Whether you like it or not football is needed. If we want to remain in a elite conference football is needed. This is highlighted by the fact that all of the realignment is based on football revenue. The only thing I care about as far as MU athletics goes is the basketball program remaining elite. To do this they need exposure. A strong conference gives us exposure. An A10, catholic conference will only solidify second tier status. If we want to control our basketball status we need football to provide the extra leverage.
If that means from a compliance basis ending all the men's athletics except for basketball so that we have the ability to start football I'm fine with it. For one reason and one reason only it gives #mubb the chance to bargain and determine its place in the world and not have it dictated to them.
While its to late to make any difference now we do have opportunity to change in the future. Hopefully, mu athletics will stop denying reality!
Can we just drop threads like these from now on. Its too late, I'm sorry. Football isn't going to ride in here and save us. Maybe if we had a decade already under our belts and a stadium erected then perhaps we could creep into some kind of new "high mid" conference for football and basketball. But its a decade out and probably at least a half-billion dollar investment before our team would be a non-laughing stock.
Then where do we go? We wouldn't fit into the mega-ACC, just look at Louisville and Cincinatti. You're crazy if you throw out the Big #; we are a small catholic school. We'd end up in the cast-off conference of the BEast and Big 12, or maybe not even make it into that. The whole idea is just ludicrous.
Read Broeker's interview, and you will realize that your dream will never be a reality. Anonymous Eagle does a tremendous job in outlining why your dream should never be a reality. Stop living in a fantast world, and realize that simply having a football team does absolutely nothing for us at this point.
Let's just retire the "C" in NCAA. No one is even talking about Marquette or the other schools as an institution of higher learning anymore.
About a decade too late. Starting a football program now has no benefit. Even if we did get to FBS status ten years, a couple hundred million bucks, and a lot of luck from now you're assuming the landscape is the same as it is today and for some reason a high major conference wants to add the small private school in Milwaukee...the only other small, private schools switching conferences and still ending up in a BCS conference are TCU and possibly Baylor, in football hotbed Texas and have long established programs with FBS success...still TCU was by a desperate Big East and Baylor will be forced to switch and piggyback on others.
QuoteIf that means from a compliance basis ending all the men's athletics except for basketball so that we have the ability to start football I'm fine with it
Until we added lacrosse we were already at the minimum number of sports allowed. So nice dice there either. And I'm sure it wouldn't look desperate and pathetic to a high major conference to be the one school not competing in any other sports besides basketball and football. ::)
Unless you are part of the soon to be "chosen 64" in the superconferences, football is a loser. This re-aligment puts the nail in coffin for the non BCS football programs. Marquette will take some collateral damage due to this mess, but our damage is insignificant compared to the new reality of that BYU, Boise State, etc. will face. As long as the NCAAs remain open to all of D1 (don't see that changing), then a bball only conference is probably our best bet.
Teams like West Virginia and Louisville are struggling to find a home. What chance would we have?
If you read the post at all it said football wouldn't solve this situation. However, if mu athletics learns a lesson from this hopefully they can plan for the future and next time things shake up we will be ready/safeguarded. Likely, this would need to involve football.
Also, if I may make a bold prediction basketball isn't going to overtake football anytime soon in revenues so, the issue of having football will need to be discussed in the future.
Also check your enrollment Villanova pulls of football just fine. Even if it has ruffled some feathers.
I'm not saying we go ahead and add football tomorrow because it won't change a thing. If mu though wants to be able to be prominent long term they either need to figure out how not to be on the sidelines of the conference shake ups next time they happen...which they will (look at history).
As an alum I'm not eager to regress to the 80's-90's Marquette conference status. I have grown accustomed to our privileged conference status and would like to keep it and ensure it long term.
If you have no conference for your football to play in what is the point?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on September 20, 2011, 12:23:43 PM
Teams like West Virginia and Louisville are struggling to find a home. What chance would we have?
Exactly. It is laughable this whole start football stuff. Established programs are twisting in the wind.
Quote from: universitypark on September 20, 2011, 12:46:00 PM
Also check your enrollment Villanova pulls of football just fine. Even if it has ruffled some feathers.
Villanova restarted football 26 years ago after just a 4 year absence, and has had a relatively successful team in that time. Yet still they are only in a marginally better situation than us right now. Villanova will not be invited to one of the top 4 conferences as a football member and they will not have any extra pull in this situation because of its football program. So you're talking about a major investment that in 25 years still probably won't bring back the results you're looking for. Either there's another way or MU is screwed regardless.
Quote from: universitypark on September 20, 2011, 12:46:00 PM
Also check your enrollment Villanova pulls of football just fine.
What good has it done them? They sink a bunch of money in a program that is leaving them at the exact same place as Marquette. They don't have a sufficient stadium to move up.
As an alumnus, I would rather them throw those resources at their academic programs rather than flush it down the football toilet.
Quote from: universitypark on September 20, 2011, 12:46:00 PM
If you read the post at all it said football wouldn't solve this situation.
I read your post a second time. Just as dumb.
If they can fund it we can. Marquette has 8,000 (11,000 total) undergrad. Schools that have football with smaller enrollment:
- Notre Dame
- Stanford
- Duke (larger with graduate if totaled)
- Boston College (larger if grad students included)
- TCU
- wake forest
- smu
- lousiana tech
- rice
- tulane
- Dayton
- Idaho
- Tulsa
- Most of the Ivy league
- Most of what was d2
So don't tell me its impossible when other schools with similar student populations have done it.
Obviously it would be a long term end and not solve the current situation. However, to dismiss it so quickly is short sighted. Long term it could be feasible none of the musings at anonymous eagle are insurmountable not by a long shot. Funding (we got alumni and sorry people don't donate to women's basketball for the most part (ie unless banners are raised) no matter how much Terri Mitchell's program deserves it), stadium no reason we can't buy land (we love buying property), title IX other schools have done it next. If anything the stadium would be the most difficult issue.
Also, you cannot assume a program would fail just because you say it will (that's not an argument). Just as I cannot make the argument it would succeed just by saying so. Nobody knows how a program would fair on the field.
Don't come back with it doesn't solve the situation today. Everybody knows that it doesn't solve today's problem. However, it could put mu in a better position next time something like this happens. For that reason alone its worth examining.
Once you come up with a stadium, start-up money, and figure out where the extra 100 or so Title IX scholarships, this is worth a thread. Until then, the topic is a complete and utter waste of bandwidth.
And will take a minimum of 30 years to be relevant.
Quote from: universitypark on September 20, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
If they can fund it we can. Marquette has 8,000 (11,000 total) undergrad. Schools that have football with smaller enrollment:
- Notre Dame
- Stanford
- Duke (larger with graduate if totaled)
- Boston College (larger if grad students included)
- TCU
- wake forest
- smu
- lousiana tech
- rice
- tulane
- Dayton
- Idaho
- Tulsa
- Most of the Ivy league
- Most of what was d2
So don't tell me its impossible when other schools with similar student populations have done it. Obviously it would be a long term end and not solve the current situation. However, to dismiss it so quickly is short sighted. Long term it could be feasible none of the musings at anonymous eagle are insurmountable not by a long shot. Funding (we got alumni and sorry people don't donate to women's basketball for the most part (ie unless banners are raised) no matter how much Terri Mitchell's program deserves it), stadium no reason we can't buy land (we love buying property), title IX other schools have done it next. If anything the stadium would be the most difficult issue.
Also, you cannot assume a program would fail just because you say it will (that's not an argument). Just as I cannot make the argument it would succeed just by saying so. Nobody knows how a program would fair on the field.
Don't come back with it doesn't solve the situation today. Everybody knows that it doesn't solve today's problem. However, it could put mu in a better position next time something like this happens. For that reason alone its worth examining.
now that is funny. Do yourself a favor, check out the endowments of the schools you mentioned. We are not on the same planet as your list. Those schools are Neiman Marcus, sadly we are Walmart in that regard.
To paraphrase Father Pilarz's comment in yesterday's On the Issues interview:
If we had $200 million to spend, would football be the wisest way to spend it?
http://www.marquette.edu/inauguration/webcast-on-the-issues.php
Where near campus? N, and W will require that the city of Milwaukee allow us to re-route and eliminate major streets. E requires we build it in the middle of Lake Michigan. So South. In the industrial valley down by the casino. In superfund central. A stadium and a practice facility. Yummy. So buying the property, springing for the groundwater clean up.... oh, yeah, and finally start building. How big? Father Pilarz is right. If MU had $200 million burning a hole in its pocket, is this the best use for it? Non-starter
Quote from: universitypark on September 20, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
If they can fund it we can. Marquette has 8,000 (11,000 total) undergrad. Schools that have football with smaller enrollment:
- Notre Dame
- Stanford
- Duke (larger with graduate if totaled)
- Boston College (larger if grad students included)
- TCU
- wake forest
- smu
- lousiana tech
- rice
- tulane
- Dayton
- Idaho
- Tulsa
- Most of the Ivy league
- Most of what was d2
All of those schools except recent TCU and Stanford teams are bad at football.
Read this (http://www.anonymouseagle.com/2011/9/20/2437616/marquette-football-undefeated-since-1960-and-staying-that-way) and knock it off with the football garbage.
I would want a fball team regardless if we were good or not.
Quote from: GoMarquette32 on September 20, 2011, 07:19:18 PM
I would want a fball team regardless if we were good or not.
What kind of football team? One like Dayton or one like Tulane? Having one that is like either of those will get the ADept nowhere. So whats the point?
Quote from: GoMarquette32 on September 20, 2011, 07:19:18 PM
I would want a fball team regardless if we were good or not.
Why not just burn the university's money in a barrel instead? At least it would generate some heat.
Actually most of the schools listed even the Louisiana Tech's of the world run a profit on their football programs. So, it might not be burning the schools money.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
Quote from: universitypark on September 20, 2011, 10:15:56 PM
Actually most of the schools listed even the Louisiana Tech's of the world run a profit on their football programs. So, it might not be burning the schools money.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
Yeah, they all have the same start up costs that MU has, right? It
is burning the schools money.
Quote from: universitypark on September 20, 2011, 10:15:56 PM
Actually most of the schools listed even the Louisiana Tech's of the world run a profit on their football programs. So, it might not be burning the schools money.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
How long will it take to turn a profit after you build a stadium? The $100 million just to build the stadium is the money I was talking about.
Go read the link I posted already. We're having arguments already covered there.
Quote from: GoMarquette32 on September 20, 2011, 07:19:18 PM
I would want a fball team regardless if we were good or not.
Can only imagine how quickly this tune would change when we win one game in three years playing FCS and D2 teams and are ridiculed by Badger fans after getting blown out by UW-Platteville.
Its too late to start a football program now but if we had started one 10 years ago or earlier, there is a better chance that the Big East conference would have remained intact.
The problem with the Big East has always been that they don't have enough football programs. Ten football programs would have provided more stability, and with twelve even more. ACC football is no better than the Big East but they have stability and that is why Pitt and Syracuse have decided to leave. Plus the football programs end up with more shared revenue then the non-football programs and even if we are still bleeding red at least it gets you into a discussion if everything starts to fall apart.
I think no matter how you slice it, going to a basketball only league will be a huge step down.
Quote from: mufanatic on September 21, 2011, 10:22:04 AM
Its too late to start a football program now but if we had started one 10 years ago or earlier, there is a better chance that the Big East conference would have remained intact.
The problem with the Big East has always been that they don't have enough football programs. Ten football programs would have provided more stability, and with twelve even more. ACC football is no better than the Big East but they have stability and that is why Pitt and Syracuse have decided to leave. Plus the football programs end up with more shared revenue then the non-football programs and even if we are still bleeding red at least it gets you into a discussion if everything starts to fall apart.
I think no matter how you slice it, going to a basketball only league will be a huge step down.
Because a 10-year-old Marquette football program after a 40-year hiatus would have done more for the Big East than a Villanova football program that seems largely responsible for pushing Pitt out of the league?
The only way our football program would have been relevant enough is if we hadn't gotten rid of it in 1960, or brought it back within 2-3 years. That ship sailed before most of us were even born.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 21, 2011, 10:44:16 AM
Because a 10-year-old Marquette football program after a 40-year hiatus would have done more for the Big East than a Villanova football program that seems largely responsible for pushing Pitt out of the league?
The only way our football program would have been relevant enough is if we hadn't gotten rid of it in 1960, or brought it back within 2-3 years. That ship sailed before most of us were even born.
Just because a the program was killed in the 60's doesn't mean it can't be revived. Really football is a long term goal that couldn't be rushed into for all the reasons everybody (money, stadium etc.). However, long term they may need to be resolved if a basketball only conference that is nationally prominent isn't possible. To say those issues are impossible to overcome is just wrong (might not be easy but not nearly impossible).
It would be nice if we had a program just so we wouldn't have to listen to all those "I couldn't get into nd so I went to mu students" or the its ok to cheer for wisco cuz we don't have a team, people drone on all fall. Obviously this is not a reason to start a program but would be a benefit of having one.
Quote from: universitypark on September 21, 2011, 11:25:28 AM
Just because a the program was killed in the 60's doesn't mean it can't be revived.
The creation of Title IX in the 1970s created a very large money wall that just gets bigger every year, so it kind of does mean it can't be revived.
QuoteReally football is a long term goal that couldn't be rushed into for all the reasons everybody (money, stadium etc.). However, long term they may need to be resolved if a basketball only conference that is nationally prominent isn't possible. To say those issues are impossible to overcome is just wrong (might not be easy but not nearly impossible).
I'm not saying they're impossible. I'm saying they're equivalent to Don Quixote tilting at windmills: Pointless and insane.
QuoteIt would be nice if we had a program just so we wouldn't have to listen to all those "I couldn't get into nd so I went to mu students" or the its ok to cheer for wisco cuz we don't have a team, people drone on all fall. Obviously this is not a reason to start a program but would be a benefit of having one.
These people are dragging you down in life. ESPECIALLY anyone who thinks it's okay to cheer for Bucky under any circumstances.
I'm not saying this for my health: You need to read this before you keep going on and on. (http://anonymouseagle.com/2011/9/20/2437616/marquette-football-undefeated-since-1960-and-staying-that-way)
Quote from: universitypark on September 21, 2011, 11:25:28 AM
Just because a the program was killed in the 60's doesn't mean it can't be revived. Really football is a long term goal that couldn't be rushed into for all the reasons everybody (money, stadium etc.). However, long term they may need to be resolved if a basketball only conference that is nationally prominent isn't possible. To say those issues are impossible to overcome is just wrong (might not be easy but not nearly impossible).
It would be nice if we had a program just so we wouldn't have to listen to all those "I couldn't get into nd so I went to mu students" or the its ok to cheer for wisco cuz we don't have a team, people drone on all fall. Obviously this is not a reason to start a program but would be a benefit of having one.
And a benefit to having 3 hands would be picking my nose, scratching my ass and my balls all at the same time...that doesn't mean I want to be able to do that.
/not sure what this means
//it's equally as dumb as the call for having MU football
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on September 21, 2011, 11:30:10 AMI'm not saying this for my health: You need to read this before you keep going on and on. (http://anonymouseagle.com/2011/9/20/2437616/marquette-football-undefeated-since-1960-and-staying-that-way)
Maybe he doesn't get the whole "link embedded in text" thing you got going there.
universitypark, click the link below:
http://www.anonymouseagle.com/2011/9/20/2437616/marquette-football-undefeated-since-1960-and-staying-that-way.
Already read it. None of it refutes my argument that all of those issues can be worked out with time and planning. I'm not advocating starting a program this second because that's insane, I agree. But, with planning all of the issues can be overcome and there are lots of cases where this has been done and that makes a squad viable.
Let me spell it out short term equals failure. Long term with proper planning equals possible. To argue otherwise is to deny that money can be raised eventually (it could), stadium could be found (it could no matter the cost if school committed long term to it it eventually could be paid for "its called borrowing or leans"), title IX other schools dealt with it (so possible) really its where money comes back into the argument and having the necessary funding for other women's programs so that a football squad would even be legal.
Is it possible today no with proper planning long term yes.
I think Marquette should build a roof over the entire campus. Absurd you say? Hey, "long term planning equals possible."
(And I actually think my idea is more possible than football is.)
Quote from: universitypark on September 21, 2011, 01:34:47 PM
Already read it. None of it refutes my argument that all of those issues can be worked out with time and planning. I'm not advocating starting a program this second because that's insane, I agree. But, with planning all of the issues can be overcome and there are lots of cases where this has been done and that makes a squad viable.
Let me spell it out short term equals failure. Long term with proper planning equals possible. To argue otherwise is to deny that money can be raised eventually (it could), stadium could be found (it could no matter the cost if school committed long term to it it eventually could be paid for "its called borrowing or leans"), title IX other schools dealt with it (so possible) really its where money comes back into the argument and having the necessary funding for other women's programs so that a football squad would even be legal.
Is it possible today no with proper planning long term yes.
The stadium isn't just about money (though that's a huge roadblock) it's about geography. Where do you put it? Where are you going to get scholarship money to offset Title IX? Even if you raise the money for a football program, stadium, and scholarships (unlikely, but if you so) you still need more money to start another 4-5 programs of women's sports. That won't be such an easy sell.
Don't say "maybe we can, maybe if we plan", give legitimate answers. The problem is that there aren't any. That's why Broeker dismissed this out of hand on WSSP. It has no basis in reality.
Until you tell us where you can put a 25,000+ seat stadium and where you can get money for not just football scholarships but also all the Title IX sports you'll have to start, stop wasting time with this thread. Without concrete answers, you're just sucking up bandwidth.
Quote from: universitypark on September 21, 2011, 01:34:47 PM
Already read it. None of it refutes my argument that all of those issues can be worked out with time and planning. I'm not advocating starting a program this second because that's insane, I agree. But, with planning all of the issues can be overcome and there are lots of cases where this has been done and that makes a squad viable.
Let me spell it out short term equals failure. Long term with proper planning equals possible. To argue otherwise is to deny that money can be raised eventually (it could), stadium could be found (it could no matter the cost if school committed long term to it it eventually could be paid for "its called borrowing or leans"), title IX other schools dealt with it (so possible) really its where money comes back into the argument and having the necessary funding for other women's programs so that a football squad would even be legal.
Is it possible today no with proper planning long term yes.
Here's the problem with your long term planning:
Marquette's screwed NOW.
Like arguing with brick walls.
I admire your passion. Call up MU and offer to head up the $200 million dollar fundraising and take the point for this. You have found your calling. Prove us all wrong.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 21, 2011, 01:42:53 PM
I think Marquette should build a roof over the entire campus. Absurd you say? Hey, "long term planning equals possible."
(And I actually think my idea is more possible than football is.)
Possibly cheaper too. Unless you want a retractable roof.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on September 21, 2011, 06:42:30 PM
Possibly cheaper too. Unless you want a retractable roof.
I like it. The roof opens up on those perfect spring weekend days so the kids can go out and tan in Westown mall. I think as a cost saving feature we leave Central Mall uncovered for about 20 years. That way the current generation of students can complain at their Reunion that only 'part' of the campus was covered back in the day and that the current kids have it easy.
Quote from: universitypark on September 21, 2011, 02:56:24 PMLike arguing with brick walls.
Well, you offered a suggestion, people argued why it wasn't possible, you have yet to come up with a reasonable counter to that argument. I'm sure if you told people where the stadium money, location, scholarship money, and compensatory Title IX sports will come from, people would be happy to listen.
Most people prefer to live in reality, and until you can show how in a real world this can happen, people will continue to do just that.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 21, 2011, 01:42:53 PM
I think Marquette should build a roof over the entire campus. Absurd you say? Hey, "long term planning equals possible."
(And I actually think my idea is more possible than football is.)
How about just having underground tunnels so kids don't have to go outside to get to classes anymore? If MN-Duluth has it I refuse to believe we can't reroute the sewer system and start digging! They even have football and baseball!
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 22, 2011, 05:43:20 AM
Well, you offered a suggestion, people argued why it wasn't possible, you have yet to come up with a reasonable counter to that argument. I'm sure if you told people where the stadium money, location, scholarship money, and compensatory Title IX sports will come from, people would be happy to listen.
Most people prefer to live in reality, and until you can show how in a real world this can happen, people will continue to do just that.
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lishpiSM8O1qgubxao1_500.png)
Marty! You're not thinking four dimensionally!
Quote from: chapman on September 22, 2011, 06:57:23 AM
How about just having underground tunnels so kids don't have to go outside to get to classes anymore? If MN-Duluth has it I refuse to believe we can't reroute the sewer system and start digging! They even have football and baseball!
Man, can you imagine the bad press in the Chicago Tribune when we have a large storm and the students are washed out into Lake Michigan because of the overflow of water? Milwaukee's not so hot with the tunnel designs ...
Quote from: universitypark on September 21, 2011, 02:56:24 PM
Like arguing with brick walls.
It's funny that even though you've been presented with vast amounts of data and evidence you still believe that your opinions have more merit than facts.
Quote from: universitypark on September 21, 2011, 01:34:47 PM
Already read it. None of it refutes my argument that all of those issues can be worked out with time and planning. I'm not advocating starting a program this second because that's insane, I agree. But, with planning all of the issues can be overcome and there are lots of cases where this has been done and that makes a squad viable.
Let me spell it out short term equals failure. Long term with proper planning equals possible. To argue otherwise is to deny that money can be raised eventually (it could), stadium could be found (it could no matter the cost if school committed long term to it it eventually could be paid for "its called borrowing or leans"), title IX other schools dealt with it (so possible) really its where money comes back into the argument and having the necessary funding for other women's programs so that a football squad would even be legal.
Is it possible today no with proper planning long term yes.
I appreciate your optimism.
Most truly innovative ideas are seen as impossible or crazy until they actually work.
I also agree that with enough planning and forethought, anything is possible.
HOWEVER, the problem we have here is that football (even with enough planning and long term vision) is a financial nightmare.
There is a TON of money required. (specifics are covered in other threads)
Now, if somebody won the uber-lottery tomorrow and donated 2 billion dollars to MU, they could afford football, right?
Wrong.
It's a bad bet. Throwing good money after bad. Or any other cliche that you want to use.
All of that $$ could go to making the school better for the students that actually attend. Hell, MU would be better off building it's own basketball arena than building a football stadium. Create some sort of indoor parking barn and give students/alumni a chance to tailgate in there. That's a far better use of the $$. Give away more scholarship $. Add a billion to the endowment. All better than starting football.
To put it another way:
Just because Green Bay has an NFL franchise doesn't mean than Duluth MN should have one. It wouldn't work. Too much $$.
Just because Boston College has a football team doesn't mean MU should have one. It's a ridiculous amount of money that can be used elsewhere to help the school.
Quote from: universitypark on September 21, 2011, 02:56:24 PM
Like arguing with brick walls.
Look, even if you buy the argument that having football is very important to our basketball success, you still have to address the issue about how important even basketball success is to Marquette University.
Marquette's primary goal is to educate students. Period. The basketball program is a means toward that goal. It is a point of pride for alumni...is a great public relations vehicle for the institution, etc. And you cannot argue that MU hasn't invested in the program.
However there comes a point that the amount of investment required isn't worth the marginal returns. And that even if MU had those resources, they would be better spent elsewhere. Such as increasing our scholarship endowment, academic building projects, etc.
So what I am saying is that even if MU gets a gift of $200M that it could use for anything it wanted, I would be extremely disappointed if they decided to use it to create a football program - no matter what the implications would be for basketball.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 22, 2011, 08:24:31 AM
Look, even if you buy the argument that having football is very important to our basketball success, you still have to address the issue about how important even basketball success is to Marquette University.
Marquette's primary goal is to educate students. Period. The basketball program is a means toward that goal. It is a point of pride for alumni...is a great public relations vehicle for the institution, etc. And you cannot argue that MU hasn't invested in the program.
However there comes a point that the amount of investment required isn't worth the marginal returns. And that even if MU had those resources, they would be better spent elsewhere. Such as increasing our scholarship endowment, academic building projects, etc.
So what I am saying is that even if MU gets a gift of $200M that it could use for anything it wanted, I would be extremely disappointed if they decided to use it to create a football program - no matter what the implications would be for basketball.
Hard to argue with any of this, even if the highlighted text was a bit of a revelation to me.
Since we now have lacrosse, the only support I think MU should legitimately look into adding is hockey.....and then polo.
Quote from: Aughnanure on September 22, 2011, 09:50:20 AM
Since we now have lacrosse, the only support I think MU should legitimately look into adding is hockey.....and then polo.
Hockey? You mean with all that money we'll get with the new contract and all the added gameday revenue we will get when ECU/UCF/Temple/whoever replaces Pitt and Syracuse? I doubt any sports will be added for a long time.