Marquette and football

[GGGG]

I know you are a big UW-madison football fan so I get the rationale when it isn't major college football, but if you ever have a chance I would recommend taking in the Lehigh - Lafayette game, longest played game in the country.  Or the Harvard - Yale game.  Both non-scholarship and outstanding tradition, competition, etc.

First of all, it would be inaccurate to say that I am a "big" UW-Madison football fan.  I root for them, but I am more of a fan of college football in general.  For instance, this past weekend I watched Florida / Florida State instead of UW.

Second, I attend small school, D3 football games all of the time.  I go to about a handful of games per year.  They are fun events.  However, just because they are fun and worthwhile at that level, doesn't mean that will translate to Marquette.  I think non-scholarship football at the D1 level is a waste of time and money.

[tower912]

As one who has attended more MAC games than B1G/ND games over the years, I can tell you that you can shoot off an uzi in the stands of a mediocre MAC team and not hit anybody.    I have been to games where the actual attendance was <5K in a 30K stadium.    Embarrassing.   I prefer not having football to that. 

[MU86NC]

Those attending MU prior to 1960 can complain about not having football if they choose.  Those of us after 1960 went to MU knowing that we didn't have football...if it was that big of deal you should have considered going elsewhere...

[Aughnanure]

Can we just start a Hockey program instead?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Can we just start a Hockey program instead?

I'm surpised we've never had more than a club team.

[jsglow]

Great.  This board is going to devolve into a continuous argument between Chicos and Sultan.  Sounds like a fun place to hang for me. 

[reinko]

Ummm, 5 pages in and no on has mentioned that college football will be a shell itself in the next 25-30 years because of the lack of control around injuries, concussions...youth programs and colleges won't be able to get insured, pipelines for football programs will dwindle, and the game will eventually become they way boxing is now. 

When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

[Tugg Speedman]

Look, if you want Marquette to have a football team that's fine.  But I think adding a non-scholarship sport for a couple thousand people to watch fails the cost-benefit analysis.

Last week 60 minutes did a story on college football.  

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50135410n

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57551556/has-college-football-become-a-campus-commodity/

In it they flat out stated the purpose of football is to raise the profile of the school.  That is mission 1.  Mission 2 is to make Alums feel good about the school so they donate.

Most interesting is this statement by Dave Brandon, former CEO of Dominos Pizza and now Michigan AD ...

-----

Dave Brandon: The business model of big-time college athletics is primarily broken. It's, it's a horrible business model.

Armen Keteyian: Broken.

Dave Brandon: Broken. You've got 125 of these programs. Out of 125, 22 of them were cash flow even or cash flow positive. Now, thankfully, we're one of those. What that means is you've got a model that's not sustainable in most cases. You just don't have enough revenues to support the costs. And the costs continue to go up.

Why? A big reason is universities are in the midst of a sports building binge. Cal Berkeley, for example, renovated its stadium to the tune of $321 million. The list is endless. Michigan's athletic department floated $226 million in bonds to upgrade the Big House.

-----

I assume the "125" he was talking about is actually the 127 schools that make up the FBS.  Only 22 are cash-flow positive.  That's it!  I find that statistic unbelievable.

Why would you want to subject a university that already has national name recognition through basketball to this terrible business model?  I cannot see it.

And, how does a non-scholarship or lower division program help in mission 1 (raising name recognition) or mission 2 (increasing donations)?

[Tugg Speedman]

Ummm, 5 pages in and no on has mentioned that college football will be a shell itself in the next 25-30 years because of the lack of control around injuries, concussions...youth programs and colleges won't be able to get insured, pipelines for football programs will dwindle, and the game will eventually become they way boxing is now. 

When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

+ 1

after Junior Seau killed himself their was a thread here and I said that the peak of football popularity was right now.  10 to 20 years from now it will be less, maybe far less.

And if Brandon is correct in the post above that only 22 schools are cash flow positive from football, the entire sport is at risk of collapsing, like the 1960 Athletic department of MU.

A few pages ago we detailed how schools are rushing to start football teams.  This is the top.  All downhill from here.

[tower912]

When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

Detroit tried that a few years ago with Reggie Brown.    They intubated him on the field, as he wasn't breathing due to his broken neck.    Detroit also had Mike Utley get paralyzed on the field.   Just more Lions karma.  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Hold on...WHAT???

You just changed your story here.  You never once mentioned adding another women's non-scholarship sport.  You simply mentioned that adding football wouldn't cause compliance issues - and now you have added this caveat.  The link you provided states flat-out what I have been saying...that adding football would put our ratios out of whack.

Look, if you want Marquette to have a football team that's fine.  But I think adding a non-scholarship sport for a couple thousand people to watch fails the cost-benefit analysis.

Not to pick on you Sultan, but I don't think you can simply evaluate college athletics on a cost-benefit scale.

By that measure the vast majority of college sports should be eliminated.

With this said, I'm fine with MU starting a non-scholly program if they think they can draw 3,000 per game (not sure they can). I'm not really sure it's a big benefit to the school, but whatever. People unnatural carnal knowledgeing love football.

BUT, I'm not fine with people dreaming big and thinking that MU will ever be able to play FBS football. It's too big of a gap, and it's only getting bigger. It's not going to happen.

Annnnnd, personally, the more and more I read about college athletic budgets, the more I think there is a huge bubble that will burst. Too many people spending too much money without really questioning it. MU might be wise to invest strategically and conservatively at this time. Build up the endowment, be smart with athletic dollars, and be ready as the landscape may change drastically in a few years.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Hold on...WHAT???

You just changed your story here.  You never once mentioned adding another women's non-scholarship sport.  You simply mentioned that adding football wouldn't cause compliance issues - and now you have added this caveat.  The link you provided states flat-out what I have been saying...that adding football would put our ratios out of whack.

Look, if you want Marquette to have a football team that's fine.  But I think adding a non-scholarship sport for a couple thousand people to watch fails the cost-benefit analysis.

Again, it depends on the situation Sultan.  You MIGHT have to add a women's non-scholarship team but you might not.  Every situation is different at every school.  If you have a school with a high female to male ratio and you add non-scholarship football the numbers might work for you where you don't have to add women's sports at all.  It depends if you can make the case and the numbers work out.  Some of the examples I provided those schools did just that. 
In other situations, yes, schools have had to add something like a non-scholarship women's crew team at very little cost.  All depends on the situation.  I think too many are making this out to be a cookie cutter scenario, which it isn't.  It depends on each individual school and their set of circumstances.

What I have issues with is the labeling of this type of football as "club" level or some kind of terrible product.  Most of these kids were offered scholarships at other schools but choose to attend the non-scholarship program because it is a better school.  The Ivy League is a great example...they're playing non-scholarship football at Brown vs getting a scholarship to play at Boston U.   Same for G'Town, Bucknell, LeHigh, etc.  These kids are playing for a national title in a NCAA sport at the FCS level.  At some schools (not MU necessarily), it can also help with Title IX by raising the number of males at the school AND increase enrollment (I provided several articles related to that impact effect).  Finally, the avg attendance even for non-scholarship football is greater than anything we have at MU in any sport sans men's hoops, so some people care...more than folks here are giving credit for.

There are any number of benefits which is why some schools have added football programs or kept the ones they have, even if it is not major college football, at a greater rate in the last decade than those who have cancelled their programs.

It's not going to happen, that is clear.  We are all in agreement there.  Unfortunate in my opinion, I think we could do it and do it well without the financial drag that something like Lacrosse is going to put on the program because we had to add two scholarship programs.  I like lacrosse, hope it does well financially and with people showing up.  My sense is football, even at the smaller level, would bring more alumni back to campus and engage students and alumni more than lax does.  Hope I am proven wrong.

[forgetful]

Chico's, if you read my actual post from before, you'll see that I have your three prongs in the first component of Title IX.

There are also still two additional components that have to be satisfied.  They deal with all the other financial and supportive aspects of sports that you can not neglect.  They are these ones that you casually throw aside.

As Sultan points out you have now backtracked from a lot of your statements.

I'm not sure if you are an attorney or not, but I hope so because apparently you accepted financial compensation for legal advice.

[GGGG]

+ 1

after Junior Seau killed himself their was a thread here and I said that the peak of football popularity was right now.  10 to 20 years from now it will be less, maybe far less.

Maybe.  Maybe not.

But even so, schools shouldn't be making decisions based on what MIGHT happen 20 years from now.  They have to make decisions based upon what is best for the school in the near term.  And while television networks are throwing money around like they are, they need to act in their own self interests.  Its not as though these decisions are set in stone.  20 years from now, if football falls off the face of the earth, coaches contracts will eventually end and schools can realign into conferences that meet whatever their needs are at the time.

[dgies9156]

Let's summarize the reality of college football at Marquette and move on:

  1) We don't have a stadium to play in. Building one will cost hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have. Unless the Pottowattomi come through for us (and I'm sure the NCAA would LOVE a program sponsored by a casino), there is not going to be a stadium to play in. And  then there's a world-class practice facility, which we don't have.

  2) A football program will not get us automatic entry into the ACC or BIG Whatever conference.

  3) We will compete for talent with Michigan, Wisconsin and 300 other fine universities, all of which will have training and practice facilities far superior to anything we would have for years. And they'll play before 75,000 to 100,000 persons, or more, which will be exponentially greater than the handful of people likely to show up for our games.

  4) We are still an academic institution and most of us would rather see scarce resources poured into strengthing Marquette's core business than we would a failing football program.

Did I miss anything???? Now let's move on.
 

[Tugg Speedman]

Let's summarize the reality of college football at Marquette and move on:

  1) We don't have a stadium to play in. Building one will cost hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have. Unless the Pottowattomi come through for us (and I'm sure the NCAA would LOVE a program sponsored by a casino), there is not going to be a stadium to play in. And  then there's a world-class practice facility, which we don't have.

  2) A football program will not get us automatic entry into the ACC or BIG Whatever conference.

  3) We will compete for talent with Michigan, Wisconsin and 300 other fine universities, all of which will have training and practice facilities far superior to anything we would have for years. And they'll play before 75,000 to 100,000 persons, or more, which will be exponentially greater than the handful of people likely to show up for our games.

  4) We are still an academic institution and most of us would rather see scarce resources poured into strengthing Marquette's core business than we would a failing football program.

Did I miss anything???? Now let's move on.
 

5) of the 127 FBS schools, only 17 are private (listed on page 2).  The "youngest" of these private institutions is Miami ("The U") that started football in 1927 and became a FBS member in 1978.

Nothing about MU suggests it is well positioned to be the 18th private school to join the FBS, and the first in over 35 years.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

My sense is football, even at the smaller level, would bring more alumni back to campus and engage students and alumni more than lax does.  Hope I am proven wrong.

Is that the main benefit to starting a non-scholly football program?

Engaging alumni and students? (allegedly)

There are probably some other avenues MU could use before dedicating time/money to a football program.

Maybe a block party on Wells during alumni weekend? Maybe do the block party in Sept.? Everybody loves standing outside and drinking in the fall...

I just don't know that MU needs to chase football for football's sake. There has to be a specific goal in mind.

[MerrittsMustache]

Is that the main benefit to starting a non-scholly football program?

Engaging alumni and students? (allegedly)

There are probably some other avenues MU could use before dedicating time/money to a football program.

Maybe a block party on Wells during alumni weekend? Maybe do the block party in Sept.? Everybody loves standing outside and drinking in the fall...

I just don't know that MU needs to chase football for football's sake. There has to be a specific goal in mind.

The BCS title! Or maybe an in-state rival for Whitewater?

[ringout]

Chicos behaved for what, a couple of weeks?

[Dawson Rental]

Chicos behaved for what, a couple of weeks?

The dude argued his point of view.  That's what the board is about.  Not too many of us on here are willing to change our minds.  Worst you can say about CBB on this thread was when people questioned what he was saying he answered.

[dgies9156]

5) of the 127 FBS schools, only 17 are private (listed on page 2).  The "youngest" of these private institutions is Miami ("The U") that started football in 1927 and became a FBS member in 1978.

Nothing about MU suggests it is well positioned to be the 18th private school to join the FBS, and the first in over 35 years.

OK, I missed this. But I will suggest that the ramp-up time from ground zero to FBS title contender is decades. Given the changing landscape of college football NOW, we don't have decades.

I doubt we even have yearS -- if a year.

So move on, folks. Let's do all we can to preserve what we do best, basketball and academics.

[unforgiven]

Compete for NCAA national championship.  Add males to the campus...tuition paying males to help with gender equity ratios, bring football back to campus for the first time in 50 years, etc, etc.

For the same reason why Georgetown, Butler, Dayton, Drake, Davidson, Morehead State, San Diego, Valpo, Mercer, Jacksonville, etc all have teams and why other schools are adding them now.

The comparison to a club level is quite frankly way out there and just flat wrong.  No other way to put it.  These kids are competing for NCAA national championship, not some club level nonsense.  

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what PFL football is, the benefits to Title IX, etc based on comments here.  My guess is most posters here really don't understand it and it's all or nothing at the FBS level, which I don't believe is realistic. 

But yes, MU could have football, play for NCAA titles, have it non-scholarship, and not have it impact Title IX as a result.  Some of you may not be interested, others might.  I'm merely pointing out that it can be done, is being done and can have some ancillary benefits as well.

Blowhard

[GGGG]

Chicos has been fine.  He's stuck to the topic at hand.  Some of you should try it for once.

[ErickJD08]

Ummm, 5 pages in and no on has mentioned that college football will be a shell itself in the next 25-30 years because of the lack of control around injuries, concussions...youth programs and colleges won't be able to get insured, pipelines for football programs will dwindle, and the game will eventually become they way boxing is now. 

When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

This is right on.  We live in a litigious society and it will crush football.  I believe that this will lead to football prep school becoming more popular over country lines where legal requirements will not be so strict.  College football and high school football will take a big hit but NFL will continue to be a machine for our lifetimes and they will continue to need elite talent and farms for that talent.  Who wants to come start a football prep school in Mexico?  Seriously...

[GGGG]

When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

What makes you think this?  We have had multiple people permanently paralyzed and it hasn't done a thing.  We have had former players kill themselves and it hasn't done a thing.  We are coming off the two latest Super Bowls being the two highest television programs of all time, and the upcoming college championship will likely be the highest rated college football game in history.

Honestly, I don't think Tom Brady's death during the Super Bowl would prevent people from watching the next year.

I can see the day where high schools stop offering it and it moves to a club-style sport.  But that day is a long time away IMO.