If MU ever decides to pick up FB again, do you think they'd join these guys?

[GGGG]

And the two teams in the Championship is decided by a computer not a playoff.

Not any longer.

[Brewtown Andy]

Not any longer.

And never has been in FCS.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I know why Marquette disbanded football, and see why we would never try and get hockey, but why has the school never pursued baseball and softball?  Milwaukee, as shown with the Brewers and numerous Cub fans that make the travel up constantly, is a BIG baseball town.  I'm sure that in the Spring (and even early Summer), the school would be able to get a lot of students to a stadium.

Other Big East baseball programs include: Creighton, Xavier, St. John's, Seton Hall, Butler, Georgetown and Villanova.  Our addition would make it an even 8.

I really don't think it would be too difficult to build two facilities that houses 500-1,000 for baseball and a couple hundred for softball. 

[The Equalizer]

Amen Brother.

The obstacles to football are so huge on so many levels they don't make sense.

Let's see:

1) Stadium -- You mentioned the lack of an available stadium. I don't see the State, the City or some generous donor donating $500 million or more for a D1 stadium. Not now, not ever.

2) Athletes -- Uh, we would comet against the Big 10, Notre Dame and the SEC for quality football players. Unless we hired Jimmy Johnson or Nick Saban, we're not getting anyone for at least three generations.

3) Money -- If we suddenly went football and joined the ACC, first we assume they would have us. Second, what would the revenue split be. Uh, not much.

4) Fan interest -- Milwaukee is Buckytown and Packerland when it comes to football. Nothing else matters. It would take at least 100 years to break into fan support at that level.

We couldn't afford college football in 1960 and we sure as heck can't afford it today. If a program like Fordham dropped football years ago (seven blocks of granite land, Vince Lombardi) and there's no chance of bringing it back there, then it is a no-brainer for Marquette.

Each one of these arguments appears to set an unrealistically high minimum bar.  Big Ten or SEC level player requirements?  Packer or Badger level fan support?  Anything wrong with starting with modest goals?

1. Stadium: $500 million for a D1 stadium?  Hardly. Charlotte just built one to start their D1 Football program for $45 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Richardson_Stadium

2. Athletes: We can only play football if be beat out the Big Ten, Notre Dame or SEC for players?  Again, hardly.  FBS has 125 teams, so even taking out the Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame, that leaves 100 or so other teams that somehow manage to scrape together enough players to field a team.  And aonther 100 or so teams in the FCS.  

3. Money: First, ACC membership would never be our first step.  However,  if the ACC would have us the revenue split would be a lot more than "not much."  I think their teams get $17 million per year.

4. Fan Interest.  So equality with the Packers is the minimum initial goal?  I guess we should drop our soccer program rignt now because they don't have the same fan interest as the World Cup.


The consideration here should be the long range planning.  Start with the possiblity that there will eventually be a football/basketball split in D1, with the 125 FBS programs getting tired of spitting the basketball tournament money 350 ways.   And those 125 programs include most of the top basketball programs, including all the elites.

If you start with that assumption, then in order for for MU to maintain basketball at our current level, we have to be in a position to meet FBS membership--and unlike the straw man argument above, NOT make competing for a championship on day one the minimum requirement.

Villanova and Georgetown are much closer to that--with existing FCS football programs in place it would take a lot less to elelvate their programs and join FBS--not in an elite conference, but at least maintain a level where their basetball program would still compete with Duke and Kentucky and UNC and Michigan State and UCLA etc. Even Butler and Dayton are closer to being able to upgrade their program than we are.

The challenges are not insurmountable. Its been about decade since the last major fundraising progam at MU took place--Magis raised $350 million back then.  MU's next major effort will be larger, and if football becomes a priority, then it's added as small line item on a big overall goal. The $100 million cost to launch a program becomes a small part of, say, an overall $750 million 10-year fundraising campaign.  

This is a years if not decades long process.  Fundraise. Built a stadium--which would house our soccer and track&field programs as well.  Launch an FCS team. Build the operational infruscture and experience running a football program.  And when necessary to maintain our basketball program playing at the highest level, upgrade the program to FBS.

The downside is that there is a chance--not saying its absolute, but certainly a chance-- that without football, within 20 years all our sports (including basketball) will wind up competing in a second-tier division/association to be the best of these teams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_non-football_programs

[GGGG]

The challenges are not insurmountable. Its been about decade since the last major fundraising progam at MU took place--Magis raised $350 million back then.  MU's next major effort will be larger, and if football becomes a priority, then it's added as small line item on a big overall goal. The $100 million cost to launch a program becomes a small part of, say, an overall $750 million 10-year fundraising campaign. 

Of course that's $100M that couldn't be spent elsewhere...endowment...basketball program, etc.   Unless you can show that the donors for this $100M wouldn't choose to donate at all to the next campaign, you would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Brewtown Andy]

I know why Marquette disbanded football, and see why we would never try and get hockey, but why has the school never pursued baseball and softball?  Milwaukee, as shown with the Brewers and numerous Cub fans that make the travel up constantly, is a BIG baseball town.  I'm sure that in the Spring (and even early Summer), the school would be able to get a lot of students to a stadium.

The college baseball and softball seasons start in February, and end by mid-May.

I really don't think it would be too difficult to build two facilities that houses 500-1,000 for baseball and a couple hundred for softball. 

But where to put it.....

[Brewtown Andy]

The challenges are not insurmountable. Its been about decade since the last major fundraising progam at MU took place--Magis raised $350 million back then.  MU's next major effort will be larger, and if football becomes a priority, then it's added as small line item on a big overall goal. The $100 million cost to launch a program becomes a small part of, say, an overall $750 million 10-year fundraising campaign.

And, according to Dr. Lovell, it won't.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/wild-lovell-look-ahead-to-historic-transition-at-marquette-university-b99297303z1-264555721.html

You're also forgetting about the expenditure required to even out the scholarships laid out for both male and female student athletes.  MU can't just drop every other men's sport, so it would require starting about 5 more women's sports, which means facilities and staff for all of those as well.  It would also require a massive amount of scholarship money donated to the Blue & Gold Fund, because it's not covering the scholarships that Marquette can offer right now.

The downside is that there is a chance--not saying its absolute, but certainly a chance-- that without football, within 20 years all our sports (including basketball) will wind up competing in a second-tier division/association to be the best of these teams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_non-football_programs

There's also a chance that within 20 years that football as we know it doesn't exist, depending on how many parents don't want their sons playing.

[TedBaxter]

. 

[tower912]

UNC-Charlotte already owned the land they built the football field on.    Any discussion of building a football field needs to take into account real estate for the field, the practice facilities, parking.    Since it would have to be in proximity to MU, you are talking about already developed land.   There may be brownfield considerations.    And getting rid of all of the old buildings.   And eminent domain issues.   And destroying neighborhoods.    When all of that has been taken care of, the real estate acquisition, the environmental issues, the practice facilities, the corresponding female scholarships, the parking.....then you can spend the $45 million on a football field that seats 15k.

[The Equalizer]

Of course that's $100M that couldn't be spent elsewhere...endowment...basketball program, etc. 

That's true of every dollar raised. So what?

 Unless you can show that the donors for this $100M wouldn't choose to donate at all to the next campaign, you would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

First, nobody's donating to "this $100M".  They would be donating to an overall $750M development campaign which includes a mix of high-level university goals across endowment, athletics, facilities, etc.

Second, can you show me any evidence that before it launched, someone at MU made your argument that Magis would be a bad idea because donors might choose not to donate to the next campaign?  Or better yet, can you find any evidence that Magis actually resulted in the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" situation you suggested?

Thrid, if you don't run both a campaign now and one in the future, how do you collect from those who are willing to pay both Peter AND Paul?  If you skip this campaign over fear of depressing donations for next one, you miss out on all those who would have been willing to donate for both.  

[Brewtown Andy]

That's true of every dollar raised. So what?


First, nobody's donating to "this $100M".  They would be donating to an overall $750M development campaign which includes a mix of high-level university goals across endowment, athletics, facilities, etc.

It took Marquette eight years to raise $357 million in the Magis campaign.

http://marquettewire.org/2014/05/01/tribune/tribune-news/mu-needs-new-fundraising-efforts-with-new-leadership/

[The Equalizer]

It took Marquette eight years to raise $357 million in the Magis campaign.

http://marquettewire.org/2014/05/01/tribune/tribune-news/mu-needs-new-fundraising-efforts-with-new-leadership/

Gotcha. We shoudn't set long any term goals or try to raise funds because it might take more than a few months.

[GGGG]

Gotcha. We shoudn't set long any term goals or try to raise funds because it might take more than a few months.

Actually you are right.

*We* shouldn't set long term goals because *we* don't have a good enough understanding of the environment in which Marquette operates. 

[The Equalizer]

*We* shouldn't set long term goals because *we* don't have a good enough understanding of the environment in which Marquette operates. 

But you have enough operational understanding to argue the other side?

I'll remind you of your self-admitted lack of operational understanding next time you comment on anything.

Bottom line--none of the objections raised here are insurmoutable. Its certainly not going to take $500 million to build a stadium. MU could certainly develop a plan that would initially launch at the FCS level with a long term plan to get to FBS.

Look at what the arguments are:
--Placing artificially high hurdles (we have to have Packer-like fan support or compete with Big Ten or SEC programs from day one. 
--Suggesting it would take $500 million for a football stadium when it could be done for far less
--Implying that we sholdn't fundraise because it might take a long time
--Saying we can't discuss it becuase we don't have "a good enough understanding of the enviornment". 
--Suggesting that normal operational costs (additional scholarships, parking) can't be covered.

None of these are showstoppers.

Will answer be easy? No. Fast? No. But that doesn't mean "It Can't Possibly Be Done!" as so many here emphatically state time and time again.

And I'm not even saying that it should be done. All I'm pointing out are the flaws in the arguments here that it can't be done.  If the will to relaunch a football program is there, it is certainly doable--none of the oft-stated objections are insurmountable.

[GGGG]

First, nobody's donating to "this $100M".  They would be donating to an overall $750M development campaign which includes a mix of high-level university goals across endowment, athletics, facilities, etc.

Second, can you show me any evidence that before it launched, someone at MU made your argument that Magis would be a bad idea because donors might choose not to donate to the next campaign?  Or better yet, can you find any evidence that Magis actually resulted in the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" situation you suggested?

Thrid, if you don't run both a campaign now and one in the future, how do you collect from those who are willing to pay both Peter AND Paul?  If you skip this campaign over fear of depressing donations for next one, you miss out on all those who would have been willing to donate for both.  

What?  You are making no sense.

Marquette, as with every other organization, determines its priorities for fund-raising and then figures out how much in can raise over a certain period of time.  It then readjusts its priorities (if it has to), figures out who to target for what priorities, and solicits them accordingly.

Let's say they determine they can raise $750M.  If you add in a $100M football priority, something must be dropped to get to $750M.  (No one will set a goal higher than they can raise.)  So adding football clearly means that something would have to be dropped from that list of priorities. 

Fortunately Marquette has figured out that football is money waster and is going to raise $100M for more important things.

[tower912]

New UH Cougar stadium on site of old one, (no new real estate) 40 k seats $120 Million
New Tulane stadium on campus (no new real estate) $75 million
New Baylor stadium, 45k seats, $250 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulman_Stadium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDECU_Stadium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLane_Stadium

None of them had to acquire 100 acres of land in downtown Milwaukee. 

[The Equalizer]

New UH Cougar stadium on site of old one, (no new real estate) 40 k seats $120 Million
New Tulane stadium on campus (no new real estate) $75 million
New Baylor stadium, 45k seats, $250 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulman_Stadium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDECU_Stadium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLane_Stadium

None of them had to acquire 100 acres of land in downtown Milwaukee. 

Thank you for proving my point about the ridiculousness of the $500 million number. That's the price of  Charlotte, Houston, Baylor and Tulane COMBINED.  And you would still have $10 million left over.

And the fact that you suggest 100 acres is required for a stadium disqualifies you from further comment.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Girls, you are both pretty.

Is bringing back football impossible? No.

Would it be extremely difficult and make no sense for the university to pursue? Yes.

[The Equalizer]

What?  You are making no sense.

Marquette, as with every other organization, determines its priorities for fund-raising and then figures out how much in can raise over a certain period of time.  It then readjusts its priorities (if it has to), figures out who to target for what priorities, and solicits them accordingly.

Let's say they determine they can raise $750M.  If you add in a $100M football priority, something must be dropped to get to $750M.  (No one will set a goal higher than they can raise.)  So adding football clearly means that something would have to be dropped from that list of priorities. 

I question how you have enough understanding of the enviornment in which Marquette operates to make such comments.   

My point, simply statated, is that if launching a football program becomes a priority, then the objections raised here aren't insurmountable.  Nor can the objection stated here be reasonably used as arguments against making football a priority.

You're missing the point that my initial premise already assumed that MU went through all that prioritization that you ranted about--and after all that decided that football is one of those priorites worth pursuing.

Your next response should start with this assumption...In the scenario I'm writing about, MU already went through a full and thorough prioirtization process and determined that adding football is a university priority.

My point is that the objections stated so far--a $500 million stadium, requirement for fan support akin to the Packers, requirement to field a Big Ten/SEC level team, fundraising might take a long time--are either ridiculous on their face, or not as insurmountable as claimed.

Would it be extremely difficult and make no sense for the university to pursue? Yes.

If you start with the premise (as I did) that over the long term there may be a D1 split between the FBS/FCS teams and the non-football teams; AND you want your basketball program to compete at that highest level, then it does make sense to at least start looking at adding football.

I know the strong desire is to assume that nobody moves our cheese and our basketball program will always be a part of whatever universe includes the UCLAs and Wisconsins and Notre Dames and Dukes of the world. I'm starting with the premise that this that might not be the case.

So with that as the perspective, would you not agree that it makes some sense to at least start to look at our options?

[GGGG]

I question how you have enough understanding of the enviornment in which Marquette operates to make such comments.   

My point, simply statated, is that if launching a football program becomes a priority, then the objections raised here aren't insurmountable.  Nor can the objection stated here be reasonably used as arguments against making football a priority.

You're missing the point that my initial premise already assumed that MU went through all that prioritization that you ranted about--and after all that decided that football is one of those priorites worth pursuing.

Your next response should start with this assumption...In the scenario I'm writing about, MU already went through a full and thorough prioirtization process and determined that adding football is a university priority.

My point is that the objections stated so far--a $500 million stadium, requirement for fan support akin to the Packers, requirement to field a Big Ten/SEC level team, fundraising might take a long time--are either ridiculous on their face, or not as insurmountable as claimed.

Well since it obviously isn't a priority for the University, this is pretty much a silly exercise then.

[tower912]

Thank you for proving my point about the ridiculousness of the $500 million number. That's the price of  Charlotte, Houston, Baylor and Tulane COMBINED.  And you would still have $10 million left over.

And the fact that you suggest 100 acres is required for a stadium disqualifies you from further comment.

None of them had to purchase property in an already densely built up urban area or demolish buildings they didn't already own.   But maybe Milwaukee will just donate the property as payback for all of the jaywalking tickets they inflicted on MU students.   

[🏀]

Thank you for proving my point about the ridiculousness of the $500 million number. That's the price of  Charlotte, Houston, Baylor and Tulane COMBINED.  And you would still have $10 million left over.

And the fact that you suggest 100 acres is required for a stadium disqualifies you from further comment.

Baylor's new stadium has a 110 acre footprint, just FYI.

[Texas Western]

Each one of these arguments appears to set an unrealistically high minimum bar.  Big Ten or SEC level player requirements?  Packer or Badger level fan support?  Anything wrong with starting with modest goals?

1. Stadium: $500 million for a D1 stadium?  Hardly. Charlotte just built one to start their D1 Football program for $45 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Richardson_Stadium

2. Athletes: We can only play football if be beat out the Big Ten, Notre Dame or SEC for players?  Again, hardly.  FBS has 125 teams, so even taking out the Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame, that leaves 100 or so other teams that somehow manage to scrape together enough players to field a team.  And aonther 100 or so teams in the FCS.  

3. Money: First, ACC membership would never be our first step.  However,  if the ACC would have us the revenue split would be a lot more than "not much."  I think their teams get $17 million per year.

4. Fan Interest.  So equality with the Packers is the minimum initial goal?  I guess we should drop our soccer program rignt now because they don't have the same fan interest as the World Cup.


The consideration here should be the long range planning.  Start with the possiblity that there will eventually be a football/basketball split in D1, with the 125 FBS programs getting tired of spitting the basketball tournament money 350 ways.   And those 125 programs include most of the top basketball programs, including all the elites.

If you start with that assumption, then in order for for MU to maintain basketball at our current level, we have to be in a position to meet FBS membership--and unlike the straw man argument above, NOT make competing for a championship on day one the minimum requirement.

Villanova and Georgetown are much closer to that--with existing FCS football programs in place it would take a lot less to elelvate their programs and join FBS--not in an elite conference, but at least maintain a level where their basetball program would still compete with Duke and Kentucky and UNC and Michigan State and UCLA etc. Even Butler and Dayton are closer to being able to upgrade their program than we are.

The challenges are not insurmountable. Its been about decade since the last major fundraising progam at MU took place--Magis raised $350 million back then.  MU's next major effort will be larger, and if football becomes a priority, then it's added as small line item on a big overall goal. The $100 million cost to launch a program becomes a small part of, say, an overall $750 million 10-year fundraising campaign.  

This is a years if not decades long process.  Fundraise. Built a stadium--which would house our soccer and track&field programs as well.  Launch an FCS team. Build the operational infruscture and experience running a football program.  And when necessary to maintain our basketball program playing at the highest level, upgrade the program to FBS.

The downside is that there is a chance--not saying its absolute, but certainly a chance-- that without football, within 20 years all our sports (including basketball) will wind up competing in a second-tier division/association to be the best of these teams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_non-football_programs

If we wanted to do Football again we would have to do it as a Pioneer Football League team. Even then there are obstacles. Lets look at what is achievable first.  Pioneer Football is non scholarship so no Title IX issues. Second, the stadium becomes less of an issue. The teams in that League play in 5 to 10,000 seat fields. We could configure Valley Fields with temporary Bleachers on the track surface during the Football season .  Playing at Valley makes if an amenity for the students and I am certain there would be enough student support to pack the place. Although I don't expect much revenue from this.  The obstacles are we would need  administrative,locker room and training facilities for the team.  In addition we would need funding for the operating expenses  coaches , travel , insurance etc. We would need a donor to get the program started and to fund it going forward.  Basically I think someone would have to really want to see this happen and do a lot of research and be willing to put up the money .  When that happens we will get a football program. In the meantime I still think our best bet is to start a write in campaign to get Derrick Wilson an invite to the NFL combine.

[tower912]

Baylor's new stadium has a 110 acre footprint, just FYI.

Does that disqualify Equalizer from further comment?

[🏀]

Does that disqualify Equalizer from further comment?

Probably.

#equalized