MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: MU Avenue on September 12, 2010, 06:51:26 PM
-
I keep reading that it would cost about $100 million to bring football back to Marquette.
Who says? What costs could possibly total an astonishing $100 million?
I know someone at Marquette, perhaps the Rev. Robert A. Wild, has put the cost at $100 million, but has anyone ever itemized how that figure was calculated?
I am one who would love to see Marquette seriously consider and investigate the possibility of making a return to NCAA football.
Others universities have done it successfully in recent years. Why not Marquette?
-
Actually it is $125mm, per Steve Cottingham. I am sure Fr. Wild had other things on his mind. Got cash?
http://mobile.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=6e6dfca5a2/start=2
-
Actually it is $125mm, per Steve Cottingham. I am sure Fr. Wild had other things on his mind. Got cash?
http://mobile.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=6e6dfca5a2/start=2
Not if we wanted to play at a lower division like Dayton, San Diego, Butler, Georgetown, etc, play at. Not even close. It all depends on what level you want to play at.
-
It might be a nice investment. It might do more than we think for the school. Obviously, it would entertain the MUScoop posters who love Marquette and love sports. But I think it is more than that.
Football would help with recruiting and create an atmosphere for alums to get together, and in turn it creates a good atmosphere where Marquette can solicit donations from them.
College football also seems to be a prominent topic in offices and networking situations. Having a football team would help MU professionals indirectly in that way.
It is also annoying that people do not recognize the name of our school. Football is probably the best way to improve that.
-
Actually it is $125mm, per Steve Cottingham. I am sure Fr. Wild had other things on his mind. Got cash?
http://mobile.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=6e6dfca5a2/start=2
Thank you for the reply and information, Dr. Blackheart.
So Athletic Director Steve Cottingham says the total cost to bring football back to Marquette “is probably over $125 million.”
Probably?
This is based on thorough research or on a hunch? A gut instinct?
Has Marquette thoroughly investigated what it would take to make a return to collegiate football? Yes or no?
It would “probably” cost more than $125 million?
Probably?
Let us see the numbers?
Again, other universities have started or brought back football in recent years. How did they manage it?
-
Not if we wanted to play at a lower division like Dayton, San Diego, Butler, Georgetown, etc, play at. Not even close. It all depends on what level you want to play at.
I think with opponents like Concordia, UW-Parkside, etc., one would have to consider if there's REALLY a difference between CLUB football and lower NCAA Division football.
One thing that WOULD be cool: subsidies from the Big East to help kick start D1 teams in certain Big East cities.
It would be expensive at first, but if they were ever able to create a more formidable D1 football conference, that'd be a GOOD thing.
-
Love the idea about subsidies.
As for how they got the $125 million figure, I am sure they aren't just pulling numbers out of their butts. You guys are underestimating all the hidden costs.
Facilities.
Scholarships (waaaay more than basketball).
Coaches/trainers/equipment.
And probably the biggest cost, which no one is thinking about...matching that investment in women's sport(s) to comply with Title IX.
-
One thing that WOULD be cool: subsidies from the Big East to help kick start D1 teams in certain Big East cities.
It would be expensive at first, but if they were ever able to create a more formidable D1 football conference, that'd be a GOOD thing.
Subsidies from the BE might be a good investment for the conference, especially if they really want the Chicago area to get the BE network. If the BE invests and makes itself into a good conference, there is no reason Notre Dame wouldn't consider joining the Big East equally with joining the Big Ten once all of that talk gets going again. The Big East would be easier to win and put ND consistently into the BCS with automatic bids.
Milwaukee might want to consider subsidizing some of it since MU football games would give Milwaukee 5 or 6 events in the city which would help local restaurants, bars, and shops. Without an NFL team in Milwaukee, casual fans may even go to the games.
I think starting a team at a lower level is good idea. Then, once basic facilities are in place make the jump to the Big East. Incremental steps are ideal here.
With MU alums thinking about MU on Saturdays during the fall, those donation checks would have to come at a better clip. If not for basketball, I would not think about MU nearly as much as I do. Football would add to that, even if we were bad for a while.
-
People are also underestimating another factor. Who is your audience? In a town that loves the Packers and has plenty of Badger football support, MU IMO would have a tough time finding an audience. I disagree with Chicos...I think non-scholarship D1 football is a joke. It will do nothing for the University.
So you have no stadium...a limited audience...Title IX issues...
No thanks.
-
Subsidies from the BE might be a good investment for the conference, especially if they really want the Chicago area to get the BE network. If the BE invests and makes itself into a good conference, there is no reason Notre Dame wouldn't consider joining the Big East equally with joining the Big Ten once all of that talk gets going again. The Big East would be easier to win and put ND consistently into the BCS with automatic bids.
OMG...are you serious? If the BE wants to be a good football conference, you get good football schools. Not a bunch of private schools with limited fan support who don't even play FBS level football now. And as for your Notre Dame comments...that's just nuts. I can give you millions of reasons why the B10 is a better option.
-
24 starters and 22 backups = 46 male student athletes that need female counterparts because of Title IX. Unless you want to shut down mens soccer, track & golf.
Plus housing and feeding them. Coaching staff. Stadium. Training facility. Training staff. Increased athletics staff for ticketing, marketing, facilities.
And this is before playing 1 game. Getting close yet?
-
Here is a FB page and article on the cost of starting up a pigskin program at Winthrop...a lot less than $125mm...but does not consider the matching Title IX sport costs.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2221881065
Winthrop Explores Donor Support for Football
ROCK HILL, SC--If college football fans in the region want Winthrop University to field a gridiron team, they had best be ready to do more than buy season tickets.
Recent estimates indicate starting an intercollegiate football team at Winthrop would be a multi-million dollar proposition – over $18 million, much of it in facilities costs, just to get to the first kick-off – with over $2.4 million in annual operating and scholarship costs after that.
University President Anthony DiGiorgio said he created a task force last year to come up with those estimates, among other things, so he would have a detailed answer to a question he’s been hearing every autumn for some years: “What would it take for us to have football at Winthrop?”
That task force -- part of a larger group doing a 10-year projection of prospects for the overall athletics program -- sees identifying the level of potential donor support as the first question to be answered in determining how feasible it might be for Winthrop to field an Eagles football team, DiGiorgio said Tuesday. To generate that discussion, DiGiorgio authorized Athletics Director Tom Hickman, who chairs the task force, to release to the public details of the cost estimates developed by the task force now, ahead of completion of the final report. That will enable the task force to take stock of the public reaction to the “real dollars and cents” part of the question, see what donor support might step forward, and make that assessment part of the task force report before it is finalized.
“It’s the fundamental feasibility question that must be addressed before exploring such a step any further,” DiGiorgio said.
“Where would the money come from? Over what period of time? Football these days is an extraordinarily expensive sport for an institution to offer as part of its athletics program. The start-up costs are daunting and the operating costs are formidable. For our type institution, gate receipts would constitute only a part of any realistic financial plan. There are capital costs, personnel costs, and scholarship costs to be considered – and all those come before the first kick-off. Public tax dollars aren’t available for this, and Winthrop has other priorities for whatever tax dollars are available anyway.
That leaves donor and fan support as the principal bases of support to be assessed. We are in a fortunate situation at Winthrop now, in that our existing athletics program is on firm enough footing that we can look at this question.”
According to preliminary cost figures, a football program on the NCAA Division I level would require an initial expenditure for first-year operational costs totaling almost $1.7 million that would cover salaries for a coaching staff and support personnel, uniforms and playing equipment, and scholarships. The scholarship estimate amounts to $480,000 for 30 full scholarship equivalents which would be for the first year only. The scholarship expense for subsequent years could go to $848,000 based on today’s cost.
In addition to the start-up operational, an additional $16.6 million would be needed for facilities. Included in that figure would be $11.5 million to construct a new 8,000-seat stadium that would include a press box, hospitality area and furnishings. An additional $5.1 million would be needed for a 24,000 square foot field house for coaches’ offices, locker rooms, a weight training room, athletic training room, furniture and equipment. An additional start-up cost of $160,000 would be needed for the formation of a marching band program.
The estimates were assembled by a group that includes individuals experienced in such start-ups of inter-collegiate programs. Members serving on the task force include:
J.P McKee, Winthrop vice president for finance and business; Roger Weikle, dean of the Winthrop College of Business; J. Terrell May, Winthrop director of special gifts; Jim Johnston, chairman of the Winthrop Department of Biology; Debbie Garrick, executive director for Winthrop alumni affairs; Evelyne Weeks, English instructor and NCAA Faculty Athletics Representative; Jack Frost, assistant athletic director for media relations; Doug Echols, mayor for the City of Rock Hill and commissioner of the South Atlantic Conference; John Black, former Eagle Club president and local businessman; and Mike Drummond, athletic director for South Pointe High School. Alan White, retired athletic director at Elon University, has served as consultant.
-
Not if we wanted to play at a lower division like Dayton, San Diego, Butler, Georgetown, etc, play at. Not even close. It all depends on what level you want to play at.
What, a lawyer like Cottingham exaggerate? Say it ain't so ...
-
I think with opponents like Concordia, UW-Parkside, etc., one would have to consider if there's REALLY a difference between CLUB football and lower NCAA Division football.
One thing that WOULD be cool: subsidies from the Big East to help kick start D1 teams in certain Big East cities.
It would be expensive at first, but if they were ever able to create a more formidable D1 football conference, that'd be a GOOD thing.
If you've been to one club football game in your life, you would know the difference. My high school team would destroy our club football team...then again, my high school team is ranked in the top 10 in the state and just crushed national power Long Beach Poly 32-7 on Friday night.
No one from club football anywhere in this country plays in the NFL. At least there are a few guys over the years that have made it to the NFL at the II and even III level.
-
People are also underestimating another factor. Who is your audience? In a town that loves the Packers and has plenty of Badger football support, MU IMO would have a tough time finding an audience. I disagree with Chicos...I think non-scholarship D1 football is a joke. It will do nothing for the University.
So you have no stadium...a limited audience...Title IX issues...
No thanks.
Spoken like a Badger and Packer fan. ;D
Not in a million years am I saying it would replace the football fix that the folks in Wisconsin have over those two professional teams ( ;)), all I'm saying is it would be great to have a team. Would love to have some pigskin on campus that wasn't of the Club variety. Having attended a few Dayton games in my life, it was quite fun, something for the alums to do along with the students on a Saturday afternoon in the Fall.
-
Spoken like a Badger and Packer fan. ;D
Not in a million years am I saying it would replace the football fix that the folks in Wisconsin have over those two professional teams ( ;)), all I'm saying is it would be great to have a team. Would love to have some pigskin on campus that wasn't of the Club variety. Having attended a few Dayton games in my life, it was quite fun, something for the alums to do along with the students on a Saturday afternoon in the Fall.
See and my son goes to Butler...and no one goes to the football games there. And they are actually a fairly decent non-scholarship program.
-
Wis-Whitewater averages about 4,000 per game. They are one of the premier DIII football programs in the country. It can happen and in the state of Wisconsin if they wanted to do it.
Eau Claire is less than 3,000 per game.
Powers like Mount Union, less than 4,000.
For a conference, the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Conference averages barely 2,500 a game.
I'm more in the camp that it would be very cool to have a football team that doesn't have to be a DI FBS program. Averaging 2K to 4K would be great and on par with the other programs in the country at that level. Nothing wrong with that. And it could be done for nowhere near the fairy tale amounts being thrown around on this board.
Or play DI FCS like Butler and Dayton. Butler averages about 2,500. Dayton about 4,000 but I've been at games that were close to 10,000 over the years. Hell, even tiny little Alcorn State who puts guys in the NFL at a pretty decent clip only averages about 5,400 a game.
https://admin.xosn.com/pdf8/673802.pdf?SPSID=43210&SPID=3829&KEY=ESZIGVSSFOSGQWY.20100223160142&DB_ACCOUNT_TYPE=AGENT&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=9700
-
Has Marquette thoroughly investigated what it would take to make a return to collegiate football? Yes or no?
Yes, and the numbers they looked at when investigating how to do it the right way are way more than the $125 million that Cottingham was quoted talking about.
If the goal is to build a competitive program in FBS football you can't do it half assed. You can't just jump in try to get to the FBS level right away, you've got to build a FCS program for a few years, then go up to the independent level and then to a BCS conference. That means you've got to have a ton of money up front just to even entertain the notion because you're probably going to have to fund 10 years of football on your own.
FCS teams are allowed 65 scholarships per year. With MU's tuition and room and board, that's $2.6 million. But you can't build a program that is going to get a BCS conference invite in a year, it just won't happen. You need a few years to build the infrastructure, build the facilities etc before the Big East will even take a look at you. In all honesty, it would probably be about 5 years. So assuming no rise in costs, you're looking at $13 million. But then you've got to double it to be Title IX compliant, so we're talking about more like $26 million....and that's just to get a FCS program that would get a sniff from a BCS conference. In all likelihood, you need to have money to cover the scholarships for the first few years of FBS football as well. The big boys get 85 scholarships, so that's $3.4 million for just one year. But again, you can't just have the money for one year, you've got to have it for 4 or 5, because you're spending your first two years as a transitional independent due to NCAA requirements. So you'll need more like $17 million, which again has to be doubled because of Title IX to get $34 million.
So you're looking at needing something like $60 million just in scholarship costs up front and that's assuming costs stay the same. That's half of Cottingham's number....and you still haven't built a stadium, you haven't hired coaches, you haven't built practice facilities and a weight room, you haven't purchased the equipment and training supplies needed....and don't forget you have to do all of that stuff for the women's teams your adding as well because MU doesn't have any of the facilities for them either. And you've got to find a place to house another 160 students, because that space doesn't really exist.
So $125 million is really just a starting point. To get it built, you've got to go much higher than that.
Again, other universities have started or brought back football in recent years. How did they manage it?
They're public school with much lower costs than MU. Look at the private schools still playing FBS football and compare their endowments with what MU has. There's a reason most private schools got out of the football business long ago.
-
Yes, and the numbers they looked at when investigating how to do it the right way are way more than the $125 million that Cottingham was quoted talking about.
If the goal is to build a competitive program in FBS football you can't do it half assed. You can't just jump in try to get to the FBS level right away, you've got to build a FCS program for a few years, then go up to the independent level and then to a BCS conference. That means you've got to have a ton of money up front just to even entertain the notion because you're probably going to have to fund 10 years of football on your own.
FCS teams are allowed 65 scholarships per year. With MU's tuition and room and board, that's $2.6 million. But you can't build a program that is going to get a BCS conference invite in a year, it just won't happen. You need a few years to build the infrastructure, build the facilities etc before the Big East will even take a look at you. In all honesty, it would probably be about 5 years. So assuming no rise in costs, you're looking at $13 million. But then you've got to double it to be Title IX compliant, so we're talking about more like $26 million....and that's just to get a FCS program that would get a sniff from a BCS conference. In all likelihood, you need to have money to cover the scholarships for the first few years of FBS football as well. The big boys get 85 scholarships, so that's $3.4 million for just one year. But again, you can't just have the money for one year, you've got to have it for 4 or 5, because you're spending your first two years as a transitional independent due to NCAA requirements. So you'll need more like $17 million, which again has to be doubled because of Title IX to get $34 million.
So you're looking at needing something like $60 million just in scholarship costs up front and that's assuming costs stay the same. That's half of Cottingham's number....and you still haven't built a stadium, you haven't hired coaches, you haven't built practice facilities and a weight room, you haven't purchased the equipment and training supplies needed....and don't forget you have to do all of that stuff for the women's teams your adding as well because MU doesn't have any of the facilities for them either. And you've got to find a place to house another 160 students, because that space doesn't really exist.
So $125 million is really just a starting point. To get it built, you've got to go much higher than that.
They're public school with much lower costs than MU. Look at the private schools still playing FBS football and compare their endowments with what MU has. There's a reason most private schools got out of the football business long ago.
How much money would be saved by simply cutting a few men's sports as opposed to adding more women's scholarships?
I really don't think that football at MU is realistic, but cutting men's sports would comply with Title IX as well...which is the main reason why Title IX is BS.
-
I think with opponents like Concordia, UW-Parkside, etc., one would have to consider if there's REALLY a difference between CLUB football and lower NCAA Division football.
One thing that WOULD be cool: subsidies from the Big East to help kick start D1 teams in certain Big East cities.
It would be expensive at first, but if they were ever able to create a more formidable D1 football conference, that'd be a GOOD thing.
Those of us that remember Marquette's Club football team from the 70's will remember that Sports Illustrated described one of our games as the "world's largest outdoor cocktail party" The kick-off parade down Wisconsin Ave was quite a sight!
-
How much money would be saved by simply cutting a few men's sports as opposed to adding more women's scholarships?
I really don't think that football at MU is realistic, but cutting men's sports would comply with Title IX as well...which is the main reason why Title IX is BS.
Not much.
Men's Soccer is 9.9 scholarships.
Men's Tennis is 4.5 scholarship.
Men's Golf is 4.5 scholarships.
Men's Track/Cross Country is 12.6 scholarships between the two.
So in total you'd be looking at 32.5 scholarships, so you'd still have to come up with 50 more for the women, which mean's adding some sports. And that's if you cut all men's sports besides basketball, which I'm pretty sure the NCAA doesn't let you do.
-
Wis-Whitewater averages about 4,000 per game. They are one of the premier DIII football programs in the country. It can happen and in the state of Wisconsin if they wanted to do it.
Eau Claire is less than 3,000 per game.
Powers like Mount Union, less than 4,000.
For a conference, the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Conference averages barely 2,500 a game.
I'm more in the camp that it would be very cool to have a football team that doesn't have to be a DI FBS program. Averaging 2K to 4K would be great and on par with the other programs in the country at that level. Nothing wrong with that. And it could be done for nowhere near the fairy tale amounts being thrown around on this board.
You realize we can't do that, right? Since 1992, NCAA rules prohibit schools that are Division I in other sports from competing in Division III in football. The lowest level we could go would be non-scholarship FCS football.
-
Having attended a few Dayton games in my life, it was quite fun, something for the alums to do along with the students on a Saturday afternoon in the Fall.
I'm from Dayton and go to a lot of those games... but students don't.
-
Wis-Whitewater averages about 4,000 per game. They are one of the premier DIII football programs in the country. It can happen and in the state of Wisconsin if they wanted to do it.
Eau Claire is less than 3,000 per game.
Powers like Mount Union, less than 4,000.
For a conference, the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Conference averages barely 2,500 a game.
I'm more in the camp that it would be very cool to have a football team that doesn't have to be a DI FBS program. Averaging 2K to 4K would be great and on par with the other programs in the country at that level. Nothing wrong with that. And it could be done for nowhere near the fairy tale amounts being thrown around on this board.
Or play DI FCS like Butler and Dayton. Butler averages about 2,500. Dayton about 4,000 but I've been at games that were close to 10,000 over the years. Hell, even tiny little Alcorn State who puts guys in the NFL at a pretty decent clip only averages about 5,400 a game.
https://admin.xosn.com/pdf8/673802.pdf?SPSID=43210&SPID=3829&KEY=ESZIGVSSFOSGQWY.20100223160142&DB_ACCOUNT_TYPE=AGENT&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=9700
We should look at how a similar school such as Villanova brings back football.
-
How much money would be saved by simply cutting a few men's sports as opposed to adding more women's scholarships?
I really don't think that football at MU is realistic, but cutting men's sports would comply with Title IX as well...which is the main reason why Title IX is BS.
Not an option. Marquette has the minimum number of sports to be a DI school. In fact, only 2 other schools out of 347 DI schools have as few as we do. Everyone else has more than us. Nothing to cut.
-
I'm from Dayton and go to a lot of those games... but students don't.
Maybe not now, but when they were winning national titles I went to a few games, there were definitely some decent crowds there.
BMA, yes, thanks for the reminder. FCS it is then....can be done relatively cheaply.
Here are some other FCS schools that have a football team
Dayton
Butler
University of San Diego (small Catholic school)
St. Francis (PA)
Duquesne
Fordham
Georgetown
Sacred Heart
Holy Cross
Valporaiso
Villanova
Wagner
Marist
Etc
-
So, Chicos, you in for $25 mil for Directv Field? 4Never has the naming rights to the halftime show--Art's Performing Center Marching Band for $5mil in tips. Potawatami is in for $15mil to change the mascot to "Bingo Warriors". MU Scoop?
-
We should look at how a similar school such as Villanova brings back football.
Villanova brought back football 25 years ago. They already had a stadium and had only ended their program 5 years earlier. Not exactly comparable to MU's situation.
-
24 starters and 22 backups = 46 male student athletes that need female counterparts because of Title IX. Unless you want to shut down mens soccer, track & golf.
Plus housing and feeding them. Coaching staff. Stadium. Training facility. Training staff. Increased athletics staff for ticketing, marketing, facilities.
And this is before playing 1 game. Getting close yet?
Well if you are only going to have 46 scholarship players you might as well not even play. Division 1 has a 85 man scholarship limit and every team is right at that point. I for one think football would fail miserably at Marquette. In order for anyone to really care about the team they would need to be Division 1. The team would be horrendous for the first what, 20 years? Marquette does not have the student population or alumni base to support big time football. No one would go to the after a couple of years and we would always play second fiddle to Wisconsin.
-
As a CA boy, it wasn't until I arrived at MU did I realize how big football was in Wisconsin.
In no way would MU compete for the best WI has to offer (FB recruits) especially in the heart of Big Ten country.
But it would be nice to see some WI kids play for a Marquette team.
Or TX kids, for that matter. ;)
-
If creating a football team means establishing Womens Lacrosse and Field Hockey, I am ALL for it ::)
-
People are also underestimating another factor. Who is your audience? In a town that loves the Packers and has plenty of Badger football support, MU IMO would have a tough time finding an audience. I disagree with Chicos...I think non-scholarship D1 football is a joke. It will do nothing for the University.
So you have no stadium...a limited audience...Title IX issues...
No thanks.
+1
-
Did anyone else get the feeling that Joe True was tweeting about this thread earlier this evening with his series on the goals of the Blue & Gold Fund?
-
Maybe not now, but when they were winning national titles I went to a few games, there were definitely some decent crowds there.
That was different. That is when the NCAA allowed D1 schools to play D3 football. They don't allow that anymore, so you have a bunch of schools that are D1 non-scholarship. They play in one of two conferences (Butler's is the Pioneer League...can't remember the other.), against one another and schedule non-conference games against D3 schools.
I'm sorry, but having schools like Carthage, Valparaiso, etc. come to town for a football game would be of no interest to me, and I doubt I'm alone in that regard.
As for the scholarship FCS level, you are talking about 60 some scholarships, and as bma and Chicos have pointed out, we cannot cut any additional men's sports. That means we have to fund similar women's sports to be Title IX compliant. And it would be years before we are competitive. Sorry, but it's just not in the cards.
-
Spoken like a Badger and Packer fan. ;D
Not in a million years am I saying it would replace the football fix that the folks in Wisconsin have over those two professional teams ( ;)), all I'm saying is it would be great to have a team. Would love to have some pigskin on campus that wasn't of the Club variety. Having attended a few Dayton games in my life, it was quite fun, something for the alums to do along with the students on a Saturday afternoon in the Fall.
You're right that it would be fun.
But, I'm afraid it just wouldn't work.
We already talk about how MU hoops has to compete against other forms of entertainment to get fans. MU hoops does well when they are good, they don't draw great when they aren't. ("not great" is a relative term in this instance).
MU adding any sort of low-level football isn't really going to work. There aren't enough alums around to attend games, students (God love them) aren't the most consistent when it comes to sports attendance.
Now, add in all of the Title IX rules, administrative costs, etc. and I'm just afraid it wouldn't work.
HOWEVER...
If MU wants to capture some of the great "autumn on campus" feeling that everybody loves, they could do some sort of homecoming style parade/event for midnight madness. It won't be 50K people, but they might be able to do something cool by closing off Wells st. for the afternoon and doing some sort of block party the day of midnight madness.
-
I generally agree that FB is too difficult to start for Marquette, especially with our weak endowment.
However, the most disheartening thing is that I consistently hear that football drives everything, and eventually without football, MU will get relegated to second-class status.
Basically, we're DOOMED?*
*hoping someone has something inspiring
-
HOWEVER...
If MU wants to capture some of the great "autumn on campus" feeling that everybody loves, they could do some sort of homecoming style parade/event for midnight madness. It won't be 50K people, but they might be able to do something cool by closing off Wells st. for the afternoon and doing some sort of block party the day of midnight madness.
That's actually a pretty cool idea.
-
I generally agree that FB is too difficult to start for Marquette, especially with our weak endowment.
However, the most disheartening thing is that I consistently hear that football drives everything, and eventually without football, MU will get relegated to second-class status.
Basically, we're DOOMED?*
*hoping someone has something inspiring
The very worst thing that can happen to MU basketball is that the BE leaves us behind...or at least the football schools of the BE leave us behind...and we get stuck in some sort of blended conference with BE basketball schools and A10 schools. IMO, that would be sucky, but it would hardly DOOM us.
The nightmare scenario would be if the BCS football schools leave the NCAA entirely, but I don' think that will happen.
-
Yes, and the numbers they looked at when investigating how to do it the right way are way more than the $125 million that Cottingham was quoted talking about.
If the goal is to build a competitive program in FBS football you can't do it half assed. You can't just jump in try to get to the FBS level right away, you've got to build a FCS program for a few years, then go up to the independent level and then to a BCS conference. That means you've got to have a ton of money up front just to even entertain the notion because you're probably going to have to fund 10 years of football on your own.
FCS teams are allowed 65 scholarships per year. With MU's tuition and room and board, that's $2.6 million. But you can't build a program that is going to get a BCS conference invite in a year, it just won't happen. You need a few years to build the infrastructure, build the facilities etc before the Big East will even take a look at you. In all honesty, it would probably be about 5 years. So assuming no rise in costs, you're looking at $13 million. But then you've got to double it to be Title IX compliant, so we're talking about more like $26 million....and that's just to get a FCS program that would get a sniff from a BCS conference. In all likelihood, you need to have money to cover the scholarships for the first few years of FBS football as well. The big boys get 85 scholarships, so that's $3.4 million for just one year. But again, you can't just have the money for one year, you've got to have it for 4 or 5, because you're spending your first two years as a transitional independent due to NCAA requirements. So you'll need more like $17 million, which again has to be doubled because of Title IX to get $34 million.
So you're looking at needing something like $60 million just in scholarship costs up front and that's assuming costs stay the same. That's half of Cottingham's number....and you still haven't built a stadium, you haven't hired coaches, you haven't built practice facilities and a weight room, you haven't purchased the equipment and training supplies needed....and don't forget you have to do all of that stuff for the women's teams your adding as well because MU doesn't have any of the facilities for them either. And you've got to find a place to house another 160 students, because that space doesn't really exist.
So $125 million is really just a starting point. To get it built, you've got to go much higher than that.
They're public school with much lower costs than MU. Look at the private schools still playing FBS football and compare their endowments with what MU has. There's a reason most private schools got out of the football business long ago.
The annual commitment is closer to $20 million/yr. If you take the 60 and divide by 5 you are at $12 mill.
Add $65 mill for stadium and facilities amortized over 30 yrs you have another $5.5 mill
Plus $2-3 Mill for coaches, travel, etc
But this is offset by some revenue say 4000/game and 5 games a year at $10 head equals $200,000 so you are down to finding $19.8 million a year
-
The annual commitment is closer to $20 million/yr. If you take the 60 and divide by 5 you are at $12 mill.
Add $65 mill for stadium and facilities amortized over 30 yrs you have another $5.5 mill
Plus $2-3 Mill for coaches, travel, etc
But this is offset by some revenue say 4000/game and 5 games a year at $10 head equals $200,000 so you are down to finding $19.8 million a year
You forgot maintenance, marketing, sales, additional support staff, offices, etc.
Not huge costs, but certainly enough that it needs to be accounted for.
-
The annual commitment is closer to $20 million/yr. If you take the 60 and divide by 5 you are at $12 mill.
Add $65 mill for stadium and facilities amortized over 30 yrs you have another $5.5 mill
Plus $2-3 Mill for coaches, travel, etc
But this is offset by some revenue say 4000/game and 5 games a year at $10 head equals $200,000 so you are down to finding $19.8 million a year
Seriously, don't you think that Cottingham et al have a better idea of the costs than you do?
-
Plus $2-3 Mill for coaches, travel, etc
Villanova (just now joining the Big East for football, so I figured good comparison) has twelve coaches. Pretty sure the cost to Nova (including benefits) for those 12 employees is more than $3 million. Hell, $3 million is probably how much it costs Marquette for the basketball coaching staff.
-
If the Big East football schools left, I think we could get some kind of pretty decent non-football superconference by combining with the A-10. Its not Big East quality, but it ain't that bad...
DePaul
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame (assuming they would want to stay independent for football)
Providence
St. John's
Seton Hall
UNC Charlotte
St. Louis
Saint Josephs
Xavier
Dayton
Of course, there are more teams from the A-10 if we wanted more than 12 teams. I just picked a few of the best. This wouldn't be a bad conference. A lot of tradition...
-
If the Big East football schools left, I think we could get some kind of pretty decent non-football superconference by combining with the A-10. Its not Big East quality, but it ain't that bad...
DePaul
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame (assuming they would want to stay independent for football)
Providence
St. John's
Seton Hall
UNC Charlotte
St. Louis
Saint Josephs
Xavier
Dayton
Of course, there are more teams from the A-10 if we wanted more than 12 teams. I just picked a few of the best. This wouldn't be a bad conference. A lot of tradition...
I dont see any way in which ND would join the non-football schools. Their athletic department is much bigger than any of those schools and wouldnt fit. Plus, you are assuming ND would walk away from their bowl tie-in with the football schools.
From that list, three teams made the tournament last year (excluding ND). That's not that great. You'd have to schedule a tougher non-conference schedule in a conference like that because conference SOS is pretty weak. Of course, Im not even assuming there would be a drop in recruiting.
-
Seriously, don't you think that Cottingham et al have a better idea of the costs than you do?
Absolutely, the only thing I think I had within +/-$200,000 was revenue
And there is ZERO chance Villanova is paying 12 coaches a total even fully fringed of $250K each on average.
-
I keep reading that it would cost about $100 million to bring football back to Marquette.
Who says? What costs could possibly total an astonishing $100 million?
I know someone at Marquette, perhaps the Rev. Robert A. Wild, has put the cost at $100 million, but has anyone ever itemized how that figure was calculated?
I am one who would love to see Marquette seriously consider and investigate the possibility of making a return to NCAA football.
Others universities have done it successfully in recent years. Why not Marquette?
howmany schools make money with Football?
-
howmany schools make money with Football?
14
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/25/ncaa-report-shows-many-college-programs-in-the-red/
-
You are misreading it Only 14 profit on intercolligiate athletics in general. But the linked ESPN article has this quote:
"Sixty-eight FBS schools reported turning a profit on football, with a median value of $8.8 million. The 52 FBS schools that lost money on football reported median losses of $2.7 million."
IOW, if you make money on football...you make a lot of money on football. If you lose money, you lose a lot of money.
-
Not necessarily true. These are averages, they could range from barely to hugely profitable and from losing a little to losing a lot. Not all of the schools have to be close to the "average"
-
How many private schools with enrollment under 10K outside of Texas are making a profit off of football?
-
For all the argument back and forth over what a football program would cost or how competitive we could be, the fundamental question comes down to this:
Will the BCS/FBS schools ever split from NCAA Division I and form their own division? Forget worrying about conference realignment for a moment . . .is divisional realignment possible? Probable?
If the answer is yes, then Villanova moving up makes all the sense in the world since it puts them on the "good" side of the divisional split for their basketball program.
And Marquette (absent football) will find themselves on the "bad" side of the split.
You can argue all day that a newly formed football program at Marquette would be difficult, expensive, and probably non-competitive for years--if ever. However, keep in mind that that difficult/expensive/crappy football team may be the only way we stay in the same basketball division with such schools as Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Villanova, Syracuse, etc.
-
Not an option. Marquette has the minimum number of sports to be a DI school. In fact, only 2 other schools out of 347 DI schools have as few as we do. Everyone else has more than us. Nothing to cut.
We are tied for last for the number of sports? With one of the highest budgets of non-football schools (the very highest?) in the country?
-
The first issue is building a stadium, finding a place to play. There's no facilities of the proper size in Milwaukee, so that means a new stadium. A 20k capacity stadium like Toyota Park in the Chicago area (but in MKE) will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-100 million dollars.
Second, you have to wonder if it could even be filled. Remember, sometimes MU has trouble selling out the Bradley Center to watch a pretty decent basketball team. Would anyone show up on a windy Saturday in November to sit outside to watch MU football get pasted?
Third, subsidy from Milwaukee for 5-6 extra dates a year? Not happening. When Milwaukee was trying to get an MLS stadium built just north of the BC a couple years ago, the City Council told them to take a hike, and that was for 20 soccer games a year, plus extra dates for concerts. Help ain't coming from the city.
-
We are tied for last for the number of sports? With one of the highest budgets of non-football schools (the very highest?) in the country?
That is correct.
"Division I Criteria
Division I member institutions have to sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports for each gender. " 14 total
1) Men's Basketball
2) Women's Basketball
3) Men's golf
4) Men's Soccer
5) Women's Soccer
6) Women's Volleyball
7) Men's Cross Country
8) Women's Cross Country
9) Men's Outdoor Track
10) Women's Outdoor Track
11) Men's Indoor Track
12) Women's Indoor Track
13) Men's Tennis
14) Women's Tennis
That's all we have.
-
The first issue is building a stadium, finding a place to play. There's no facilities of the proper size in Milwaukee, so that means a new stadium. A 20k capacity stadium like Toyota Park in the Chicago area (but in MKE) will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-100 million dollars.
You do not have to build an $80 to $100 million stadium to play FCS football. FBS, probably, but not FCS. You also don't have to put it in Milwaukee.
Some examples of FCS football stadiums
(http://go.butler.edu/cs/photos/ashlen/images/4204/640x480.aspx)
(http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/dayt/sports/m-footbl/auto_original/174534.jpeg)
-
It's fun to talk about and you can put me in the camp that a program akin to Villanova, Dayton or Georgetown as something I would be interested in, but I have personally heard from first Bill Cords and now Steve Cottingham that there will be no football at Marquette. Period. They don't even discuss it according to Cottingham.
-
We are tied for last for the number of sports? With one of the highest budgets of non-football schools (the very highest?) in the country?
I wonder if it would be worth it to start up a men's and women's lacrosse program.
-
That is correct.
"Division I Criteria
Division I member institutions have to sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports for each gender. " 14 total
1) Men's Basketball
2) Women's Basketball
3) Men's golf
4) Men's Soccer
5) Women's Soccer
6) Women's Volleyball
7) Men's Cross Country
8) Women's Cross Country
9) Men's Outdoor Track
10) Women's Outdoor Track
11) Men's Indoor Track
12) Women's Indoor Track
13) Men's Tennis
14) Women's Tennis
That's all we have.
We're lucky they count running as 6 sports.
-
I wonder if it would be worth it to start up a men's and women's lacrosse program.
I understand that the only reason LAX is the fastest growing sport in America is because fball, bball and baseball cant get much more popular than they already are. However, I go to LAX games every now and then and seeing aywhere from 3K - 12K for a good college game is the norm. That's not bad for a 'second-tier' sport. John Hopkins, Syracuse and Maryland are all good draws. If there was ever a time to get back to LAX, now is it. UDenver made a good run last year and their program is relatively new.
Attendance per year at the NCAA LAX tournament:
http://www.laxpower.com/common/NCAA-Attendance.php
-
A new soccer/lacrosse stadium down at valley fields would be pretty sweet. I'm not a huge lacrosse fan, but the sport is gaining momentum, and it seems to be something that MU could become good at for a nominal investment (compared to football).
They would probably have to add womens field hockey or crew to balance the scholarships, so that makes it tougher.
I don't know if lacrosse could really be revenue producing.
What would avg. attendance have to be to cover the cost of scholarships, salaries, travel, etc.? 3K per game?
That's tough when 1/2 of the season is in early spring. Trying to get students/casual fans to go watch games in early April is tough. I know I wouldn't.
BUT, the late spring tailgating could be pretty fun.
-
How in the world could we, in good conscience, field a lacrosse team and still be sensitive to our mission as a Jesuit institution in regards to Native Americans?
-
Notre Dame (a marginally successful LAX program) thought it was wise to invest in a lax stadium. Cost: $5M The stadium appears to have been built for easy expansion. Current capacity: 3K
http://video.insidelacrosse.com/video/view/9430661/index.php?searchTxt=club
-
Wow, that's a sweet stadium just for lacrosse. I played lacrosse at MU and would love to get a D1 team, but that also doesn't do anything to ensure we stay with the big boys.
IMHO, the only reason to start a football team is to guarantee we don't get left behind if there's ever a split between foootball / non-football schools (in the NCAA or Big East). That means we need to get to FBS status relatively soon (next 5 years or so), anything less just isn't worth it.
-
I guess I don't understand the point of adding anything that isn't going to be revenue producing. People complain about the tuition, and then want to add more sports that don't bring any real value. MU is throwing all of its resources into men's basketball....the one program where it feels it can get the exposure it needs on the intercolligiate athletics side. Why waste those resources on a sport like lax, which will never bring any value to the school?
-
How in the world could we, in good conscience, field a lacrosse team and still be sensitive to our mission as a Jesuit institution in regards to Native Americans?
Awesome.
-
Awesome.
Well, they ARE pretty good at the sport. I believe there were 2 All Americans last year that are native american. Just recruit them....thats a nice gesture, no?
-
I guess I don't understand the point of adding anything that isn't going to be revenue producing. People complain about the tuition, and then want to add more sports that don't bring any real value. MU is throwing all of its resources into men's basketball....the one program where it feels it can get the exposure it needs on the intercolligiate athletics side. Why waste those resources on a sport like lax, which will never bring any value to the school?
I guess I'm thinking/hoping that LaCrosse would at least break even, but I don't know if that's possible.
An upgraded stadium for soccer and lacrosse would attract a few more fans, but we have some significant weather issues that will really keep the casual fan away. Given that you would need to attract a lot of casual fans to make these sports profitable, maybe it's not really feasible.
I guess I like the idea of football, but the execution costs are very high. What's worse, having a low level football team that nobody cares about (that costs a lot of $), or not having one at all?
As far as conferences splitting up and non-FB schools getting screwed, that will probably happen. BUT... if MU maintains a high level of hoops between now and then, you might see conferences consider adding MU because they wouldn't take away from the FB $ pool, and would add to the basketball $ pool.
-
That is correct.
"Division I Criteria
Division I member institutions have to sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports for each gender. " 14 total
1) Men's Basketball
2) Women's Basketball
3) Men's golf
4) Men's Soccer
5) Women's Soccer
6) Women's Volleyball
7) Men's Cross Country
8) Women's Cross Country
9) Men's Outdoor Track
10) Women's Outdoor Track
11) Men's Indoor Track
12) Women's Indoor Track
13) Men's Tennis
14) Women's Tennis
That's all we have.
I realize that basketball funds everything. But it is pretty astonishing that with such a high athletic department budget (yes, I realize the numbers are probably flawed) for a non-football school we have the minimum number of D1 sports. Plus, as someone said, 6 of them consist of running in circles or across big lawns. (I joke about them as a former CC and track athlete.)
It leads me to wonder if, among those non-basketball schools, we also must have one of the highest percents of an overall budget going to the basketball program as part of the overall athletic department budget.
I don't think that an excessive amount of money raised via basketball program donations and revenue should go to table tennis, etc., but the bare minimum number of sports? Really?
-
I realize that basketball funds everything. But it is pretty astonishing that with such a high athletic department budget (yes, I realize the numbers are probably flawed) for a non-football school we have the minimum number of D1 sports. Plus, as someone said, 6 of them consist of running in circles or across big lawns. (I joke about them as a former CC and track athlete.)
It leads me to wonder if, among those non-basketball schools, we also must have one of the highest percents of an overall budget going to the basketball program as part of the overall athletic department budget.
I don't think that an excessive amount of money raised via basketball program donations and revenue should go to table tennis, etc., but the bare minimum number of sports? Really?
I'm not trying to argue that we shouldn't field more sports, but...
There is no standard way to handle Athletic Department accounting/budgeting. Those studies that come out are not normalized for this fact. MU probably charges 100% of it's scholarship costs against the AD budget, where state schools might charge them against the general scholarship fund to show a lower AD budget because they have a government to justify themselves to. Really, it's a complete unknown what those amounts pay for. So when they say we have the highest non-football school AD budget, there's no way to know for sure whether we actually spend the most on athletics.
-
I'm not trying to argue that we shouldn't field more sports, but...
There is no standard way to handle Athletic Department accounting/budgeting. Those studies that come out are not normalized for this fact. MU probably charges 100% of it's scholarship costs against the AD budget, where state schools might charge them against the general scholarship fund to show a lower AD budget because they have a government to justify themselves to. Really, it's a complete unknown what those amounts pay for. So when they say we have the highest non-football school AD budget, there's no way to know for sure whether we actually spend the most on athletics.
Which is why I said the numbers are probably flawed.
But I doubt they are flawed so much so that our athletic department is so poor, and that the basketball program is in need of such a high percent of AD funds, that we can only have the minimum number of sports.
-
A new soccer/lacrosse stadium down at valley fields would be pretty sweet. I'm not a huge lacrosse fan, but the sport is gaining momentum, and it seems to be something that MU could become good at for a nominal investment (compared to football).
They would probably have to add womens field hockey or crew to balance the scholarships, so that makes it tougher.
Or women's lacrosse.
-
I don't know how you think lax would bring in revenue when it seems like the soccer teams lose so much and I would argue soccer is way more popular.
-
I don't know how you think lax would bring in revenue when it seems like the soccer teams lose so much and I would argue soccer is way more popular.
Every sport at MU loses money sans men's basketball.
-
To me, it comes down to, in 50 yrs will we need football to be relevant in sports at that time? If yes, then get on it, take baby steps but make it a long term investment. If no, then keep going as is.
What are we passing down to future MU'ers.
-
To me, it comes down to, in 50 yrs will we need football to be relevant in sports at that time? If yes, then get on it, take baby steps but make it a long term investment. If no, then keep going as is.
What are we passing down to future MU'ers.
The reality is that at some point there will be different classes most likely. What I'm hopeful for is that the "super football" class is for football only but basketball will combine that super class and include all the other high pedigree basketball schools that are out there.
I think the NCAA would do a tremendous disservice to their membership and the American fan to only make high level basketball championship one amongst the top 6 or 8 conferences that have football. So many story lines go away, so much of the magic that is college basketball would be lost. Whether it's Bucknell or U. of San Diego cinderella runs, or even a traditional power like Georgetown and Marquette left out, that would do a disservice.
Of course, that's why I pushed so hard for expansion of the NCAA tournament, because if you do, it takes away from that situation almost immediately.
At any rate, we'll see what happens, but it's clear MU is not adding football at any level at this point.
-
I don't know how you think lax would bring in revenue when it seems like the soccer teams lose so much and I would argue soccer is way more popular.
Who said anything about revenue? If we're on the minimum number of sports needed for D1, then maybe starting a new sport isn't a terrible idea, and lacrosse would be way cheaper to start up, since they can play at Valley Fields.
-
I don't know how you think lax would bring in revenue when it seems like the soccer teams lose so much and I would argue soccer is way more popular.
I dont disagree with you but you have to take regionality into consideration. Sure, MU falls outside the hardcore lacrosse world but ND, Northwestern and Michigan are making in-roads into the midwest. I know its a stretch, but think of football as an example. Had we adopted and embraced football as a sport as early as we did, would MU be at least decent today? Now think about LAX. Its a sport in its infancy. There are double the number of D1 teams compared to 30 years ago. The best programs are investing under 2M per year. Who are those programs? John Hopkins and Syracuse. Are these programs investing because they hope LAX blows up over the NEXT 30 years and they possess the history? And thus get recruits, etc? I know its WAAAAY forward thinking but its worth a discussion. Afterall, the NCAA LAX championship used to be played IN THE MORNING on a Saturday. ESPN just recently moved it to mid-day. Why? Because they were being generous with their advertising dollars or because the Finals legitimately deserved the mid-day spot BECAUSE of advertising?
-
I dont disagree with you but you have to take regionality into consideration. Sure, MU falls outside the hardcore lacrosse world but ND, Northwestern and Michigan are making in-roads into the midwest. I know its a stretch, but think of football as an example. Had we adopted and embraced football as a sport as early as we did, would MU be at least decent today? Now think about LAX. Its a sport in its infancy. There are double the number of D1 teams compared to 30 years ago. The best programs are investing under 2M per year. Who are those programs? John Hopkins and Syracuse. Are these programs investing because they hope LAX blows up over the NEXT 30 years and they possess the history? And thus get recruits, etc? I know its WAAAAY forward thinking but its worth a discussion. Afterall, the NCAA LAX championship used to be played IN THE MORNING on a Saturday. ESPN just recently moved it to mid-day. Why? Because they were being generous with their advertising dollars or because the Finals legitimately deserved the mid-day spot BECAUSE of advertising?
Probably due to Lacrosse being a very big East Coast game..and a game often associated with affluence. Additionally, those who would tune in to a Lacrosse championship or game, likely have an Ive League or other strong East Coast school (Cuse) background, and the demographics that audience delivers would be a predominately educated, and affluent, group. That always has value to advertisers, correct - as it is hard to segment/target just the affluent..but to be able to do so..is a valuable advdertising sell. Just a theory.
-
Probably due to Lacrosse being a very big East Coast game..and a game often associated with affluence. Additionally, those who would tune in to a Lacrosse championship or game, likely have an Ive League or other strong East Coast school (Cuse) background, and the demographics that audience delivers would be a predominately educated, and affluent, group. That always has value to advertisers, correct - as it is hard to segment/target just the affluent..but to be able to do so..is a valuable advdertising sell. Just a theory.
TOTALLY DISAGREE. Who was "unarguably" the greatest LAX player of all time? Well, according to Dick Schaap, Jim Brown was. Oh, and he held the all-time points record until the Powell Brothers absolutely destroyed all the records (early 2000's). An affluent sport? The Powell brothers are by far and away the greatest players of all time and their dad worked overtime simply to pay for their sticks. I actually know one of them personally and he is the most humble kid you have ever met; you would never know he beat Jim Brown's record, wore a famous number at his program or has a gold medal. Nevermind the fact that the Ononadaga tribe has produced All-Americans in the sport. You think they grew up rich? They couldnt get passports to participate in the latest international tournament because England wont recognize Native passports(visas). You are very naive, child.
-
Probably due to Lacrosse being a very big East Coast game..and a game often associated with affluence. Additionally, those who would tune in to a Lacrosse championship or game, likely have an Ive League or other strong East Coast school (Cuse) background, and the demographics that audience delivers would be a predominately educated, and affluent, group. That always has value to advertisers, correct - as it is hard to segment/target just the affluent..but to be able to do so..is a valuable advdertising sell. Just a theory.
Sorry, but I cant get enough of your comment since I know several All=American LAX players. Where is the hotbed for college recruiting? 1) Long Island 2) Long Island 3) Central NY 4) Maryland
I think its a midwest assumption that Long Island is wealthy. In reality, its a big island...and not all parts are filled with Gordon Geko types. There are some poor areas....And these areas are where some of the best LAX players of all time come from. Silver spoon? Hardly. Feel free to google the Powell brothers (Casey, Ryan and Mike). I know one of them personally and he's living the dream (getting paid for what he does after breaking Jim Brown's record; USA gold metal winner).
-
Back in the day there was a strong consideration to adding women's crew and women's golf. Very little cost involved in terms of facilities and equipment.
-
Add a hockey team
-
The deciding factor here is motivation. Is there a reason to add a sport, any sport for that matter, at MU?
The only reason MU would add football at this juncture is a) if MU decides that affiliation with a major conference is essential to the institution and b) football is necessary to maintain that affiliation. Otherwise, it makes no financial sense whatsoever to bring back football at any level.
If - for whatever reason - MU needs to add a sport (e.g. the NCAA is raising the minimum sport offerings for D-I schools), then there are plenty of sports that can be added at a much lesser cost than football. While LAX and crew may be the "sexy" choices, the fact remains that these are predominantly east coast sports and would be a challenge to catch on at MU. A better option --- bowling. It's cheap, the facilities are already in place, you can field both men's and women's teams, and recruiting would be a piece of cake.
The only other motivator IMO is cold hard cash. However, if MU believed it could increase revenue by adding a specific sport, they probably would have done it by now.
EDIT - Only Women's Bowling is a varsity sport. Who knew? The fact remains there are cheaper options to add sports if necessary.
-
Maybe Lax is a good idea. Marquette has been trying very hard to expand their East Coast, as well as national, presence. Lax could help. It is not a silver bullet, but it could be one way to appeal to some kids.
-
I think another relatively cheap one if we had to add a couple sports, at least in terms of facilities/equipment, would be swimming/diving. I don't know how many scholarships that typically is, but it can't be that bad...
-
I think another relatively cheap one if we had to add a couple sports, at least in terms of facilities/equipment, would be swimming/diving. I don't know how many scholarships that typically is, but it can't be that bad...
But why would they do that? Why would they add a sport that gains the school no exposure, and increases costs, without increasing revenue? At least football and lacrosse gives you the *potential* for exposure.
-
I think it would be a great idea, as long as they started it at the lower level DIII status, I played on the club football team in the 80's and we played DIII comp here in Wisconsin and in Illinois. Unfortunately, not many guys came out to play, most played on the rugby team. But we survived, it was a great experience.
-
Hockey would be the ideal, but even that has some hurdles to overcome....and its the one sport, along with Basketball, that fits best in Milwaukee.
Id like Lacrosse as well, if you could get those two sports and be competitive, I think its easier to survive without football.
-
Hockey would be the ideal, but even that has some hurdles to overcome....and its the one sport, along with Basketball, that fits best in Milwaukee.
Football is a much better fit for Milwaukee than hockey. Milwaukee in general doesn't really care much about the sport (see the Admirals attendance for proof of that), and the recruiting base sucks. Wisconsin pulls a good portion of its players out of Canada and from other parts around the country. Not many of their players are from Wisconsin, and I can't think of one that ever came from the Milwaukee area.
-
But why would they do that? Why would they add a sport that gains the school no exposure, and increases costs, without increasing revenue? At least football and lacrosse gives you the *potential* for exposure.
If there was a scenario where MU had to add a sport in order to maintain D-I status, I'd like to think they would opt for the inexpensive rather than the exposure.
-
If there was a scenario where MU had to add a sport in order to maintain D-I status, I'd like to think they would opt for the inexpensive rather than the exposure.
Under the current economic situations that schools are facing now, there is no way the NCAA will mandate additional sports.
-
Penn State decided to move it's hockey program to DI making it possible to get a Big Ten Hockey conference.
"That could create a domino effect for college hockey throughout the Midwest"
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5580469
Maybe hockey isn't as far fetched as it seems. Penn State needed $90 mil for the facilities but I'm sure we could use the Bradley or even the Cell. I still don't think it's likely, but personally, hockey is a great sport to add. If only it didn't run parallel to the basketball season.
-
I would love to see MU add hockey.
If they would add bowling as a D1 sport, would MU use the Annex? I would love to see other schools come to the Annex and we could throw popcorn at them as intimidation.
-
Penn State decided to move it's hockey program to DI making it possible to get a Big Ten Hockey conference.
"That could create a domino effect for college hockey throughout the Midwest"
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5580469
Maybe hockey isn't as far fetched as it seems. Penn State needed $90 mil for the facilities but I'm sure we could use the Bradley or even the Cell. I still don't think it's likely, but personally, hockey is a great sport to add. If only it didn't run parallel to the basketball season.
Where do they practice?
-
So how many resources for Men's hoops are all of you football fans willing to give up?
-
Where do they practice?
Look I'm not saying it's probable. I was just going along with the theme of the thread. Hypothetically speaking, they'd practice at the Petit National Ice Center. Don't worry though, I know I have a better chance of playing basketball for the men's team than of hockey ever coming to MU, and I've never played organized basketball in my life.