➤ Faison on the economics that he says do not work: “We were paid a $65,000 guarantee, which covered none of our costs. Travel and related expenses ran roughly $30,000 to $35,000, so we cleared about $30,000. That does not begin to justify what such a game asks of a team, a coaching staff, and a program. The competitive terms are not commensurate ones. When we put 29 funded scholarships on the field against an FCS limit of 63, we are not being measured. We are being mismeasured. NCAA Division II caps us at 36. Our opponents are permitted nearly twice that before the first recruit signs. That figure of 29 also places us in the top quarter of the SIAC, and as a private institution the total dollar investment behind each of our equivalencies exceeds what even many of our public conference peers commit to the same count. We are not underinvesting in this program. We were competing against a structure, not simply a team.”

➤ Faison’s standard: “My keys do not begin to rattle for anything that nets this institution less than $100,000 after travel and related costs. And netting $100,000 does not mean we play. It means we will listen. What we will not do is play a Division I opponent for less than 35 percent of the guarantee that institution itself receives for its own Power Four game. … The same philosophy applies in the other direction. We will not schedule NAIA institutions in football except in compellingly rare circumstances. When we win, we receive no credit toward NCAA Division II postseason eligibility. When we lose, we absorb a reputational cost we cannot recover. There is virtually no version of that game that advances this institution.”

➤ The approach moving forward: “We will schedule where we belong and where we can win. The CIAA, the SIAC, Conference Carolinas, and the Gulf South Conference are all regionally proximal NCAA Division II conferences offering opponents commensurate with the level at which we compete. That is our competitive universe, and it is a strong one.” (link)