Community

Law Enforcement

Campus Community

Vendors

Licensing Partners

Student Government

Student Yosef Club Members

NCAA

National Athletics

Associations

Student-Athletes Parents of

Student-Athletes

Families of Prospects

Club & AAU Coaches

High School Coaches

Prospects

Yosef Club Members

Fans

Admissions

Student Conduct

Alumni Student Body

Financial Aid

Business Affairs

Academic Affairs

BOT & UNC BOG

Athletics Stakeholders

Athletics Staff

Property Managers

Summer Camps

Nike

Faculty

ASU Foundation Board & Staff

XOS

Physical Plant

Food Services

Housing

Motor Pool

International Programs

Faculty Senate

SAAB

International Recruiting

Faith Community

Local Charities

Greeks

Pro Teams

Book Store

Chancellor & Cabinet

Local Private Clubs & Resorts

Band

Parking &

Traffic

Components for a Successful �NCAA DIVISION I Athletics Program

✓ Institution with Strong Academic Reputation ✓ Great College Town and Campus Life ✓ Facilities for Competition and Training ✓ Competent Coaches who Recruit and Lead ✓ Resources for Scholarships and Operating

Budgets ✓ Supportive Fans, Alumni, Administration,

Faculty, Staff, and Students ✓ Cohesive Staff with Service Mentality

The Role of Athletics Embedded in the University’s Vision Statement�

AND Strategic Plan

Vision Statement: “Appalachian aspires to be a model-21st century, nationally recognized university… Appalachian is committed to attracting… the best students… Appalachian will provide excellent value… will develop a distinctive identity built on the university’s strengths, location, and tradition.”

Strategic Plan Priority 1: Create and maintain superior curricula, programs, financial incentives, and intellectual environments

to attract, educate, and graduate an exceptional and diverse community of students. Priority 2: Provide resources to enable all faculty members to perform quality research and creative activities,

and enhanced resources in successive, focus areas of strength to enable Appalachian to make sustained and major contributions in those fields.

Priority 3: Allocate resources, develop support services, and promote a collegial culture to attract, develop, and retain an exceptional and diverse faculty and staff.

Priority 4: Apply our intellectual, academic, cultural, and research resources to promote sustainable economic growth, prosperity, and quality of life throughout this region and state.

Priority 5: Develop and implement a comprehensive plan to protect and enhance our distinctive historical, geographical, and cultural identity associated with our location in the Appalachian mountains.

Priority 6: Practice sound management of institutional resources to continue to be a best value for students.

Appalachian State Quick Facts

I.   Campus

I.  $366-million annual operating budget

II.   Academics

I.  Fall 2011 – Enroll over 17,500 Undergraduate and Graduate Students

II.  54% Female

III.  92% from outside Watauga County (Wake and Mecklenburg two largest)

IV.  50% of Tenured Faculty 50 or older

V.  Faculty Senate studying advancement in Carnegie Classification

VI.  New Academic Program – College of Health Sciences

III.   Alumni

I.  The Average Age of Appalachian Alumni is 32

II.  5 out of 10 alumni 30-and-younger

IV.   Community Infrastructure Improvements to 421 and 321

Athletics Quick Facts I.   550 Student-Athletes (3rd-largest in UNC System) with combined GPA of 2.95 (2010)

•  All 20 teams above NCAA APR ‘cut’ score

II.   20 Varsity Sports (10 Male and 10 Female) plus oversight for cheerleading

•  NCAA Division I status since 1970

III.  Staff of 90 coaches and support personnel.

IV.  Annual Operating Budget is $15 million.

•  No state-appropriated dollars come to Athletics. Revenues are student fees and self-generated funds (Ticket Sales, Fundraising, Marketing, and NCAA & Conference allocations).

V.   Value to Campus – Embedded in Strategic Plan and University Vision Statement

•  Diversity: 33% of students from underrepresented populations

•  Diversity: 25% of staff from underrepresented populations

•  Diversity: 45% of students not from North Carolina

•  Retention: 89% freshman retention rate

•  Good Business: Over 85% of operating budget spent back on campus

•  Good Business: 63% of students on scholarship (28% full) and 37% “walk ons”

Athletics Department Vision Statement

•  Create the Appalachian State Experience for our student-athletes, which means the very best academic, athletic, and social experience possible.

•  Compete for SoCon Championships and NCAA post-season berths and Championships.

•  Build functional Facilities that provide our coaches and student-athletes with a competitive advantage.

•  “Market the Mountaineers” – Own Boone and ‘Get down the Mountain!’

•  Operate with sound administrative principles, including a strong financial base.

•  Energize the Appalachian State Family! •  Have Fun!!

Athletics SWOT Analysis I.   Strengths

I.  Academic and Competitive Success of marquee program (Football) II.  Energetic and Supportive Fan Base

III.  Practice and Performance Match Departmental Vision IV.  Academic Success of Student-Athletes in all relative measurements V.  Facilities for priority sports VI.  Scholarship Reserve in ASU Foundation

II.   Weaknesses I.  Increased Scholarship and Operational Needs for All Sports

II.  Unfinished Athletics Facilities Plan III.  Athletics Scholarship Endowment relatively low to peers

III.   Opportunities I.  Changing Landscape of NCAA Conference Alignment II.  Grow Funding Sources - relative youth of Alumni base and current participation III.  Address Gender Issue Needs

IV.  Finalize Athletics Facilities to meet competitive NCAA Division I standards IV.   Threats

I.  Sustainability of Program if “Competitive Peers” surpass us II.  University Commitment, including University-wide Campaign and Strategic Vision III.  Continued growth of external revenues in today’s economic climate IV.  Complacency, Jealousy, and other ills of ‘How the Mighty Fall’

Athletics Feasibility Committee

A Rich History. An Envied Tradition. Expectations of Success. A Vision for the Future.

History of the NCAA

1968 – Split into Universities & Colleges Division 1973 – Divisions I, II, & III created 1978 – IA, IAA, & IAAA created with 1981 effective date

IA-IAA Split based on:

•  85 vs. 63 football scholarships

•  30,000-seat football stadium

•  Average 15,000 in football attendance 18 schools appealed IAA status and all lost

2006 – IA Changed to FBS; IAA changed to FCS

2007 – Moratorium enacted to halt movement because stadium and attendance measures not enforced.

August 2011 – Division I Moratorium expired. Change is HERE!

In Division I, there were 120 FBS (IA) and 120 FCS (IAA) schools in 2010.

History of Appalachian Athletics… (According to Jim Jones!)

•  1930-1960: Member of North State Conference, which became Carolinas Conference –  ECU and ASU adding students; WCU “always dragging tail.”

•  ECU pulled out in 1962/1963 to join Southern Conference

–  ECU always chasing NC State –  ASU constantly beat ECU in football and men’s basketball –  Took 30-40 years for ECU to play State and Carolina

•  1967-1968: First time athletics at Appalachian allowed to raise money. AD came from UNC. Started Yosef Club. •  Carolina Conference allowed 22 football and 8 MBB scholarships •  1967: ASU left Carolina Conference to go independent. NAIA structure allowed for national competition, but

scheduling home football games was issue and “still is.” •  1970: Joined NCAA.

•  1972: Joined Southern Conference. ASU was not ready because of jump from 30 football scholarships as an independent to 90-105 for Southern Conference schools.

•  Mid-1970’s: ECU left Southern Conference. ECU tried to get ASU to go with them. ASU did not because: –  Poor quality of Facilities –  Slow start on fundraising

•  4 out of 5 graduates were teachers with no money to give –  Geography. Access to Boone via 2-lane roads.

THIS IS NOT A DIVISION I STUDY ��

Football is the difference between FBS (IA) & FCS (IAA)… �We are Division I in all 20 Sports and have been for 40 years!

NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament •  CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting television agreement for 14 years (2011-2024) totaling $10.8 billion •  Average annual payment is $771 million (58% increase from $488 million currently) •  96% of revenue is returned to NCAA member institutions

•  2009-2010 NCAA Budgeted Revenues of $710 million –  $639 million form media and marketing agreement and $71 million from NCAA Championship ticket sales

•  2009-2010 NCAA Expenses –  Revenue Distribution - $418 million (59%)

•  Men’s Basketball (6-year rolling period with 753 units in 2011) - $167 million (40%) •  Grants-in-Aid - $111.4 million (27%)

•  Sports Sponsorships - $55.7 million (13%) •  Student Assistance - $53.9 million (13%) •  Academic Enhancement - $22.5 million (5%) •  Conference Grants - $7.8 million (2%)

–  NCAA Programs - $109.5 million (15%) –  DI Championships - $61.5 million (9%)

–  DII Expenses - $31 million (4%) –  General and Administrative - $29 million (4%) –  DII Expenses – $22.6 million (3%) –  NIT Payout - $19 million (3%) –  Contingencies - $15.7 million (2%) –  Collegiate Sports LLC - $3.3 million (1%)

Value of NCAA ‘Unit’ for Southern Conference (Appalachian)

Year Units Per Unit Conference Distribution 2008-09 9 $205,746 $1,851,714 2009-10 9 $221,911 $1,997,199

2010-11 9 $239,346 $2,154,114 2011-12 9 $258,151 $2,323,359 2012-13 9 $278,434 $2,505,906 2013-14 9 *$300,291 $2,702,619 2014-2015 6 Total NCAA Tournament accumulation (2009-14) with base 6 units = $9,023,274

Total NCAA Tournament accumulation (2009-14) with 9 units = $13,534,911 Differential from additional units produced by Davidson = $4,511,637 total or average of $751,939 per year Appalachian State receives $24,285; $47,552; $51,288; $55,318; $59,664; $64,348 (Total $302,455 over

6 years until 2014-2015) Total units for other conferences from 2009-10:

•  Big East - 104 units ($23.4 million) •  ACC - 82 units ($18.2 million) •  Big 12 - 78 units ($17.1 million •  SEC - 46 units ($15.1 million)

•  C-USA - 38 units ($8.4 million) •  Atlantic 10 - 29 units ($6.4 million)

Bowl Championship Series •  4 years (2011-2014) television agreement with ESPN averaging $125 million per year •  Coordinated outside NCAA control. Members:

–  AQ Conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, SEC)

–  Non-AQ Conferences (Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, WAC) –  Notre Dame

•  Net shares for the first team elected from 1 of the 5 non-AQ conferences receive $24.7 million (18%) –  If no team from a non-AQ conference participates, then the non-AQ conferences receive $12.35 million

(9%)

•  Net shares for the automatic-qualifying team from an AQ league is $21.2 million •  The share for each other team selected at-large is $6 million •  Notre Dame receives $6 million if it participates in a BCS Bowl or $1.7 million (1/66th of BCS revenues) if it

does not participate •  Army and Navy each receive $100,000

•  For 2010-2011, revenues are: –  Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC receive $27.2 million each –  ACC, Big East, Big 12 receive $21.2 million each –  Non-AQ conferences share $24.7 million

•  MWC ($12.75M); WAC ($4.05M); CUSA ($3.34M); MAC ($2.64M); SBC ($1.94M)

•  Each Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) conference receives $225,000 (10 shares) - $2.25 million –  Southern Conference keeps $100,000 for television package ($300,000 total cost for 8 games) and

distributes $12,500 to each football-playing institution

Finances of Post-Season Football ACC Bowl

Revenue $34.1 million

•  BCS Game - $21.2 M •  Chick-fil-A Bowl - $3.5 M •  Champs Sports Bowl - $2 M •  Sun Bowl - $1.9 M •  Music City - $1.75 M •  Meinke - $1 M

•  Independence - $1 M •  Military - $1 M •  Fight Hunger - $1 M

Less Unsold Tickets ($1.5 million)

Team Expense Allotments ($10.6 M) •  BCS – ($1.7 million) •  All others - ($1.1 million) Net Revenue of $22 million

Conference USA Bowls Revenue $6 million

•  BCS Share - $2.5 M •  Liberty - $1.6 M •  Armed Forces - $600,000 •  Hawaii - $600,000 •  New Orleans - $350,000 •  St. Petersburg - $350,000

Team Expenses equal or exceed payouts for participation

BCS Share ‘supports’ other

conference bowl opportunities and conference championship game

Net Revenue of $2 million

Division I Football Playoffs (Appalachian)

(2 Home Playoff Games) Per Game

•  Gross Receipts - $250,000 •  Less Game Expenses – ($50,000) •  Net Receipts - $200,000 •  Guarantee to NCAA (75% of

Net) - $150,000

•  Host Honorarium to ASU (15% of Net) - $30,000

•  Net Concession Revenues - $10,000

•  Team Per Diem - $7,800 •  Total Revenue to ASU - $47,800 •  Less Unbudgeted Expenses –

($20,000)

Net Revenue to ASU - $27,800

Revenues of College Athletics – �(BCS AQ League vs. Rest of Division I) �

Source of True Division within DI

ACC CUSA SoCon

Men’s Basketball Tournament $18,200,000 $8,400,000 $2,000,000

Football Post-Season $34,100,000 $6,000,000 $250,000

Total $52,300,000 $14,400,000 $2,250,000

NCAA Division I Athletics Spending •  Generated revenues for the median FBS institutions (FBS = 5.8% increase; FCS = 3.1% decrease). •  Total expenses for the period increased at a faster rate than generated revenues for each. •  Total revenues allocated by the institutions — 20% in the FBS; 72% in FCS. •  Growth rates in total expenses after removal of the inflationary effect — 2% in FBS; -2% in FCS. •  The increase gap, which measures the difference in growth rates of athletic spending and overall

institutional spending, remains very small in all three subdivisions — and is essentially 0 at FBS. •  A total of 14 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2009 fiscal year,

which represents a decrease from the 25 reported in 2008. The gap between the “profitable” programs and the remainder continued to grow.

•  In all subdivisions, 3 revenue sources account for 50% or more of total generated revenues. These are ticket sales, alumni and booster contributions, and NCAA and conference distributions.

•  Similarly, in all subdivisions, 2 expense line items, grants-in-aid and salaries and benefits, account for approximately 50% of total expenses.

•  In all subdivisions, the number of participating athletes remains fairly constant, while the expense per athlete continues to increase, as a result of rising expenses.

•  In all three subdivisions, total athletic expenditures as a percentage of total institutional expenditures have remained constant at approximately five percent for several years. More importantly, if net deficits, rather than total expenses are examined, the percentage drops to the neighborhood of one percent in the FBS and four percent in the other two subdivisions.

•  Source: NCAA

Football Bowl Subdivision •  Median generated revenues increased by 5.8%, considerably less than the 17% from 2007 to 2008. Median

generated revenues have increased by 23.8% since the 2007 fiscal year.

•  Median total expenses increased by 10.9%, as compared with 5.5% from 2007 to 2008. The two-year increase was 17.1%. The implication is that expenses increased at a faster rate than revenues in the most recent year, but revenues increased more quickly over the two-year period. Much of the expense increase is due to increases in the cost of grants in aid and compensation – the two top expense line items. More importantly, 6% of the total increase is the result of inflation, leaving only a 2% “real” increase.

•  Median negative net generated revenue, representing expenses in excess of generated revenues, moved from $8,089,000 in 2008 to $10,164,000 in 2009. This is a 25.7% increase in losses from 2008, which is much greater than the previous year’s increase of 7%.

•  The largest generated revenue of $138,500,000, compared with the median generated revenue of $32,264,000 in 2009, is indicative of the disparity in the FBS. Similarly, the largest total expense is $127,651,000, while the median is $45,887,000.

•  A total of 14 FBS athletics programs reported positive net generated revenues in 2009, down from 25 in 2008. •  The median net generated revenues for those surplus programs was $3,867,000 in 2008 and $4,360,000 in 2009,

while the median net deficit for the remaining programs was $9,870,000 in 2008 and $11,267,000 in 2009.

•  A consistent 50-60% of football and men’s basketball programs report surpluses for each of the 5 years covered. •  Ticket sales and donor contributions continue to carry the load for revenues. The former account for

approximately 30% of generated revenues and 24% of total revenue, while the latter account for approximately 25% of generated and 20% total. Together, these two line items account for over 50% of generated revenues.

•  Similarly, two line items make up almost 50% of total expenses - salaries and benefits at about 33% and grants-in-aid at 15%. The former follows the national trend of tuition increases, while the latter appears to be market driven. Facilities maintenance and rental weighs in at approximately 13%.

•  The average number of participating student-athletes remained unchanged, while total expenses increased. •  Source: NCAA

Football Championship Subdivision •  Median generated revenues decreased from 2008 by 3.1% as compared with a 6% increase from 2007 to 2008. •  Median total expenses also decreased slightly (0.8%) from 2008 and increased 14.0% from 2007 to 2009. •  Median negative net generated revenue, representing expenses in excess of generated revenues moved from

$7,121,000 in 2006 to $7,441,000 in 2007, $7,937,000 in 2008, and $8,643,000 in 2009. Thus, the median losses for the subdivision’s schools continue to grow, increasing by 9% in 2009.

•  The largest generated revenue for fiscal 2009 of $18,736,000 and median generated revenue of $2,886,000 are indicative of the disparity in the FCS. Similarly, the largest total expense is $42,691,000, while the median is $12,019,000, indicative of the varying budget sizes.

•  No athletics programs reported net generated revenues in 2009. The median negative net generated revenue (expenses in excess of generated revenues) in 2008 was $7,937,000 and $8,704,000 in 2009. The net losses have increased steadily over the 6 years.

•  Only 2% of football programs and 6% of men’s basketball programs, and 2% of women’s basketball programs reported net generated revenues (surpluses) for 2009, which is consistent over recent years. These net generated revenues are minimal. The median losses for the remaining programs in 2009 are $1,453,000 for football, $601,000 for men’s basketball, and $745,000 for women’s basketball.

•  Ticket sales (17%), donor contributions (27%), and NCAA and conference distributions (14%) continue to carry the load.

•  Similarly, two line items make up over 50% of total expenses for the subdivision - salaries and benefits (32%) and grants- in-aid (25%). The firstfollows the national trend of tuition increases, while the latter is apparently market driven. Thus, the efforts to control athletics costs are frustrated by a lack of control over the largest two expense lines. No other expense line item is significant.

•  The highest salaries are incurred in ice hockey, basketball, and football, respectively, on the men’s side, and basketball and ice hockey programs on the women’s side.

•  Allocated revenues (those provided by the institution or state government) as a percentage of total revenues have remained steady at 72% in since 2006. Source: NCAA

2009 NCAA Division I Athletics Median Spending by Quartile

Football Bowl Subdivision

Tier I $80 million

Tier II $55 million

Tier III $33 million

Tier IV $20 million

Football Championship Subdivision

Tier I $24 million

Tier II $14.7 million

Tier III $10.4 million

Tier IV $8.2 million

NCAA Division I Athletics Spending

Median Values 2007 2008 2009

Football Bowl Subdivision

Median Total Revenues $37,566,000 $41,088,000 $45,698,000

Media Total Generated Revenues $26,062,000 $30,494,000 $32,264,000

Median Total Expenses $39,192,000 $41,363,000 $45,887,000

Median Net Generated Revenues ($7,529,000) ($8,089,000) ($10,164,000)

Football Championship Subdivision

Median Total Revenues $10,527,000 $12,080,000 $12,111,000

Media Total Generated Revenues $2,809,000 $2,978,000 $2,886,000

Median Total Expenses $10,541,000 $12,115,000 $12,019,000

Median Net Generated Revenues ($7,441,000) ($7,937,000) ($8,643,000)

NCAA Division I Athletics �Sources of Revenues

Generated Revenues

Ticket Sales

NCAA & Conference Revenues

Game Guarantees

Donor Contributions

Marketing and Sponsorships

Allocated Revenues

State Allocation

Direct University Support

Indirect University Support

Student Fees

2009 FBS Sources of Revenues Median Values Public Private Total

Total Ticket Sales $9,027,000 $7,534,000 $8,078,000

NCAA And Conference Revenues $6,239,000 $6,894,000 $6,251,000

Guarantees and Options $933,000 $1,322,000 $935,000

Donor Contributions $6,696,000 $7,167,000 $6,987,000

Marketing/Sponsorships/Concessions $4,776,000 $4,688,000 $4,433,000

Total Generated Revenues $31,746,000 $33,913,000 $32,264,000

Direct Institutional Support $2,461,000 $10,574,000 $3,272,000

Indirect Institutional Support $23,000 $2,211,000 $49,000

Student Fees $2,001,000 $0 $1,617,000

Total Allocated Revenues $8,528,000 $13,324,000 $9,880,000

Total Revenues $43,926,000 $47,272,000 $45,698,000

2009 FCS Sources of Revenues Median Values Public Private Total

Total Ticket Sales $427,000 $298,000 $387,000

NCAA And Conference Revenues $473,000 $568,000 $508,000

Guarantees and Options $501,000 $191,000 $427,000

Donor Contributions $644,000 $1,036,000 $746,000

Marketing/Sponsorships/Concessions $331,000 $536,000 $442,000


Direct Institutional Support $3,842,000 $9,324,000 $5,259,000

Indirect Institutional Support $350,000 $2,435,000 $846,000

Student Fees $2,075,000 $0 $767,000


Total Revenues $10,334,000 $17,331,000 $12,111,000

2009 FBS (Q4) & FCS Revenues Median Values FBS (Q4) Appalachian FCS

Total Ticket Sales $1,190,000 $2,465,277 $387,000

NCAA And Conference Revenues $1,044,000 $680,550 $508,000

Guarantees and Options $1,158,000 $909,620 $427,000

Donor Contributions $1,275,000 $811,305 $746,000

Marketing/Sponsorships/Concessions $954,000 $1,003,091 $442,000


Direct Institutional Support $4,547,000 $913,467 $5,259,000

Indirect Institutional Support $988,000 $575,467 $846,000

Student Fees $3,697,000 $7,448,623 $767,000


Total Revenues $20,295,000 $14,807,400 $12,111,000

2009 NCAA Sources of Revenue Appalachian State

Generated (42%)

Allocated (58%)

FBS (Q4)

Generated (34%)

Allocated (66%)

FCS

Generated (25%)

Allocated (75%)

Generated Revenues •  Ticket Sales •  NCAA & Conference •  Game Guarantees •  Donors •  Marketing •  Sponsorships

Allocated Revenues •  State Support •  Direct University Support •  Indirect University Support •  Student Fees

Future Appalachian State Athletics

Kidd Brewer Stadium Bronco Stadium (Boise State)

Future Appalachian State Athletics

Fundamental Questions: Which does Appalachian State prefer? Are there opportunities to cast a line?

Big Fish in Little Pond or Smaller Fish in Larger Pond

“Dominant Brand at FCS level”

Conferences by Carnegie Classification

(DRU) Georgia Southern

(Master’s L) Appalachian State The Citadel UT Chattanooga Western Carolina

(Master’s S) Elon (Master’s M) Samford

(Bac/A&S) Furman Wofford

Southern Mid-American

(RU/VH) Buffalo

(RU/H) Akron Ball State Bowling Green Kent State Miami (Ohio)

Northern Illinois Ohio Toledo Western Michigan Temple

(DRU) Central Michigan (Master’s L) Eastern Michigan

Conference USA

(RU/VH) Central Florida Houston

Rice Tulane UAB (RU/H) Memphis

Southern Methodist Southern Mississippi UTEP (DRU) East Carolina

Tulsa (Master’s L) Marshall

Colonial

(RU/VH) Delaware Georgia State

Massachusetts (RU/H) Maine New Hampshire Rhode Island

Old Dominion William & Mary (Master’s L) James Madison Towson

Villanova (Bac/A&S) Richmond

(RU/H) Florida International Florida Atlantic

North Texas Louisiana Lafayette (DRU) Middle Tennessee St.

(Master’s L) Troy Louisiana-Monroe Arkansas State Western Kentucky

Atlantic-10

(DRU) UNC-Charlotte

Sun Belt

Why Schools Consider “The Jump”?

•  NCAA governance ruled by FBS leagues. •  University wants to compete at the “highest levels” academically, but this does

not occur by competing at FCS level in football. •  Time is now. Position for future conference alignments because FBS teams have

options when shifting occurs. •  Relevance in Home State and/or Region.

•  Campus leadership groups more excited about association with FBS schools than FCS schools because of higher national profile.

•  Students and faculty want to be associated with excellence across campus. Athletics adds greatly to the quality of campus much like a new dining facility, parking deck, and residence hall, i.e. “all part of the experience.”

•  No tuition increases go to support FBS football. •  Post-season opportunities

–  Only 20 slots in FCS football playoffs versus 64 FBS bowl game opportunities.

What Defines Success? �The “And” Question

•  Athletics (Win % - 40 years at

Division I) ü Football

•  77% Home

•  56% Away

•  67% Overall

ü Basketball •  70% Home

•  34% Away

•  50% Overall

•  University ü Visibility and awareness

ü Increase in private gifts ü Higher student profile

ü More applications ü Increased enrollment,

especially out-of-state students

ü Increased state and/or federal funding

Statement from the Committee

“The Appalachian State Athletics Feasibility Committee recommends that the Mountaineer

football program move to the Football Bowl Subdivision when the University Board of

Trustees identifies the appropriate opportunity.”

The Appalachian Experience�A Transforming University

Proposed Budget


Committee

AppalachianStateAthleticsProposedFBSBudget

10/3/11

REVENUESTicketsales $4,402,500

Baseball $50,000Women'sBasketball $25,000Football $3,925,000Men'sBasketball $302,500TicketOf?iceFees $100,000

Studentfees $9,507,330StudentFees $9,507,330EquityFee $0

Gameguarantees $1,000,000Football $750,000Men'sBasketball $250,000

Contributions $3,000,000YosefClub $3,000,000OtherGifts $0SeatingRights $0SuiteLeases $0

Directstatesupport $0Directinstitutionalsupport $0

AppropriatedFunds $0SummerSchool $0TuitionWaivers $0

Indirectfacilitiesandadministrativesupport $0NCAA/conferencedistributionsincludingtournaments $2,250,000

NCAA/ConferenceDistribution $1,250,000FootballChampionshipGame $600,000Men'sBasketballTournament $400,000Women'sBasketballTournament $0

Broadcast,television,radio,andinternetrights $0Programsales,concession,noveltysales,andparking $275,000

Concessions $250,000SeatBacks $0FootballParking $0Programs&MediaGuides $25,000

Royalties,licensing,advertisementsandsponsorships $900,000SportsMarketingRightsFee $650,000Licensing $250,000

Sportscamprevenues $0Endowmentandinvestmentincome $0

Interest $0Other $25,000

FacilityEnhancementFees $0FacilityRentals $25,000

OperatingRevenue $21,359,830


10/3/11

EXPENSES

(IncludesSalaries,Scholarships,andOperatingExpenses)

Men'sSports $9,561,646

Football $5,328,751Basketball $1,597,367Soccer $423,082Wrestling $412,932Baseball $873,008Track&CrossCountry $465,713Tennis $233,897Golf $226,897

Women'sSports $4,549,407

Basketball $1,130,985Volleyball $560,838Soccer $609,388FieldHockey $553,988Track&CrossCountry $606,282Softball $561,988Tennis $292,994Golf $232,944

SupportServices $6,319,091

Administration&Fundraising $2,006,591Academics $560,750SportsInformation $305,800AthleticsTrainingRoom $717,700Strength&Conditioning $315,800TicketOf?ice $377,850Marketing $378,850AppalachianSportsNetwork $338,850VideoOperations $213,050Equipment $173,900GameOperations $329,950Facilities $450,000Post‐Season $150,000

OperatingExpenses $20,430,144

NetRevenue $929,686


10/3/11

REVENUES

FootballTicketSales

Avg.TixPrice # AmountSeasonTickets $185 10,000 $1,850,000

Non‐Conference(FCS) $25 7,500 $187,500Non‐Conference(FBS) $25 10,000 $250,000

Conference1 $30 10,000 $300,000Conference2 $30 10,000 $300,000Conference3 $35 12,500 $437,500Conference4 $40 15,000 $600,000

$185 $3,925,000

Men'sBasketball

Avg.TixPrice # AmountSeasonTickets $125 500 $62,500

SingleGames(1000/game) $15 16,000 $240,000

$302,500

StudentFeesYear FTE GeneralFee* Revenue OperatingRevenue

2010‐2011 14,897 $566 $8,431,702 $7,418,7062011‐2012 15,091 $636 $9,597,876 $8,420,778

OptionA 15,091 $725 $10,940,975 $9,507,330(NoFTEincreasemeans$91generalfeeincrease)

OptionB 17,030 $636 $10,831,080 $9,502,740(FTEincreaseof2,000meansnogeneralfeeincrease)

*$75AthleticsDebtFeeoriginatedin2004‐2005notincludedinGeneralFee

YosefClub2004‐2005 $664,5402005‐2006 $1,009,5182006‐2007 $1,280,0102007‐2008 $2,213,8752008‐2009 $2,325,7682009‐2010 $2,521,3582010‐2011 $3,000,000

6HomeGames

16HomeGames

Athletics Funding for

Regional Institutions

(Source: USA Today)


Committee

Source:USAToday(June28,2011) UniversitySupportofAthleticsbyConference

School Conference 2006 2010 2006$ 2010$ 2010AthleticsBudget AthleticsGenerated% AthleticsGenerated$

FBS(IA)

AlabamaatBirmingham CUSA 54% 59% $11,354,868 $14,248,839 $24,150,575 41% $9,901,736Houston CUSA 40% 53% $6,664,181 $17,420,416 $32,868,709 47% $15,448,293CentralFlorida CUSA 63% 51% $15,549,891 $20,305,129 $39,813,978 49% $19,508,849Texas‐ElPaso CUSA 43% 51% $10,706,614 $13,697,536 $26,857,914 49% $13,160,378EastCarolina CUSA 43% 43% $10,368,774 $13,864,287 $32,242,528 57% $18,378,241Marshall CUSA 43% 42% $9,299,962 $9,592,883 $22,840,198 58% $13,247,315SouthernMississippi CUSA 36% 41% $7,504,995 $8,000,401 $19,513,173 59% $11,512,772Memphis CUSA 19% 29% $5,591,362 $11,559,205 $39,859,328 71% $28,300,123

EasternMichigan MAC 85% 84% $18,070,230 $22,034,322 $26,231,336 16% $4,197,014KentState MAC 72% 80% $13,856,610 $15,626,467 $19,533,084 20% $3,906,617Buffalo MAC 81% 78% $18,138,513 $19,786,316 $25,367,072 22% $5,580,756Ohio MAC 73% 78% $12,916,389 $18,713,965 $23,992,263 22% $5,278,298NorthernIllinois MAC 66% 73% $12,460,845 $16,129,991 $22,095,878 27% $5,965,887BallState MAC 66% 73% $11,396,033 $14,793,239 $20,264,711 27% $5,471,472Akron MAC 73% 72% $12,001,131 $17,263,774 $23,977,464 28% $6,713,690WesternMichigan MAC 69% 71% $15,548,139 $16,838,022 $23,715,524 29% $6,877,502CentralMichigan MAC 70% 67% $13,446,303 $16,457,883 $24,564,004 33% $8,106,121MiamiOhio MAC 71% 66% $15,829,772 $17,120,548 $25,940,224 34% $8,819,676BowlingGreen MAC 50% 61% $9,424,023 $11,588,172 $18,997,003 39% $7,408,831Toledo MAC 64% 49% $10,709,324 $9,824,257 $20,049,504 51% $10,225,247

SouthAlabama SunBelt 86% 84% $6,750,772 $13,731,918 $16,347,521 16% $2,615,603FloridaInternational SunBelt 80% 81% $13,864,404 $17,857,204 $22,045,931 19% $4,188,727MiddleTennesseeState SunBelt 74% 74% $13,852,624 $15,406,839 $20,820,053 26% $5,413,214FloridaAtlantic SunBelt 74% 68% $11,588,480 $11,080,401 $16,294,707 32% $5,214,306NewOrleans SunBelt 73% 68% $2,468,845 $2,688,767 $3,954,069 32% $1,265,302WesternKentucky SunBelt 67% 67% $11,543,282 $15,487,500 $23,115,672 33% $7,628,172Arkansas‐LittleRock SunBelt 58% 64% $4,606,875 $6,120,022 $9,562,534 36% $3,442,512Troy SunBelt 58% 58% $8,045,652 $9,199,857 $15,861,822 42% $6,661,965Louisiana‐Lafayette SunBelt 43% 53% $3,917,597 $6,524,027 $12,309,485 47% $5,785,458NorthTexas SunBelt 45% 50% $4,592,608 $5,055,979 $10,111,958 50% $5,055,979Louisiana‐Monroe SunBelt 49% 43% $4,007,520 $4,642,237 $10,795,900 57% $6,153,663ArkansasState SunBelt 43% 42% $3,626,739 $3,957,493 $9,422,602 58% $5,465,109



FBS(IA)

NewMexicoState WAC 69% 67% $13,843,046 $16,940,487 $25,284,309 33% $8,343,822UtahState WAC 53% 64% $6,214,661 $12,274,044 $19,178,194 36% $6,904,150SanJoseState WAC 74% 55% $15,028,713 $11,181,906 $20,330,738 45% $9,148,832LouisianaTech WAC 54% 52% $6,767,672 $8,678,134 $16,688,719 48% $8,010,585Idaho WAC 53% 52% $7,650,182 $8,223,954 $15,815,296 48% $7,591,342Nevada WAC 33% 42% $9,694,106 $9,699,557 $23,094,183 58% $13,394,626BoiseState WAC 39% 29% $8,641,181 $10,657,075 $36,748,534 71% $26,091,459Hawaii WAC 29% 29% $8,987,282 $10,543,347 $36,356,369 71% $25,813,022FresnoState WAC 21% 28% $6,099,128 $7,504,866 $26,803,093 72% $19,298,227



FCS(IAA)

GeorgiaState Colonial 88% 88% $7,508,146 $17,213,126 $19,560,370 12% $2,347,244JamesMadison Colonial 86% 84% $21,189,827 $23,992,226 $28,562,174 16% $4,569,948Towson Colonial 84% 84% $13,388,435 $17,297,103 $20,591,789 16% $3,294,686GeorgeMason Colonial 86% 83% $11,190,410 $13,870,204 $16,711,089 17% $2,840,885Delaware Colonial 80% 79% $19,510,039 $25,269,313 $31,986,472 21% $6,717,159VirginiaCommonwealth Colonial 78% 79% $9,713,138 $12,791,891 $16,192,267 21% $3,400,376OldDominion Colonial 78% 73% $12,561,266 $23,663,863 $32,416,251 27% $8,752,388NorthCarolinaWilmington Colonial 71% 71% $5,808,051 $6,622,829 $9,327,928 29% $2,705,099William&Mary Colonial 47% 55% $7,189,741 $9,951,101 $18,092,911 45% $8,141,810

Massachusetts Atlantic10 77% 80% $16,499,255 $20,175,219 $25,219,024 20% $5,043,805RhodeIsland Atlantic10 79% 76% $15,918,972 $16,967,161 $22,325,212 24% $5,358,051NorthCarolinaCharlotte Atlantic10 50% 71% $8,820,324 $12,473,452 $17,568,242 29% $5,094,790

CoastalCarolina BigSouth 81% 84% $11,335,186 $15,366,323 $18,293,242 16% $2,926,919Radford BigSouth 89% 84% $6,049,993 $9,156,992 $10,901,181 16% $1,744,189Winthrop BigSouth 83% 82% $8,160,326 $9,145,439 $11,152,974 18% $2,007,535NorthCarolinaAsheville BigSouth 69% 72% $2,541,965 $2,831,406 $3,932,508 28% $1,101,102VMI BigSouth 25% 29% $2,171,451 $2,770,079 $9,551,997 71% $6,781,918

NorthCarolinaGreensboro Southern 77% 83% $6,993,491 $9,720,120 $11,710,988 17% $1,990,868CollegeOfCharleston Southern 77% 79% $6,956,289 $9,671,507 $12,242,414 21% $2,570,907GeorgiaSouthern Southern 72% 73% $7,259,997 $7,524,536 $10,307,584 27% $2,783,048Tennessee‐Chattanooga Southern 67% 72% $7,883,906 $9,476,112 $13,161,267 28% $3,685,155WesternCarolina Southern 76% 70% $5,752,714 $5,633,005 $8,047,150 30% $2,414,145Citadel Southern 65% 64% $6,339,860 $7,606,542 $11,885,222 36% $4,278,680AppalachianState Southern 55% 55% $5,371,785 $8,735,090 $15,881,982 45% $7,146,892

AppalachianState 2010 2010$ 2010AthleticsBudget AthleticsGenerated% AthleticsGenerated$

2009‐2010 55% $8,735,090 $15,881,982 45% $7,146,892FutureAdd 33% $2,000,000 $6,000,000 67% $4,000,000Predicted 49% $10,735,090 $21,881,982 51% $11,146,892

Collegiate Consulting Facilities

Assessment


Committee

8/9/2010 Collegiate Consulting Page 1

This document contains proprietary and confidential information. No part of this document may be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without written consent from Collegiate Consulting.

Collegiate Consulting Report

FACILITY ASSESSMENT Scope On January 2011, Collegiate Consulting visited the Appalachian State University campus to meet with the Athletics Feasibility Steering Committee and University and athletics staff to create a top-line facility review. Information was derived from meetings, tours and discussions with each group. This document will provide an overall look at each athletics facility on campus at ASU and highlight issues that need to be addressed or studied further to ensure that facilities meet competitive standards within Division I FBS conferences, primarily Conference USA. Furthermore, Colligate Consulting will make brief recommendations for each facility for consideration in a larger programming and master planning study for ASU athletics. We will also make overall recommendations to address long-term planning, capital budgeting and immediate needs. This information will provide a baseline from which to focus department goals and funding for facility projects. Summary The facility review includes three categories: fan amenities, team amenities and general facility items. We measured various areas in each category, with scoring based on a scale of 1-to-4 with 4 being the highest. The items measured are listed by category below.

Collegiate Consulting reviewed the following facilities:

! Kidd Brewer Stadium ! George M. Holmes Convocation Center ! Jim & Bettie Smith Stadium ! ASU Soccer Stadium ! Sywassink/Lloyd Family Stadium ! Sofield Indoor Practice Facility ! Varsity Gymnasium ! Tennis

1.!Fan!Amenities 2.!Team!Amenities 3.!GeneralADA Surface!Playability StructuralSeating Lighting MaintenanceConcessions Locker!Rooms TVParking/Access Media TechnologyTicketing Game!Ops M/E/PPA/!Sound Access OfficialsVideo/Scoring

Scoring!Categories




The chart below provides the average score for each category as well as an overall average for each facility.

Overall, the ASU athletics facilities meet competitive Division I standards but an athletics master plan is needed for planning future projects. There have been significant capital renovations to Kidd Brewer Stadium that are impressive and beneficial to the student- athletes, staff and athletics support services. However, there are still revenue-generating opportunities at the stadium that can be maximized. The athletics master plan would concentrate on the following:

! Kidd Brewer Stadium revenue-generating renovations ! George M. Holmes Convocation Center renovations ! Dedicated track & field facility ! Indoor tennis

Facilities impact every aspect of an athletics department including student-athlete welfare, coaching, personnel, revenue generation, recruiting and competitive edge. As a result, the future success of ASU athletics is heavily dependent upon the ability to develop and execute an athletics facility master plan to improve facilities, prioritize projects and fund them.

FacilityFan!

AmenitiesTeam!

AmenitiesGeneral Average

Kidd!Brewer!Stadium 3.17 4.00 3.67 3.61George!M!Holmes!Convocation!Center 3.00 3.83 3.17 3.33Jim!&!Bettie!Smith!Stadium 3.33 3.50 3.33 3.39ASU!Soccer!Stadium 3.50 3.00 3.33 3.28Sywassink/Lloyd!Family!Stadium 3.17 3.40 3.17 3.24Sofield!Indoor!Practice!Facility N/A 3.75 3.75 3.75Varsity!Gymnasium 3.17 3.50 3.00 3.22Tennis 3.50 3.80 3.80 3.70

Overall!Average 3.22 3.57 3.35 3.40




Kidd Brewer Stadium

Kidd Brewer Stadium officially opened in 1962 with an original capacity of 10,000. The stadium is the current home of football, field hockey and track & field. Over the years, the stadium has grown to a capacity of 21,650. The most recent and extensive stadium changes were completed in 2009 with the addition of the Appalachian Athletics Center. This facility has 120,000 square feet of space and includes state-of-the-art strength and conditioning, athletic training and academic facilities to benefit all 20 of Appalachian’s varsity sports. It also has extensive locker rooms, meeting space and offices for ASU football and coaches as well as centralized offices for athletics administrators. The center has premium seating including 18 luxury suites, 500 club seats, the Yosef Club and Chancellor’s Box areas.




Assessment

Facility:!Sports:

Category Rating Notes

ADA 3Seating 4Concessions 3Parking/Access 3Ticketing 3PA/!Sound N/A Unable!to!evaluate!on!trip.

Video/Scoring 3Average 3.17

2.!Team!AmenitiesSurface!Playability 4Lighting 4 Lights!are!KBS

Locker!Rooms 4Media 4Game!Ops 4Access 4

Average 4.00

Structural 4Maintenance 3 Stadium!does!have!areas!that!are!aging.

TV 4Technology 4M/E/P 3Officials 4

Average 3.67Overall!Average 3.61

Kidd!Brewer!StadiumAdministration,!Football,!Track,!Field!Hockey

1.!Fan!Amenities

3.!General




Summary This stadium, including the new Appalachian Athletic Center, is the finest FCS facility in the country. The addition of the Athletic Center in 2009 allows ASU direct entry into FBS with little to no immediate need for facility upgrades. The team, office, media, hospitality and support services in this facility are well above the average in most non-BCS conferences. The stadium itself could benefit from upgrades that would generate more revenue and provide upgraded fan amenities on game day. Creation of more premium seating and suites must be in the future plans for the north and east sides of the stadium. Multi-purpose use of the stadium field and track may be the best possible solution at this time due to the lack of land and required space needed for a dedicated track & field/field hockey facility. However, it has been recommended in the recently completed Gender Equity Review to explore the construction of a field hockey facility. Future plans for these facilities should be added as a placeholder in the next university master plan. Primary Areas of Concern: 1. Revenue generating areas and seating 2. Fan amenities 3. Parking 4. Multi-purpose use of the field and track




George M. Holmes Convocation Center

The George M. Holmes Convocation Center is the home of men’s and women’s basketball, volleyball and indoor track & field. This multi-purpose facility also houses the Department of Health, Leisure and Exercise Science. Beyond athletic events, the arena provides opportunities for community and cultural events, graduation and convocation ceremonies, trade shows and concerts. The arena seats 8,325 and includes a 300-meter, state-of-the-art directional Mondo track that circles the upper concourse and is used by the indoor track & field teams for practice and competition.




Assessment

Facility:!

Sports:


ADA 4Seating 4Concessions 3 Could!use!refresh!&!themes!

Parking/Access 4

Ticketing 3 Indoor!or!covered!ticketing!is!ideal!in!this!climate

PA/!Sound 1 Difficult!to!hear!PA!announcer!from!multiple!locations.

Video/Scoring 2 Does!not!presently!have!a!video!board.

Average 3.002.!Team!AmenitiesSurface!Playability 4

Lighting 4Photometric!should!be!completed!to!confirm!150!fc.

Locker!Rooms 4 Recently!updated!by!Athletics.

Media 4Game!Ops 4

Access 3This!is!University!operated!building!and!Athletics!is!tenant.

Average 3.83

Structural 4

Maintenance 3Building!starting!to!show!signs!and!need!injection!of!capital!reserve!and!maintenance!account.

TV 3 Could!not!confirm!if!building!is!pre"wired.

Technology 2Technology!is!not!as!current!as!new!buildings!built!today.

M/E/P 3Officials 4


George!M!Holmes!Convocation!Center

Men's!Basketball,!!Women's!Basketball,!Volleyball,!Indoor!Track!&!Field

1.!Fan!Amenities

3.!General




Summary This on-campus facility plays a dual role, hosting collegiate athletics, university functions and recreational sports. The operating structure of this multipurpose facility on a campus this size does not best serve athletics in FCS. This does not mean that it is not the correct way for the University to operate because of factors outside of ASU collegiate athletics. However, using this facility does put a strain on the success of teams, coaches and staff. This would be a successful structure in some FBS/BCS conferences where each team has sport-dedicated practice, training, locker room and office facilities. Primary areas of concern: 1. Operations, rent and debt service costs 2. Fan amenities 3. Scheduling (creating priorities) 4. Hospitality 5. Revenue generating amenities




Jim & Bettie Smith Stadium

Jim & Bettie Smith Stadium is the home of Mountaineer baseball. The stadium opened in 2007 and has a 1,000-seat permanent capacity. Features include:

! FieldTurf playing surface ! Lighting for night games ! Daktronics scoreboard and message center located beyond the right-center field

wall ! A press box, concessions and souvenirs building that doubles as a red brick style

grand entrance to the stadium complex from the parking level ! Clubhouse with amenities that include:

o Player locker/lounge area with lockers and showers for 35 players, two flat-screen televisions and state-of-the art surround sound system

o Coaches’ offices and locker room o Full-service training room o Reception area




Assessment

Summary The baseball complex provides all the amenities and player/competition requirements of a first-class facility. This project reflects the planning and foresight that went into developing how all facets of the facility would operate, both for games and for use by student-athletes and coaches.

Facility:!Sports:


ADA 4Seating 4Concessions 3

Parking/Access 3 Somewhat!removed!from!Athletics!but!good!onsite!parking.

Ticketing 4PA/!Sound N/A Could!not!test!sound!as!a!part!of!the!visit.

Video/Scoring 2 Could!use!full!LED!board!for!scoring!and!video.

Average 3.332.!Team!AmenitiesSurface!Playability 4Lighting 3Locker!Rooms 3Media 4Game!Ops 3Access 4

Average 3.50

Structural 4Maintenance 4TV 2Technology 2M/E/P 4Officials 4


Jim!&!Bettie!Smith!StadiumBaseball

1.!Fan!Amenities

3.!General




ASU Soccer Stadium

The ASU Soccer Stadium at the Ted Mackorell Soccer Complex was completed in 2009 and includes a press box and seating for 1,000. The facility is located off campus and features artificial Fieldturf.




Assessment

Facility:!Sports:


ADA 4Seating 4Concessions 3Parking/Access 4Ticketing 3PA/!Sound N/AVideo/Scoring 3

Average 3.502.!Team!AmenitiesSurface!Playability N/A Unable!to!evaluate!on!trip.

Lighting N/ALocker!Rooms 3Media 3Game!Ops 4Access 2 Off!campus!facility.!

Average 3.00



ASU!Soccer!StadiumWomen's!Soccer

1.!Fan!Amenities

3.!General




Summary The soccer facility was snow covered at the time of evaluation but it is our understanding that it serves the program well. As a whole, the stadium meets all requirements for competition and has ample parking, locker rooms, officials’ rooms, concessions and restrooms. An off-campus facility is always a concern regarding access by student-athletes, coaches and fans. These are choices that have to be made, weighing the positives of a first-class facility with good community access and good relationships with the soccer community vs. an on-campus location where you may not have some of these factors or same level of facility quality.




Sywassink/Lloyd Family Stadium

Sywassink/Lloyd Family Stadium opened in 2007 and is the first on-campus home of Mountaineer softball. It features a natural grass playing surface, state-of-the-art press box, concessions and seating for 1,000.




Assessment

Summary The softball facility has a great setting and is a prime location for easy access for student-athlete practice and game day. It is a perfect size and, with permanent seating and an enclosed press/media facility, it will meet all requirements for competition.

Sports:Category Rating Notes

ADA 3Seating 4Concessions 3Parking/Access 4Ticketing 3PA/!Sound N/AVideo/Scoring 2

Average 3.172.!Team!AmenitiesSurface!Playability N/A Unable!to!evaluate!on!trip.

Lighting 4Locker!Rooms 4Media 3Game!Ops 3Access 3

Average 3.40



Sywassink/Lloyd!Family!StadiumSoftball

1.!Fan!Amenities

3.!General




Sofield Indoor Practice Facility

The Sofield Family Indoor Practice Facility features an 80x60 yard FieldTurf surface that enables all 20 Mountaineer varsity teams to train and condition indoors. The facility includes a full athletic training room, offices, storage room and all the amenities needed to conduct practices. The building houses batting cages for baseball and softball practice.




Assessment

Summary This indoor facility is a perfect indoor and secondary training site for all sports programs. However, a multi-use facility can always use more space and time for scheduling. This facility was constructed with a prefabrication steel package, with primary design considerations given to usability. It provides a valuable site to all teams. Due to the weather in the mountains, this facility is a key to making all other ASU facilities above the norm. Not having it would seriously hinder training for all sports and the ability to operate other individual facilities smoothly on a daily basis.

Facility:!Sports:


ADA N/ASeating N/AConcessions N/AParking/Access N/ATicketing N/APA/!Sound N/AVideo/Scoring N/A

Average N/A2.!Team!AmenitiesSurface!Playability 3Lighting 4Locker!Rooms N/AMedia N/AGame!Ops 4Access 4

Average 3.75

Structural 4Maintenance 4TV N/ATechnology 3M/E/P 4Officials N/A


Sofield!Indoor!Practice!FacilityMulti"sport

1.!Fan!Amenities

3.!General




Varsity Gymnasium

Varsity Gymnasium, which originally opened in 1968, is the home of wrestling and track & field. All practice facilities, competition seating, coaches' offices, athletic training and strength training areas are located under one roof for both programs. The track & field team conducts daily practice on the second level of the gym on the new mondo track that was installed in January 2008.




Assessment

Facility:!Sports:


ADA 3Seating 4Concessions 2Parking/Access 4Ticketing 3PA/!Sound N/A Unable!to!evaluate!on!trip.

Video/Scoring 3Average 3.17

2.!Team!AmenitiesSurface!Playability 4Lighting 3Locker!Rooms 3Media 3Game!Ops 4Access 4

Average 3.50



Varsity!GymnasiumWrestling,!Track!and!Field

1.!Fan!Amenities

3.!General




Summary This facility has seen many uses and will continue to do so for many years. Athletics having access, control and competition use of this facility is important to the overall matrix of ASU facilities success. The amount of space available for practice, sports medicine and support services is a positive. Replacing Varsity Gymnasium would be expensive and not a high priority on the athletics’ facility wish list. Renovations through expanding the size of sports medicine and improving game day atmosphere for wrestling and volleyball would serve those sports as well as the golf and track programs. Athletics must be careful not to inherit the long-term maintenance and operational costs of this facility. There are many positives due to the amount of space but there could also be major capital maintenance issues in the future.




Facility:!Sports:


ADA 4Seating 3Concessions N/AParking/Access 4Ticketing N/APA/!Sound N/AVideo/Scoring 3

Average 3.502.!Team!AmenitiesSurface!Playability 4Lighting 4Locker!Rooms N/AMedia 3Game!Ops 4Access 4

Average 3.80

Structural 4Maintenance 4TV N/ATechnology 3M/E/P 4Officials 4


TennisMen's!and!Women's!Tennis

1.!Fan!Amenities

3.!General

Tennis

Assessment




Summary The tennis facility has a great setting and is in a prime location for access by student-athletes for practice and matches. Adverse weather conditions are the only hindrance for this facility to best serve the tennis programs. The use of indoor courts for practice is a must in this climate. Consideration should be given to an on- or off-campus indoor tennis facility to accommodate practices and early season matches to maintain competitiveness.




Facility Recommendations The following is a list of overall recommendations for ASU regarding its athletics facilities.

1. Creation of a master plan for athletics facilities: a. Prioritize – With this top end evaluation and recommendation report, ASU

can start to plan for the facilities that need to be added or renovated. ASU will need to prioritize potential projects once the overall direction of the department has been determined (i.e., going to FBS Division I-A). This will include renovation of current facilities and construction of new facilities.

b. Funding Plan and Cost Estimates – This two-step process will begin once ASU has determined a preliminary prioritization of projects. It will involve project cost estimating (design, soft costs, infrastructure, land, construction, FF&E and operations costs) for each renovation and new construction project. The second step will include a potential funding plan for each project and the overall master plan. The sources of funds may be a combination of fundraising, student fees, public/private partnerships and state monies. At this time, debt service potential and caps should be evaluated with university administration.

c. Schedule – Creating a long-term project schedule that ties into a funding plan will provide the proper timelines related to design and construction of each project. This is an essential part of the puzzle for not only funding but also for department operations, recruiting and retention of coaches and student-athletes.

2. Renovation and addition to Kidd Brewer Stadium:

a. Scope – Reconstruct the east side and north end zone to accommodate premium seating and increase general seating. Develop new concourse amenities for concessions, restrooms and fan game day experience. This project would generate new revenue and increase premium seating and hospitality.

b. Costs - It is not easy to estimate cost for these facilities until you determine the type of construction, related infrastructure and premium levels. These renovations can start at $8 million and range up to $45 million if seating and suite structures are included.

3. Renovate George M. Holmes Convocation Center: a. Scope – Improve hospitality and fan experience through upgrades to the

video, sound and concessions. This can be done through building club seats and associate hospitality areas for pregame, halftime and postgame activities. We do not believe suites are necessary if a club atmosphere can




be created. Fan amenities should include upgrades and installation of video boards, new sound system and specialty concessions.

b. Costs – Due to the original design of the building, construction of hospitality areas will be an expensive cost per square foot. Due to the revenue generation of video, sound and concessions, these renovations can often pay for themselves within a few years, depending on how and where the revenue is allocated.

Based upon the assumption of transitioning to FBS, Collegiate Consulting has prioritized ASU athletics facility projects:

! Priority 1 - Stadium renovations (north and east side) ! Priority 2 – Field Hockey facility ! Priority 3 - Convocation Center renovations ! Priority 4 – Indoor Tennis Facility ! Priority 5 – Track & Field/minor renovations to Varsity Gymnasium

The cost estimates throughout this document are based solely on the knowledge of the consultant and experience with design and construction of similar facilities. No current market, materials or square footage costs were used or allocated for this top-line study. Upon selection of projects, a more comprehensive cost estimating process can be completed.

Press Release and FAQ

August 2011


Committee

August 22, 2011 Contact: Mike Flynn

— Appalachian State University’s athletics feasibility committee voted on Monday to recommend to ASU Chancellor Dr. Kenneth E. Peacock that, at some future point, Appalachian seek membership in an athletics conference that sponsors football in the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS).

With signs pointing towards another signi!cant shift in the Division I landscape, the committee held a conference call Monday to formally recommend that the time is right for Appalachian to make its intention to move to FBS known. A formal report of the committee’s !ndings and analysis will be !nalized in the coming weeks.

Dr. Peacock will study the committee’s recommendation and make a recommendation of his own to the ASU Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees must approve any change in Appalachian athletics’ conference and/or football subdivision. A timeline for transition from the Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) to FBS, including eligibility for conference championships, the NCAA Division I Football Championship and bowl games, would not be determined until Appalachian accepts membership in a new conference.

The 11-member athletics feasibility committee determined through six months of study and analysis that Appalachian is best suited for FBS as an institution and an athletics department. In addition to ASU’s unprecedented athletic success, the University’s enrollment of 17,000-plus, its academic philosophy and its strategic vision going forward more closely mirror FBS institutions than its current FCS counterparts.

Committee co-chairperson said, “The analysis of the facts is very clear that FBS is the right place for Appalachian athletics from an across-the-board institutional standpoint. A move to FBS mirrors Appalachian’s strategic vision as a nationally prominent institution and would enhance the University’s academic mission. The committee has worked to develop a blended !nancial model that ensures that the move would not be made on the backs of students.

“A move to FBS is not imminent. It is essential that we !nd a conference !t that creates rivalries and makes !nancial sense. However, with what appears to be another seismic shift in the Division I landscape on the horizon, the committee concluded that it is crucial to make our future intentions known at this time.”

The Mountaineers are already on par with FBS institutions in many respects. Since 2005, Appalachian has ranked 76th or higher each year among 240-plus Division I football programs (FBS and FCS combined) in the Sagarin computer ratings. ASU has also averaged 26,350 fans per regular-season football game, a mark which comes in at nearly 140 percent of Kidd Brewer Stadium’s average o"cial seating capacity during that time. Last year, Appalachian’s average regular-season attendance was 29,449, which was higher than 43 FBS programs.

ASU’s athletic success has not been limited to the gridiron. Over the past !ve years, Appalachian has earned two postseason National Invitation Tournament berths and appeared in a total of four national postseason tournaments in men’s and women’s basketball, earned a top-50 Ratings Percentage Index ranking in baseball and sent individual athletes to NCAA national competitions in men’s and women’s cross country, men’s and women’s indoor and outdoor track and !eld and wrestling.

Appalachian athletics received approval from the University’s Board of Trustees in September 2010 to evaluate its options with regards to the changing Division I landscape. ASU contracted Collegiate Consulting LLC (formerly NACDA Consulting) to conduct an independent study of Appalachian’s options within Division I and the athletics feasibility committee was formed in February to analyze the study’s !ndings. Committee members also considered feedback from dozens of focus groups within the ASU and local communities.

— more —

SPORTS INFORMATIONAPPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY MOUNTAINEERS

P.O. BOX 32116, BOONE, NC 28608 • PHONE: (828) 262-7166 • FAX: (828) 262-6106

DIRECTOR: MIKE FLYNN • ASSOC. DIRECTOR: CHARLES COCHRUM • ASST. DIRECTOR: TBA • INTERNS: PAUL BLASCOVICH, JUSTIN BOHN

www.GoASU.com

ASU director of athletics Charlie Cobb said, “First of all, I can’t thank the 11 members of the athletics feasibility committee enough for the time, e#ort and passion that they have put into their analysis over the last six months.

“The committee has done its due diligence and I agree with their assessment. ASU has been a Division I institution for 40 years with a proven re-cord of success on and o# the !eld. Should Appalachian be provided with the right opportunity within the changing Division I landscape, I agree that Mountaineer athletics can excel across the board at the FBS level.

“However, this is just a !rst step towards a possible move. The goals of our teams — to compete for Southern Conference and national champi-onships —will not change in the meantime.”

Appalachian football coach Jerry Moore added, “I trust and respect our administration and all of the hard work that they and the committee have put into this issue over the past several months. I fully support the recommendation of the committee and have no doubt that they have the best interests of Appalachian and our athletics department and football program in mind.

“However, this recommendation does not change our focus as players and coaches one bit — it remains fully on preparing to play Virginia Tech on Sept. 3 and going on to compete for a seventh-straight Southern Conference championship.”

— www.GoASU.com —

APPALACHIAN STATE ATHLETICS FEASIBILITY COMMITTEE FBS RECOMMENDATIONFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Why did the athletics feasibility committee recommend that Appalachian seek membership in a conference that sponsors football in the NCAA Division I FBS?

As an institution and an athletics department, the committee determined that Appalachian is best suited for FBS. In addition to ASU’s unprec-edented athletic success, the University’s enrollment of 17,000-plus, its academic philosophy and its strategic vision going forward more closely mirror FBS institutions than its current FCS counterparts.

When will ASU to move to NCAA Division I FBS?

A move is not imminent. The athletics feasibility committee has recommended to Chancellor Dr. Kenneth E. Peacock that at some point in the future, Appalachian seek membership in an athletics conference that sponsors football in the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). However, that is only a !rst step towards ultimately becoming an FBS member.

The next step is for Chancellor Peacock to formulate his own recommendation to present to the ASU Board of Trustees. Should the Chancellor pass the committee’s recommendation to the Board of Trustees, the BOT will have to vote to approve any change in Appalachian’s conference a"liation and/or football subdivision. Finally, Appalachian must !nd a suitable !t in a conference that does or will sponsor football in the FBS. A suitable conference must create rivalries that are essential to the culture of college athletics and make !nancial sense.

What conference will ASU wind up in if it moves to FBS?

Should Chancellor Peacock and the Board of Trustees ultimately approve the committee’s recommendation, Appalachian will consider all options when it comes to conference a"liation, whether it be existing FBS conferences or conferences with FBS aspirations. A suitable conference would have institutions that are similar to ASU both academically (in terms of enrollment and academic philosophy, athletically (in terms of revenue, facilities and success on the playing !elds and in the classroom) and geographically, which will allow for formation of rivalries that are essential to the culture of college athletics.

Can Appalachian be competitive in an FBS conference?

Appalachian can be very successful across the board in an FBS conference. ASU is already on par with many FBS institutions in terms of facilities, revenue and on- and o#-!eld success.

Just looking at on-!eld achievements since 2005, Appalachian has placed in the top 76 in the Division I football Sagarin Ratings (combining FBS and FCS teams) all six years, has earned two postseason National Invitation Tournament berths and appeared in a total of four national postsea-son tournaments in men’s and women’s basketball, earned a top-50 Ratings Percentage Index ranking in baseball and sent individual athletes to NCAA national competitions in men’s and women’s cross country, men’s and women’s indoor and outdoor track and !eld and wrestling.

Additionally, ASU’s average regular-season football home attendance of 29,449 in 2010 was higher than 43 FBS programs.

With the increased prestige and revenue that come with membership in an FBS conference, Appalachian is poised to become even more com-petitive than it already is in the Division I landscape.

Will it cost more money to move to FBS?

Yes. According to the committee’s analysis, ASU athletics will have to raise its yearly budget by about $6 million for its teams to be viable in an FBS conference. However, the committee concluded that a move to FBS would open new revenue streams to cover the costs, including increased ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, donations and funds dispersed by conferences to member institutions from television rights fees, NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament shares and the Bowl Championship Series and other bowl games.

In the coming weeks, the athletics feasibility committee will !nalize its report with complete !nancial analysis of a potential move.

— more —

SPORTS INFORMATIONAPPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY MOUNTAINEERS

P.O. BOX 32116, BOONE, NC 28608 • PHONE: (828) 262-7166 • FAX: (828) 262-6106

DIRECTOR: MIKE FLYNN • ASSOC. DIRECTOR: CHARLES COCHRUM • ASST. DIRECTOR: TBA • INTERNS: PAUL BLASCOVICH, JUSTIN BOHN

www.GoASU.com

Appalachian State Athletics Feasibility Committee FBS Recommendation — Frequently Asked Questions cont. (Page 2 of 2)

With the state of North Carolina’s current budget crunch, why spend more money on athletics now?

With the changing landscape of Division I athletics, the window of opportunity to enhance the University’s growth for decades to come is now.

By law, ASU athletics does not receive state appropriations or tax-payer dollars and any additional spending on athletics would not take away from the University’s academic budget.

Additionally, data shows that FBS athletic departments use a substantially smaller percentage of their total spending from direct and indirect institutional support than those at the FCS level. A recent NCAA study shows that direct and indirect institutional support as a funding source for athletics is approximately 20 percent in the FBS and 72 percent in the FCS. Just over half of ASU’s current athletics budget is funded by indirect institutional support (student fees).

Since the beginning of its analysis, the athletics feasibility committee has been committed to recommending a move only if it positively a#ects the academic role of the University and without substantial increases to student fees. The committee believes that its blended !nancial model achieves both objectives.

In the meantime, will Appalachian continue to be eligible for Southern Conference championships in all sports? Will the Mountaineers continue to be eligible to compete in the NCAA Division I Football Championship?

Yes. Appalachian will remain a full-$edged member of the Southern Conference and NCAA Division I FCS for at least 2011-12 and its goal of win-ning SoCon titles and competing for NCAA postseason berths in all sports — including the quest for a fourth FCS national championship — will not change.

A timeline for transition from FCS to FBS, including eligibility for conference championships, the NCAA Division I Football Championship and bowl games, would not be determined until Appalachian accepts membership in a new conference.

— GoASU.com —

ASU Athletics Feasibility Committee Final Report (2011)

Documents

Transcript of ASU Athletics Feasibility Committee Final Report (2011)