I can't help but call attention to this quote in the Tribune:
"Since Marquette shut down its football program in 1960, costs have risen and made it financially difficult for any college to add football to its resume. Athletic Director Steve Cottingham predicted during the summer that adding a football program could cost up to $125 million. That makes the men's basketball budget of just above $10 million look frugal in comparison."
Does anyone fact-check wild claims like this? No one spends that kind of money on football, not even UW. Georgetown's operating expenses to play schools like Holy Cross and Fordham in Division I-AA was in 2009, $256,328. The rest of the budget is a transfer cost for need-based financial aid available to any student. And most of that $256,328 is covered by alumni support.
And if rising costs have made it difficult for any school to add football, why have over 40 schools done so in the last eight years?
(UW's operating expenses in 2009? $3,883,178. It would take them over 30 years to equal the $125 million suggested in this article.)
http://marquettetribune.org/2010/10/07/sports/football-ag1-es2-je3/
You do realize that MU would need to fund and build a stadium ? ::)
There's a better chance that I'll actually sing the praises of Tom Crean wearing only my socks on Wisconsin Ave. in mid-January than Marquette returning to NCAA football.
85 football scholarships, plus up to 85 for women's sports (Title IX), at $40,000 per scholarship = $6.8 mil per year, for education, room and board. Add coaching staff salaries ($2-3 mil. per year), equipment and travel. Assume $10 mil per year in costs. Oh, and the stadium. With a ten year commitment ($125 mil), it's not even close. And I'm pretty sure Cottingham has better info than any poster here, so he gets the benefit of the doubt.
Plus we have only hammered out the numbers in numerous other threads. It will never happen.
Even at that price tag, it might be worth MU going into to debt to get it. Football is great for name recognition of the school and would help our chances of staying in a BCS conference, and there are many cash flows that come with that.
Every Saturday in the fall, most alums will think about Marquette. The more alums think about Marquette, the more likely each alum is to donate...
When our alums leave the Midwest, it would be nice if more people have heard of our school. Football would help that.
It is a risk, but could be worth it.
No it wouldn't. Trust me, this would be one of the dumber decisions the university could make. No fan base...little local talent...no facility...complete money drain at a time when that's not exactly a good idea considering the relative puny endowment.
I used to be very much against the idea of MU football but recently I've warmed up to the idea.
If we were to start slow, and go with a small AA program, and work our way up from there, it could be feasible.
I just do not see how anyone could possibly think we could be in the Big East in less than like a decade at the very least. And the only way we can MAKE money is if we're in the Big East, as most Big East schools who have been in the conference for years don't even make money
Quote from: Hamostradamus on October 08, 2010, 07:53:25 PM
85 football scholarships, plus up to 85 for women's sports (Title IX), at $40,000 per scholarship = $6.8 mil per year, for education, room and board. Add coaching staff salaries ($2-3 mil. per year), equipment and travel. Assume $10 mil per year in costs. Oh, and the stadium. With a ten year commitment ($125 mil), it's not even close. And I'm pretty sure Cottingham has better info than any poster here, so he gets the benefit of the doubt.
Wouldn't that mean that Marquette's revenue would also increase by $6.8 million? Marquette would be paying themselves so it would be a wash. It doesn't cost MU $40,000 to educate, feed, and room and board a student. That is what they charge us which includes a margin.
The largest cost would be the stadium. If there is not a stadium that they could lease then you have a big cost involved.
Quote from: Hamostradamus on October 08, 2010, 07:53:25 PM
85 football scholarships, plus up to 85 for women's sports (Title IX), at $40,000 per scholarship = $6.8 mil per year, for education, room and board. Add coaching staff salaries ($2-3 mil. per year), equipment and travel. Assume $10 mil per year in costs. Oh, and the stadium. With a ten year commitment ($125 mil), it's not even close. And I'm pretty sure Cottingham has better info than any poster here, so he gets the benefit of the doubt.
Somehow it didn't cost Georgetown or Fordham or Holy Cross $125 million. You do realize that Division I teams can play without scholarships?
Here' the rough budget for a I-AA team playing in the Pioneer League:
Operating expenses: $325,000
Travel, coaches, etc.: $600,000
Annual Budget: $950,000
Temporary seating in Valley Fields: $175-200,000
Build 5,000 seat stadium similar to Marist College: $4-5 million
http://www.marist.edu/athletics/facilities.html
Quote from: BallBoy on October 08, 2010, 08:40:25 PM
It doesn't cost MU $40,000 to educate, feed, and room and board a student. That is what they charge us which includes a margin.
You are right, it doesn't cost $40K --- it costs much more than $40K to educate, feed, and room/board a student on an annual basis.
Realize that MU operates every year with a tuition discount rate applied to every enrolled student. That said the current
published rate for room and board at MU is $40,352 (See link below). But again, this number is discounted by MU's operating budget (read, your donations) to keep tuition competitive on an annual basis, namely through the Marquette Fund which pays a portion of the tuition down for all students. Contact University Advancement for details.
Here is a link to tuition, etal
http://www.marquette.edu/about/studenttuition.shtml
Quote from: DFW HOYA on October 08, 2010, 08:51:08 PM
Somehow it didn't cost Georgetown or Fordham or Holy Cross $125 million. You do realize that Division I teams can play without scholarships?
Quote from: SacWarrior on October 08, 2010, 08:25:28 PM
If we were to start slow, and go with a small AA program, and work our way up from there, it could be feasible.
I assume that everyone here wants a decent D1 program that has a chance to be ranked and draw 10s of thousands of fans. In other words, we want BC, Cincy or TCU and not some third rate program like G-town 'Nova, Marist or Holy Cross.
Can anyone name a program that started off slow drawing a few thousand as a D2 that amounted to anything like TCU, BC or Cincy? If not, why do we think MU can set NCAA history and be the first to pull it off?
Quote from: DFW HOYA on October 08, 2010, 08:51:08 PM
Somehow it didn't cost Georgetown or Fordham or Holy Cross $125 million. You do realize that Division I teams can play without scholarships?
Yeah...it's pathetic. Worse than D3 football. Not worth the time or investment.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 08, 2010, 07:41:06 PM
There's a better chance that I'll actually sing the praises of Tom Crean wearing only my socks on Wisconsin Ave. in mid-January than Marquette returning to NCAA football.
"So what you're saying is there is a chance."
--Lloyd Christmas in Dumb and Dumber
BTW, I am more than willing to settle for seeing you in mid-January, you know..... please post the time and date enough in advance, so I can make arrangements to be there.
Quote from: BallBoy on October 08, 2010, 08:40:25 PM
Wouldn't that mean that Marquette's revenue would also increase by $6.8 million? Marquette would be paying themselves so it would be a wash.
I am assuming, rightly or wrongly, that they would be taking seats currently occupied by paying students, as opposed to adding enrollment.
I don't see football happening any time soon, but what about Miller Park? It's big enough for a football field, and it's not like the Brewers are using it from October to early December. Secure one or two Saturdays in late August through September, schedule on the road for the rest of the early season, then get home games later on. And I have to think it would only serve to help Milwaukee embrace Marquette. We have no other football team competing in this precise market. People that don't want to drive to Madison or Green Bay would probably like the idea of seeing a team locally, and it's a fairly short bus ride from campus.
Again, I can't see it happening, but using Miller Park 5-6 times a year would save us that "building a stadium" cost.
Speaking on stadiums, aren't they looking to put close to $5 million into valley to make it a real stadium. Last time I checked not many people show up to an average game there to make it worth expanding.
Because getting 20,000 to watch a bad team in a near empty stadium would not be positive. That's even assuming the Brewers would let MU play there...which I don't think they would.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 09, 2010, 06:41:01 AM
Because getting 20,000 to watch a bad team in a near empty stadium would not be positive. That's even assuming the Brewers would let MU play there...which I don't think they would.
Not necessarily as a place to start play, but if it was made out as a ten-year plan. Start with getting a I-AA team playing at a revamped Valley Fields. Up the capacity to 5,000 or so. If you can't draw there, of course you'll never draw at Miller Park, but if they do draw there and start to build a following on campus, then you think about the jump to I-A, and have Miller Park as an already-built venue capable of holding the number of fans needed to maintain I-A status. Of course the team will suck at first, which is why I think going straight to I-A is a bit crazy, but if you start at the lower level it will cost less to maintain early on and you can tempt boosters with the carrot of a I-A program, allowing the school to build up money ahead of time. Then you talk to the Brewers about the use of Miller for the jump. Even if they have ridiculous demands, such as MU providing all staffing for games, or take a huge cut of the ticket sales, it would still have to be cheaper than building a 15,000+ seat stadium.
I thought one of the reasons why the Packers no longer play in MKE was that Miller Park was not designed to allow football.
Earlier I asked the following and no one answered so let me ask again ....
Can anyone name a program that started off slow drawing a few thousand as a D2 that amounted to anything like TCU, BC or Cincy? If not, why do we think MU can set NCAA history and be the first to pull it off?
If Cottingham or anyone in MU administration seriously looks to waste huge sums of money on this fantasy, I will personally lead to charge to have them immediately fired.
The truth is after 25 years, MU still would not outdraw Waukesha West.
Let this idea die peafully and never bring it up.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on October 09, 2010, 08:14:11 AM
Earlier I asked the following and no one answered so let me ask again ....
Can anyone name a program that started off slow drawing a few thousand as a D2 that amounted to anything like TCU, BC or Cincy? If not, why do we think MU can set NCAA history and be the first to pull it off?
If Cottingham or anyone in MU administration seriously looks to waste huge sums of money on this fantasy, I will personally lead to charge to have them immediately fired.
The truth is after 25 years, MU still would not outdraw Waukesha West.
Let this idea die peafully and never bring it up.
Thank You! You are right! It's just a fantasy by some people.
Quote from: lawwarrior12 on October 09, 2010, 07:44:34 AM
I thought one of the reasons why the Packers no longer play in MKE was that Miller Park was not designed to allow football.
Not at all. The last game the Packers played at County Stadium was in December of 1994.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on October 09, 2010, 08:14:11 AM
Earlier I asked the following and no one answered so let me ask again ....
Can anyone name a program that started off slow drawing a few thousand as a D2 that amounted to anything like TCU, BC or Cincy? If not, why do we think MU can set NCAA history and be the first to pull it off?
I don't see us ever going for football again, and I agree that it's probably a pipe dream at best, but it's not unprecedented. The Marshall Thundering Herd made the jump from I-AA to Division I-A after the 1996 season. They won the Mid American Conference their first four years in I-A. They also have made 8 bowl appearances since then, winning 6 of their bowl games. They finished the season ranked in the top 25 three times, highlighted by being ranked 10th in 1999. Admittedly they've fallen on tough times for the past few seasons, but it's not impossible to build a respectable program from a I-AA/FCS start.
Marshall is not the only team to make the jump and succeed, however. While they got the first recent acclaim, Boise State is another good example of a team making the jump. They came up in 1996 as well and since then have been to ten bowl games, posting a 6-4 record, but recently impressing with wins in BCS bowls against Oklahoma (the Statue of Liberty play) in 2007 and the win against TCU to start this year. Anyone with remedial college football knowledge knows that Boise State is one of the top teams in the country, and coming that far in just 15 years is pretty impressive.
Considering that teams like Marshall and Boise State play in non-BCS conferences, their success is rather impressive, and proves that you can make the jump. It takes time, and my honest estimation is that you'd be looking at a 25-40 year window if you really wanted to build a solid FBS program. Start in the FCS, build a successful program there, then make the jump when you can. It's not an overnight thing, it's not a turnkey operation, but it's also not impossible nor unprecedented.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on October 09, 2010, 09:10:54 AM
Not at all. The last game the Packers played at County Stadium was in December of 1994.
The Packers were losing money playing at County Stadium.
Milwaukee saved the Packers in the 1960's to make money. Funny how things change in different years.
Boise State
DII until 1977. Now they are ranked 3rd in the nation
I don't know why people are against having a football program the level of Nova or even what UCONN was a few years ago.
Unbelievable that this is a thread right now. 2 Catholic Schools are in the FBS - ND and BC. No reason for us to try and have a shitty program just to say we have a team.
Quote from: brewcity77 on October 09, 2010, 07:30:45 AM
Not necessarily as a place to start play, but if it was made out as a ten-year plan. Start with getting a I-AA team playing at a revamped Valley Fields. Up the capacity to 5,000 or so. If you can't draw there, of course you'll never draw at Miller Park, but if they do draw there and start to build a following on campus, then you think about the jump to I-A, and have Miller Park as an already-built venue capable of holding the number of fans needed to maintain I-A status. Of course the team will suck at first, which is why I think going straight to I-A is a bit crazy, but if you start at the lower level it will cost less to maintain early on and you can tempt boosters with the carrot of a I-A program, allowing the school to build up money ahead of time. Then you talk to the Brewers about the use of Miller for the jump. Even if they have ridiculous demands, such as MU providing all staffing for games, or take a huge cut of the ticket sales, it would still have to be cheaper than building a 15,000+ seat stadium.
But what's the point? The stadium is going to be empty. The team won't be any good. It will be a money loser. I must admit that I don't really see why this should even be considered.
Quote from: mikem91288 on October 09, 2010, 10:19:43 AM
Unbelievable that this is a thread right now. 2 Catholic Schools are in the FBS - ND and BC. No reason for us to try and have a crapty program just to say we have a team.
What does the Catholic thing have anything to do with it? Why not private schools in FBS?
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
BC
BYU
Duke
Miami (FL)
Northwestern
SMU
TCU
Syracuse
Temple
Tulane
Wake Forest
Vanderbilt
Rice
Don't get me wrong, I understand your thought process. I'd like to see MU do a 25 year plan that starts small and moves up slowly. Can do it for not that much money. The $125M figure is pure BS and is only equating to starting a major program from day one. That wouldn't be the smart plan anyway.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 09, 2010, 10:43:55 AM
But what's the point? The stadium is going to be empty. The team won't be any good. It will be a money loser. I must admit that I don't really see why this should even be considered.
If you want to compete in 5 years, yes, you're right. That simply won't happen. It'll start slow, it'll probably involve quite a few painful years. But the point is that you have to look long term. 25-40 years. It seems like an eternity, but it's about where we're at since our NCAA championship in basketball. It would probably take about 5-10 years to really compete in the FCS. Give it another 5-10 years of establishing ourselves there and building a decent program that can compete at that level. Once that credibility is established, look at making the jump to the FBS. Another 10-15 years and we might be able to crack the top 25 on a semi-regular basis.
It won't happen overnight, anyone who thinks we can just jump right into the FBS is delusional. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, and I think for the long term success of Marquette, it could be a positive.
(http://www.olympvs.com/valley.jpg)
One thing people gloss over when saying you simply renovate Valley Fields is that there isn't much space to expand. You have the river to the north and the casino to the south. You can't simply add seats where there is no space.
And don't get me started about parking. It was chaotic for the MU vs Bucky soccer game a few weeks ago with only 1043 people there. Let's stay conservative and say MU could draw 8,000 or so. Where do you put the parking lot? I doubt people would be willing to make the trek from campus down 16th St. in the middle of November.
An example I cited in one of these threads was about a college in Alabama going to spend $50 million to build a 30k stadium on land they already owned. Unless the Brewers actually let us use Miller Park, the cost of property for a stadium, as well as parking for that stadium, and then adding $50 million to build the 30k stadium, ultimately makes this a non-starter. And seriously, who on this boards life is less complete because they aren't road-tripping to Milwaukee this weekend?
...and another one....
http://www.wcnc.com/sports/college/UNCC-reviews-football-stadium-design-plans-103703594.html
and another: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncf&id=5580449
and Prairie View: (our natural rivals) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/fbc/7121984.html
Let's make a deal:
If one of us gets ridiculously loaded one day, then donate the money needed, buy the land to use, etc and get it done. Other than a savior alum coming in to make it happen, this is a dream.
Maybe the dude that donated 2 grand to al's run has a few more sheckles lying around...
We could always hit up Crean to cough up a few big ones like he did for the soccer stadium.
Quote from: Aughnanure on October 09, 2010, 01:11:45 PM
Let's make a deal:
If one of us gets ridiculously loaded one day, then donate the money needed, buy the land to use, etc and get it done. Other than a savior alum coming in to make it happen, this is a dream.
MU already received a $50 million donation ... for the law school. Anyone that has this kind of money to donate to MU is not stupid enough to waste it on starting a football team.
Quote from: tower912 on October 09, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
And seriously, who on this boards life is less complete because they aren't road-tripping to Milwaukee this weekend?
Football tailgating is a blast. I went to grad school at a place with a strong football fanbase, and it definitely is fun. It would be a blast to go back to Milwaukee on a few weekends in the fall and meet up with old buddies. It gives alums a reason to think about MU and network. Hopefully, donations would go up.
I like the start slow idea with a lower division team and a smaller stadium. Students would get blasted outside on a Saturday at Marquette and those alums would be much more likely to want to live that again. The fanbase of alums would grow and it is something to do in Milwaukee on a Saturday.
It really wouldn't be about winning or losing for the first few years. It would be about drinking outside in the fall.
I love drinking. Like a lot. But Hoops, most of your reasons for starting a football team revolve around some gray hairs and 20 year olds getting blasted on few afternoons a year. Hell, I am 11 deep right now, I'm still not convinced that starting a football team is wise.
Quote from: reinko on October 09, 2010, 07:16:06 PM
I love drinking. Like a lot. But Hoops, most of your reasons for starting a football team revolve around some gray hairs and 20 year olds getting blasted on few afternoons a year. Hell, I am 11 deep right now, I'm still not convinced that starting a football team is wise.
I was just countering something someone said.
The main reasons for spending money on a football program are:
1- Create name recognition for Marquette nationally. Even if we played in D2 for a while, it would help.
2- Give alums cause to think about Marquette more and in turn likely lead to more donations
3- Keep the cash flows that come with a BCS conference coming in if major realignments occur
4- Eventually football could directly make money for the school
5- Football games are big events. They can be used in recruiting students (and as part of official visits for Bball) and for soliciting donations directly from alums at the events.
6- Allow our alums to be in conversations with professionals who talk about college football (college football has been an ice breaker for me many times in professional networking settings and our alums miss out on entering those group conversations I think)
7- Local business boosts on game days
Having fun is another part of it. The more good experiences you have at Marquette, the more likely you are to donate, too.
I just think starting small and building up the program is a good idea. If done the right way, it could be a net positive.
MU can't play D2 football. Division 1 schools are prohibited from playing anything lower than 1-AA football.
Hoops I love your optimism but mu football would be too much of a money loser to make up for the positive recognition and donations. And I think the idea of non-scholarship is completely useless. Playing the likes of Butler or Valpo has zero appeal.
Boise State's football budget per year. $5million (per Sports Illustrated)
Interesting....that's actually lower than our basketball budget.
Now, I realize there are all kinds of accounting gimmicks. What department is paying for the stadium costs as an example. Plus they don't have to build a stadium. Nevertheless, an interesting stat.
Ohio State, by the way, spends more than $32million on football each year.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on October 09, 2010, 06:08:34 PM
MU already received a $50 million donation ... for the law school. Anyone that has this kind of money to donate to MU is not stupid enough to waste it on starting a football team.
Maybe not directly to start a team, but plenty of examples of wealthy folks donating for athletic causes. T. Boone Pickens did something along those lines for Oklahoma State. Phil Knight for Oregon. The guy up in North Dakota for ND State. If a mega rich dude wants to donate money and attach strings to it, God Bless him. The university can always say no...we have before (see donation for Warriors nickname)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 09, 2010, 08:29:20 PM
Hoops I love your optimism but mu football would be too much of a money loser to make up for the positive recognition and donations. And I think the idea of non-scholarship is completely useless. Playing the likes of Butler or Valpo has zero appeal.
To you, but to others it does have appeal.
Quote from: bma725 on October 09, 2010, 08:21:03 PM
MU can't play D2 football. Division 1 schools are prohibited from playing anything lower than 1-AA football.
That, to me, is a bit of a killer. I like the start small approach and I think MU would have a really good lower level program. Think about it, there are no division-2 schools in Wisconsin and Marquette would be the 2 most popular destination behind Madison. I've known so many people from high school that went to small colleges in Wisconsin to play football but would have gone to Marquette if they had a team. We would have all of Wisconsin reject lineman and basically be an instant d-3 powerhouse.
After 10 years, when the school has a football fan-base you could start talking about moving up and a stadium.
As for renovating Valley Fields... it may no be a big stadium, but I bet you could find ways to cram in a couple thousand seats. Have it be more vertical and stands on the north side have a small players area. It would have to be creative to make it work, but it could be an awesome environment where you are literally on top of the opposing team with only a net separating them.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on October 09, 2010, 10:01:44 PM
That, to me, is a bit of a killer. I like the start small approach and I think MU would have a really good lower level program. Think about it, there are no division-2 schools in Wisconsin and Marquette would be the 2 most popular destination behind Madison. I've known so many people from high school that went to small colleges in Wisconsin to play football but would have gone to Marquette if they had a team. We would have all of Wisconsin reject lineman and basically be an instant d-3 powerhouse.
After 10 years, when the school has a football fan-base you could start talking about moving up and a stadium.
As for renovating Valley Fields... it may no be a big stadium, but I bet you could find ways to cram in a couple thousand seats. Have it be more vertical and stands on the north side have a small players area. It would have to be creative to make it work, but it could be an awesome environment where you are literally on top of the opposing team with only a net separating them.
Dude, get creative all you want, there is no room. You realize soccer balls are easily lost to the mighty river?
I say domed stadium that turns into an Indian Casino when not used. Bought and paid for by the tribes in Wisconsin. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2010, 01:16:03 AM
I say domed stadium that turns into an Indian Casino when not used. Bought and paid for by the tribes in Wisconsin. ;)
Then they're going to need to build another massive parking structure.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 09, 2010, 08:29:20 PM
Hoops I love your optimism but mu football would be too much of a money loser to make up for the positive recognition and donations. And I think the idea of non-scholarship is completely useless. Playing the likes of Butler or Valpo has zero appeal.
How much of a money loser is it if the Big East breaks up and we get stuck in a non BCS league with teams like St. Louis. I don't think anyone here is asking to start at 1-A and compete against the big boys. Nova in 1-AA is in a sweet position right now. A great football program that very well might not be a money loser and they can make the move up if they have too. They will have a say about their future if there is a shake-up. Unfortunately our options will be very limited.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on October 09, 2010, 09:10:54 AM
Not at all. The last game the Packers played at County Stadium was in December of 1994.
My understanding is the timing of the Packers leaving was done so that the Brewers new stadium could be planned as a baseball only stadium. That made it less expensive, so gave it a better chance to happen, and to allow it to have a roof. Seemed like a deal between Selig and Harlan that was the best for both franchises. I don't know if it actually resulted in Miller Park being built so that it couldn't fit a football field, but at the time that's how it was sold from the Brewers' perspective.
During the mid 80's-mid 90's Lambeau added about 200 private boxes.
I remember Harlan saying at the time of pulling out of County Stadium that every game in Lambeau brought in more than a million dollars in game revenue than a game in Milwaukee did.
Quote from: larrym on October 10, 2010, 08:51:31 AM
My understanding is the timing of the Packers leaving was done so that the Brewers new stadium could be planned as a baseball only stadium. That made it less expensive, so gave it a better chance to happen, and to allow it to have a roof. Seemed like a deal between Selig and Harlan that was the best for both franchises. I don't know if it actually resulted in Miller Park being built so that it couldn't fit a football field, but at the time that's how it was sold from the Brewers' perspective.
You do realize that just about every MLB baseball field is double the size of a football field right?
Quote from: larrym on October 10, 2010, 08:51:31 AM
My understanding is the timing of the Packers leaving was done so that the Brewers new stadium could be planned as a baseball only stadium. That made it less expensive, so gave it a better chance to happen, and to allow it to have a roof. Seemed like a deal between Selig and Harlan that was the best for both franchises. I don't know if it actually resulted in Miller Park being built so that it couldn't fit a football field, but at the time that's how it was sold from the Brewers' perspective.
As said before, Milwaukee bailed out the Packers franchise in the early 1960s when the AFL was looking to add a team in Milwaukee. Vince Lombardi's backroom dealings also had a little something to do with the AFL never getting into Milwaukee.
Bob Harlan effectively deserted Milwaukee in the mid-90s when he realized how much money he was losing by missing out on 3 home games every year. He had to have a security detail leaving County Stadium during the final game. He wasnt even allowed to watch the 4th quarter, as the threat of violence towards him was too big.
Quote from: marqptm on October 10, 2010, 09:12:36 AM
You do realize that just about every MLB baseball field is double the size of a football field right?
I remember football at County Stadium, went to many games. The 120 yard field barely fit.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on October 10, 2010, 10:14:44 AM
I remember football at County Stadium, went to many games. The 120 yard field barely fit.
Correct. They are generally a tight fit due to the irregular shape, but every baseball stadium could do it.
I'd rather make money playing in the A10 than lose my shirt playing BE football. And again we could not be a D3 power because we cannot play at that level.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 10, 2010, 10:35:01 AM
I'd rather make money playing in the A10 than lose my shirt playing BE football. And again we could not be a D3 power because we cannot play at that level.
I'd rather play in the Big East and play lower level football that wouldn't require us to lose our shirt or require a huge investment. See how it goes, maybe 10 or 15 years later you have something (a la UCONN, Boise State, Nova, etc)
Quote from: marqptm on October 10, 2010, 10:29:33 AM
Correct. They are generally a tight fit due to the irregular shape, but every baseball stadium could do it.
Yup. When I worked for the Angels the football field barely fit in as well, but it did (former home of the Rams, CIF title games, the Freedom Bowl, etc).
Looking at Miller Park dimensions and Angels Stadium, it could be done.
(http://www.ballparktour.com/Angel_Stadium_Dia.gif)(http://www.ballparktour.com/Miller_Park_Dia.gif)
I went to my share of Packers games at County Stadium in the 1980's and 1990's....the one thing that always struck me was having both teams on the same sidelines. That was always very weird to see and I never understood it. Clearly in the photos below, there was room to have the teams on each sideline like a normal football game. Anyone know why they had both teams on one sideline?
(http://www.stadiumsofprofootball.com/past/images/county08951main.jpg)
(http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/county12.jpg)
Quote from: mufanatic on October 10, 2010, 08:45:38 AM
How much of a money loser is it if the Big East breaks up and we get stuck in a non BCS league with teams like St. Louis. I don't think anyone here is asking to start at 1-A and compete against the big boys. Nova in 1-AA is in a sweet position right now. A great football program that very well might not be a money loser and they can make the move up if they have too. They will have a say about their future if there is a shake-up. Unfortunately our options will be very limited.
You're assuming that having a low-level football team would make MU more attractive to the BEAST or another conference.
That might be correct.
BUT... The conference realignments are going to happen shortly. Therefore, MU would need to be VERY aggressive in their commitment to football to make themselves attractive, and that's where I think Cottingham's statement is probably coming from.
Could MU put together a 20 year plan that would cost much less? Sure. But, where does that put MU in 3 years? Still in no-man's land.
IF MU were to start football tomorrow, they would need to commit HUGE funds to catch-up to other small football programs and have a shot at being a player in the BCS re-alignment.
Chicos...regarding same sideline. My guess is that it has something to do with sight lines. If I remember County Stadium correctly, the seats up the 1st/3rd base lines didnt have much of an incline to them, so seeing over the teams would be difficult.
Regarding money, if the administration announced they planned to launch a D1-AA football team in 5-10 years, I think the money could easily be raised in that time. Its a lot of money, but once people know what its for, its relatively easy to create enthusiasm and have people donate. Fr. Wild has raised over 4x that in his tenure, mostly for academic buildings. People get more excited about sports, it could definitely be done.
Valley Fields could work in the short term. It would be cramped, but it would be possible to get 5,000 seats in there. Obviously, a stadium would have to eventually be built. But I think people are getting bogged down in the numbers, as if this would have to happen all in one year. That's simply not the case. Its a process.
The bottom line is that this COULD happen if alumni and students were behind it, and alumni were willing to donate to make it happen. From gazing over this board, that doesn't seem to be the case, as it looks like at least 50% of people aren't behind the idea. So that means no, it probably would never happen. Alumni need to realize that their donations largely drive these kinds of decisions. If someone were to step up and donate $25 million (a la the Eckstein or Deidrich families) and say its towards the creation of a football program, you bet your ass Cottingham would be finding a way to get it done. Its largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we, as alumni, don't think it will ever happen, then it probably wont.
Quote from: marqptm on October 10, 2010, 12:39:26 AM
Dude, get creative all you want, there is no room. You realize soccer balls are easily lost to the mighty river?
Dude, I literally chased those balls down as part of my job with athletics. And I'm not talking tens of thousands. How many does it currently hold? 1,500? 2,000? Make the stands just a little bigger and seats in the endzone. Never understood why the need 3 fields. Then curve a little bit onto the north-side. Where they have the soccer tents for locker rooms, put the locker rooms below the stands. That could be a 3,000 person stadium. Nothing big, but good enough for a starter football team I was describing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2010, 11:02:37 AM
Looking at Miller Park dimensions and Angels Stadium, it could be done.
My question is, would the Brewers allow football games to be played and tear up their field during August, September, and (maybe) October while the baseball season was still in progress? Maybe they would do it for an NFL game, but for a low-level college game?
This talk of Miller Park needs to stop. The Stadium District would charge a crap ton for rent. More than what it is worth.
Quote from: ChuckyChip on October 10, 2010, 06:56:24 PM
My question is, would the Brewers allow football games to be played and tear up their field during August, September, and (maybe) October while the baseball season was still in progress? Maybe they would do it for an NFL game, but for a low-level college game?
No, they wouldn't. The idea is silly to begin with. No way a low level program is going to play in Miller Park. I was only answering the question that it could be done, but not going to be done.
It's clear MU isn't going to start football. MU is throwing around ridiculous numbers to dampen the idea from the start...those numbers would be to start a full fledged DI Full Scholarship program...the idea is to throw those numbers around to kill the idea from the start. That's fine, it's MU's call but they should at least acknowledge people aren't that stupid and there are other forms of DI football that can be played without the ridiculous price tag they have placed on it.
All that being said, MU isn't going to start a football team. MU screwed the pooch on this in the early 1960's. Just as they screwed the pooch on the Medical school and other high profile decisions. MU has done a great job the last 10 to 15 years to fight back from the malaise the school was in. Improved academic rankings, a completely new Dental school that was badly needed, a new Law school, etc. They are at least being smart enough about repairing and renewing what they still have and have done that well. On the areas they botched (Medical School, football team, etc), those days are gone and I don't expect anyone there to go down the path of trying to resurrect them.
The 80s were bad enough for MU without having to deal with the financial requirements of a football team and a medical school. Im not sure the University would be as good as it is now if they had to deal with that as well.
I have enough heartburn watching the warriors play bball. I dont need this headache. Lets stick with basketball
Going back to the original post, the article was part of a three part series in the Marquette Tribune on the history, downfall and future of MU football. I provided the links in case anyone was interested in seeing the context of which the article was written.
We contacted Cottingham asking for an interview to go over numbers but all they would give us were vague statements through email. We then talked to the Nova AD to get a little perspective but he was very general in his statements as well. The initial plan was to do a line by line analysis of how much it would cost, but without some of the numbers, it became too much speculation so we scrapped it.
History
http://marquettetribune.org/2010/09/23/sports/mu-football-ml1-es2-je3/ (http://marquettetribune.org/2010/09/23/sports/mu-football-ml1-es2-je3/)
Downfall
http://marquettetribune.org/2010/09/30/sports/football-ag1-mn2-je3/ (http://marquettetribune.org/2010/09/30/sports/football-ag1-mn2-je3/)
Future
http://marquettetribune.org/2010/10/07/sports/football-ag1-es2-je3/
(http://marquettetribune.org/2010/10/07/sports/football-ag1-es2-je3/)
I've always had the pipe dream of MU adding a football team. Perhaps a few more Mil/billionare alums would help out.
I think IF Marquette ever felt like it was in a position where they needed to add a football team it would be because of enrollment. If there was ever a shift in students where Women made up 58+% of the student population, MU would consider adding football to bring back male applicants. But hell at the rate Marquette is making investments to improve itself, maybe football could work.
-As for location I think some sort of revamped Park East corridor could work. But i'd have to go out there with a tape measure and see if a stadium would fit. Parking would be a bitch I know... but I can't think of too many locations in the immediate area that are "available" Given that the Bradley center is on its last leg, the Frontier airline center is nearly useless and the Panthers are moving out, creating some new complex in that area might work. That is if the Valley Fields are ruled to not have enough space.
Then there is the idea of practice facilities but the valley field plus some space around campus would be worth the buy.
Quote from: pux90mex on October 10, 2010, 10:24:11 PM
Going back to the original post, the article was part of a three part series in the Marquette Tribune on the history, downfall and future of MU football. I provided the links in case anyone was interested in seeing the context of which the article was written.
We contacted Cottingham asking for an interview to go over numbers but all they would give us were vague statements through email. We then talked to the Nova AD to get a little perspective but he was very general in his statements as well. The initial plan was to do a line by line analysis of how much it would cost, but without some of the numbers, it became too much speculation so we scrapped it.
History
http://marquettetribune.org/2010/09/23/sports/mu-football-ml1-es2-je3/ (http://marquettetribune.org/2010/09/23/sports/mu-football-ml1-es2-je3/)
Downfall
http://marquettetribune.org/2010/09/30/sports/football-ag1-mn2-je3/ (http://marquettetribune.org/2010/09/30/sports/football-ag1-mn2-je3/)
Future
http://marquettetribune.org/2010/10/07/sports/football-ag1-es2-je3/
(http://marquettetribune.org/2010/10/07/sports/football-ag1-es2-je3/)
The tribune website needs a better spam filter
Quote from: Ari Gold on October 10, 2010, 10:45:59 PM
I've always had the pipe dream of MU adding a football team. Perhaps a few more Mil/billionare alums would help out.
I think IF Marquette ever felt like it was in a position where they needed to add a football team it would be because of enrollment. If there was ever a shift in students where Women made up 58+% of the student population, MU would consider adding football to bring back male applicants.
Maybe they should just market the fact that MU is 58% women...granted they are Marquette women....but when you're 18 you don't know any better. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2010, 07:52:30 PM
It's clear MU isn't going to start football. MU is throwing around ridiculous numbers to dampen the idea from the start...those numbers would be to start a full fledged DI Full Scholarship program...the idea is to throw those numbers around to kill the idea from the start. That's fine, it's MU's call but they should at least acknowledge people aren't that stupid and there are other forms of DI football that can be played without the ridiculous price tag they have placed on it.
Going to have to disagree here.
I don't think the ridiculous numbers are an attempt to squash it, I think the number Cottingham threw out is the number it would take to make a competitive d1 team, which is really what people want and what MU needs.
A low level football team isn't going to make MU that much more attractive to the big conferences, and it sure isn't going to draw a crowd. MU hoops has trouble breaking 12k against bad teams, how many people are going to go watch low-level football? 2500?
Nova's team might be helping them in the conf. struggle, but they have had that program and success for a while. Also, they are in Philly, so that helps them as well.
MU having a small football program would cost the school a lot of $ in the long run, and wouldn't really provide a huge benefit (IMHO).
Creating a large D1 program could be interesting, but has it's own unique obstacles (where to play, title 9, where to recruit, etc. etc.)
In this particular situation, Cottingham is kind of damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If he throws out "20 million", then people will be pushing to get a team, with the assumption that 20 million will make MU a real d1 program. If cottingham says "125 million", he gets roasted for inflating the numbers, when really it's probably a good estimate to create a real team.
Quote from: brewcity77 on October 08, 2010, 11:18:18 PM
I don't see football happening any time soon, but what about Miller Park? It's big enough for a football field, and it's not like the Brewers are using it from October to early December. Secure one or two Saturdays in late August through September, schedule on the road for the rest of the early season, then get home games later on. And I have to think it would only serve to help Milwaukee embrace Marquette. We have no other football team competing in this precise market. People that don't want to drive to Madison or Green Bay would probably like the idea of seeing a team locally, and it's a fairly short bus ride from campus.
Again, I can't see it happening, but using Miller Park 5-6 times a year would save us that "building a stadium" cost.
We tried that at County Stadium back in the late fifties with the remarkably inept Johnny Druze as our coach. Remember? "Moon" Mullins was the AD, and he scheduled Cincy, OK State, Holy Cross, Pitt, UW, etc. Played College of the Pacific with the highly-touted, swivel-hipped Dick Bass as their featured back. We beat them, I think, to break the nation's longest losing streak (something like 27 games in a row). Jeez, that Johnny Druze was a tool of a coach. He used to get all the national ND rejects from from coast to coast, since he came to MU from ND, where he was an assistant.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on October 09, 2010, 08:14:11 AM
Earlier I asked the following and no one answered so let me ask again ....
Can anyone name a program that started off slow drawing a few thousand as a D2 that amounted to anything like TCU, BC or Cincy? If not, why do we think MU can set NCAA history and be the first to pull it off?
If Cottingham or anyone in MU administration seriously looks to waste huge sums of money on this fantasy, I will personally lead to charge to have them immediately fired.
The truth is after 25 years, MU still would not outdraw Waukesha West.
Let this idea die peafully and never bring it up.
I believe South Florida started small and worked its way up but your point is still pretty valid as, for starters, South Florida is a state school. Many of the programs that have or are materializing (Georgia State & UNC-Charlotte to name two) simply tack on extra fees and cover the cost (which is easy to do when you have 40,000+ enrollments).
A better example, of the challenges MU would face would be Hofstra, which had a highly competitive FCS (Formerly I-AA program) featuring an on-campus stadium. The costs ultimately led to them dropping the program. It's simply cost prohibitive.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on October 11, 2010, 11:42:04 AM
Going to have to disagree here.
I don't think the ridiculous numbers are an attempt to squash it, I think the number Cottingham threw out is the number it would take to make a competitive d1 team, which is really what people want and what MU needs.
A low level football team isn't going to make MU that much more attractive to the big conferences, and it sure isn't going to draw a crowd. MU hoops has trouble breaking 12k against bad teams, how many people are going to go watch low-level football? 2500?
Nova's team might be helping them in the conf. struggle, but they have had that program and success for a while. Also, they are in Philly, so that helps them as well.
MU having a small football program would cost the school a lot of $ in the long run, and wouldn't really provide a huge benefit (IMHO).
Creating a large D1 program could be interesting, but has it's own unique obstacles (where to play, title 9, where to recruit, etc. etc.)
In this particular situation, Cottingham is kind of damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If he throws out "20 million", then people will be pushing to get a team, with the assumption that 20 million will make MU a real d1 program. If cottingham says "125 million", he gets roasted for inflating the numbers, when really it's probably a good estimate to create a real team.
Let me state it another way then. MU could certainly start a DI football program for far less than $125M....far less than $30M if it so chose. They are throwing out one number and not the other. It's all in the messaging.
If MU wanted to start a DI program like USD, Butler, Dayton, etc that could be done. Whether it has value is up for debate....certainly some people here want the high DI or nothing at all. Others don't agree. I see MU throwing out the High DI number and destination as an easy way to dismiss talking of the other approach. Just my opinion.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 11, 2010, 02:28:15 PM
Let me state it another way then. MU could certainly start a DI football program for far less than $125M....far less than $30M if it so chose. They are throwing out one number and not the other. It's all in the messaging.
If MU wanted to start a DI program like USD, Butler, Dayton, etc that could be done. Whether it has value is up for debate....certainly some people here want the high DI or nothing at all. Others don't agree. I see MU throwing out the High DI number and destination as an easy way to dismiss talking of the other approach. Just my opinion.
Fair enough, and you're right. How's it's been presented is important.
One thing though, everybody will WANT a high D1 team, and the avg. alum/fan probably isn't enlightened enough to settle for a small program and be happy with that. Knowing that, I don't hate the $125 mil. statement by Cottingham.
I don't pretend to know much about all this stuff, but I thought this article was relevant enough to share.
http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/kennesaw-state-students-approve-743667.html
Kennesaw State students approve football fee
Kennesaw State University students have approved a fee increase, bringing the school one step closer to fielding a football team in 2014.
Student government officers and KSU President Dan Papp announced the survey results Tuesday before a packed room in the university's student center.
About 55.5 percent of the 7,358 students voting in a seven-day online survey last week approved the $100 per semester fee increase to fund the football program and to expand women's sports.
The fee, which would take effect in fall 2012, is expected to generate $5 million to $6 million a year.
Papp equated the affirmative fee vote to a halftime lead. "It's nice to have, but at the end of the day it doesn't mean all that much," he said.
Before football can be played, the university must begin an 18- to 30-month campaign to raise the $8 million to $12 million in start-up costs. If that's successful, the university would present a business plan — which would include a formal request for the $100 fee — to the state's board of regents.
If the plan is approved, football coaches could be recruited as early as fall 2012, followed by players in fall 2013.
About 33 percent of the 22,388 eligible voters — students who currently pay KSU's existing $144 per semester athletic fee — voted in the football fee survey.
The school announced its intentions to field a football team in September after a recommendation from an exploratory committee, headed by former Georgia football coach Vince Dooley.
But this is just for a I-AA team. The cost (and requisite student fees) to start-up a I-A team is likely much greater.
http://www.ajc.com/sports/kennesaw-state-plans-to-614102.html
Not to beat a dead horse here, but football is discretionary right now at MU - it doesn't matter if the start-up cost is $8M, $30M or $125M. If it one day becomes a necessity, then MU will have to decide whether it wants its athletic teams in a BCS conference with football or in the A-10 without. My guess is that the students would approve it in a heartbeat if the annual fee was tolerable... the question is whether the finance office can justify.
So if the students in 2017 vote they don't want to pay the fee, will they disband. This vote is bull.
Before football can be played, the university must begin an 18- to 30-month campaign to raise the $8 million to $12 million in start-up costs. If that's successful, the university would present a business plan — which would include a formal request for the $100 fee — to the state's board of regents.
This is a state school and has the resources of the state tax payers.... And that's why MU will never have a football team.
A one time student fee charge of $10,000 per student, times 11,600 students = $116 mil.
Eureka, the start up cost of football is paid. Of course, those students would get preferred seating, even over alums, at the football games-lol
7358 X 100 X 2 Semesters = $5 to 6 million???????????
Sounds like Washington math to me
Quote from: PBRme on November 17, 2010, 11:05:57 AM
7358 X 100 X 2 Semesters = $5 to 6 million???????????
Sounds like Washington math to me
You're right...they would need about $375 per student per semester to get to $5.5MM.
Quote from: PBRme on November 17, 2010, 11:05:57 AM
7358 X 100 X 2 Semesters = $5 to 6 million???????????
Sounds like Washington math to me
I believe you left out a number (just my guess, not trying to pile on)
7358 students X $100 X 2 semesters X
4 years (remember, they said 2014)That equals $5,886,400.00
Quote from: Benny B on November 17, 2010, 10:28:49 AM
But this is just for a I-AA team. The cost (and requisite student fees) to start-up a I-A team is likely much greater.
That's why we should start up a I-AA team and not a I-A team. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 17, 2010, 12:25:58 PM
I believe you left out a number (just my guess, not trying to pile on)
7358 students X $100 X 2 semesters X 4 years (remember, they said 2014)
That equals $5,886,400.00
I don't disagree with your math, however
QuoteThe fee, which would take effect in fall 2012, is expected to generate $5 million to $6 million a year.
So the article clearly states per year. Also, if it takes effect in 2012, then there's only 2 years to accumulate money before fall 2014, not 4 years
Maybe here's where the number comes from
22,388 eligible voters (students) ....the 7,358 were those that voted for the fee
22,388 X $100 X 2 semesters = $4,477,600
That's not $5 to $6 million, but getting closer ;D
Ahhh...we're all being silly...
QuoteAbout 33 percent of the 22,388 eligible voters
So at least 22,388 * $100 * 2 semesters = $4,477,600
Only 7358 voted.
Funny, I just posted the same thing
Beat your edit by 31 seconds :)
Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 17, 2010, 12:38:13 PM
Beat your edit by 31 seconds :)
I've always lasted longer than you Rocky *rimshot*
Quote from: Benny B on November 17, 2010, 10:28:49 AM
But this is just for a I-AA team. The cost (and requisite student fees) to start-up a I-A team is likely much greater.
http://www.ajc.com/sports/kennesaw-state-plans-to-614102.html
Not to beat a dead horse here, but football is discretionary right now at MU - it doesn't matter if the start-up cost is $8M, $30M or $125M. If it one day becomes a necessity, then MU will have to decide whether it wants its athletic teams in a BCS conference with football or in the A-10 without. My guess is that the students would approve it in a heartbeat if the annual fee was tolerable... the question is whether the finance office can justify.
I agree that as of RIGHT NOW, football is discretionary, assuming things stay the same in perpetuity. However, starting up a football program takes years. When/if it does in fact become, as you said, a necessity for MU, it will be too late to start a program at that point. Conferences will realign, and then MU will join the A-10 or something similar. At that point, no BCS conference is going wait around for 4 years while MU cobbles together a D 1-A program in an attempt to stay in the Big East or another BCS conference. Its something that will have had to be in place beforehand. So yes, in a sense its discretionary, but its something that we need to be thinking AHEAD of time, if we want to stay in a BCS conference for all of our sports.
My 2 cents
Quote from: john_cocktoasten on November 17, 2010, 10:53:38 AM
Before football can be played, the university must begin an 18- to 30-month campaign to raise the $8 million to $12 million in start-up costs. If that's successful, the university would present a business plan — which would include a formal request for the $100 fee — to the state's board of regents.
This is a state school and has the resources of the state tax payers.... And that's why MU will never have a football team.
No, the Board of Regents simply has to approve the fee the students charge themselves. They won't be allocating tax dollars to this in a direct sense.