So evidently, the new UW-Milwaukee AD (Rick Costello) is making good on his pledge, and the school is spending upwards of six figures to study the feasibility of football, hockey, rugby, and lacrosse.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/133066738.html
I'm thinking that for $10,000, we could just Costello temporary access to MUScoop to read through past threads on why football might or might not work at Marquette UW-M.
Superbar
Where they come up with the money they need for that I have no idea. They would have to jack student fees AND come up with some significant fund-raising for this to occur.
Good luck.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 09:10:36 AM
Where they come up with the money they need for that I have no idea. They would have to jack student fees AND come up with some significant fund-raising for this to occur.
Good luck.
I don't even know where they have the money to conduct the six figure feasibility study.
Quote from: Badgerhater on November 02, 2011, 09:08:25 AM
Superbar
Granted, the topic is misleading. The question I'm trying to pose is why would football work at UW-M if it won't work at Marquette. Does UW-M have an advantage in making it work, or are they simply in the same boat as MU? We've discussed MU football in the Al before, but according to the homepage description, yes... Superbar.
But if anything, it probably belongs on the Suggestion Board since it's a revenue-generating opportunity for MUScoop... we've already done the research, let's do some low-cost consulting.
I think it is simple.
Why would football at UWM work? I think because basketball is not working. Marquette is obviously dominate for the basketball market in Milwaukee. We are going to have a significant chokehold in every way for basketball. In their situation, if you are going to dump money into a sports program (key point) in order to CREATE a bigger revenue stream, it seems to be common sense to look at football because there is an obvious gap in the market.
It is a shame because I think Marquette has access to more money and would probably have more success at starting a program. Unless you really think this whole thing is a fad and football is king for only now, I think it is clear that you need to start looking to football program. Oh well.
Quote from: Benny B on November 02, 2011, 09:17:21 AM
Granted, the topic is misleading. The question I'm trying to pose is why would football work at UW-M if it won't work at Marquette. Does UW-M have an advantage in making it work, or are they simply in the same boat as MU? We've discussed MU football in the Al before, but according to the homepage description, yes... Superbar.
The one advantage UWM has is the ability to charge student fees to support the program. I have addressed this here before, but that is how a lot of D1 football programs are funded. Of course students have to give their "approval," (which is a bit of a sham), but what are UWM students going to do? They are already attending the low cost alternative for four year schools. Marquette could of course do the same thing, but they are already dealing with the high cost of private school tuition.
Right now, UWM students are charged about $1,000 per year on top of tuition for student fees. If you increase it by $100, with 20,000 students, you have $2M per year.
Now, remember this guy came from Rutgers right? Well....
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-28-rutgers-athletic-department-subsidies_n.htm
Quote from: ErickJD08 on November 02, 2011, 09:27:53 AM
I think it is simple.
Why would football at UWM work? I think because basketball is not working. Marquette is obviously dominate for the basketball market in Milwaukee. We are going to have a significant chokehold in every way for basketball. In their situation, if you are going to dump money into a sports program (key point) in order to CREATE a bigger revenue stream, it seems to be common sense to look at football because there is an obvious gap in the market.
What "obvious gap" is that? Do you really think people are going to show up to support UWM football when you have Madison on television every week? I would say, maybe, 15,000 on a good day. In a stadium that isn't built yet.
And yeah, it is a huge potential revenue producer, but it is a huge cost too. They would have to start at the FCS non-scholarship level, but then would have to move up to regular FCS, which means huge $$$ for scholarships. 63 scholies for football v. 13 for basketball. (UWM wouldn't be required to fill all 63 though.)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 09:40:17 AM
What "obvious gap" is that? Do you really think people are going to show up to support UWM football when you have Madison on television every week? I would say, maybe, 15,000 on a good day. In a stadium that isn't built yet.
And yeah, it is a huge potential revenue producer, but it is a huge cost too. They would have to start at the FCS non-scholarship level, but then would have to move up to regular FCS, which means huge $$$ for scholarships. 63 scholies for football v. 13 for basketball. (UWM wouldn't be required to fill all 63 though.)
The obvious gap is live football in Milwaukee on the college or pro level. You can't find it. Outside the student body watching, I am sure you would slowly get support of the community. Since it would start small, most kids would be local and I am sure plenty of friends and family to give support.
I was trying to think of schools that would be in similar situations to UWM...large public urban school in a state that already has a premier football teams. And I came up with a few: UAB, Houston, UCF... So I guess if you use those as a model, and you could get a stadium built, they might be able to make something work given their advantage as a public university.
But I don't think it would ever be very profitable.
Honestly, I think UWM has a better shot than MU.
If they build a cool stadium (I have no idea how or where), and if they eventually had some level of success (say, going .500), they could hook a lot of marginal sports fans.
MU doesn't seem to attract a lot of marginal fans because it's a private institution that doesn't have any built in backing.
Casual fans (non-alums) seem to identify with public schools. UW is obvious, but UWM could probably build a fanbase if their gameday event was good/great. Season tix for football are great because their aren't many games; very easy for casual fans to get interested.
Infrastructure is a huge problem for both schools. Fanbase is probably not as big of a problem for UWM as it is for MU. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but I think UWM has a better shot at drawing 40K per game than MU.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on November 02, 2011, 10:01:15 AM
Honestly, I think UWM has a better shot than MU.
If they build a cool stadium (I have no idea how or where), and if they eventually had some level of success (say, going .500), they could hook a lot of marginal sports fans.
MU doesn't seem to attract a lot of marginal fans because it's a private institution that doesn't have any built in backing.
Casual fans (non-alums) seem to identify with public schools. UW is obvious, but UWM could probably build a fanbase if their gameday event was good/great. Season tix for football are great because their aren't many games; very easy for casual fans to get interested.
Infrastructure is a huge problem for both schools. Fanbase is probably not as big of a problem for UWM as it is for MU. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but I think UWM has a better shot at drawing 40K per game than MU.
Don't they have a hard enough time drawing 500 students/game for basketball?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 09:34:08 AM
The one advantage UWM has is the ability to charge student fees to support the program.
Is there anything that is preventing Marquette from charging student fees? I wouldn't think so being a private institution.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 09:58:23 AM
I was trying to think of schools that would be in similar situations to UWM...large public urban school in a state that already has a premier football teams. And I came up with a few: UAB, Houston, UCF... So I guess if you use those as a model, and you could get a stadium built, they might be able to make something work given their advantage as a public university.
You could maybe throw in Northwestern - with ND and Illinois being the "premier" teams.
Quote from: T-Bone on November 02, 2011, 10:38:52 AM
You could maybe throw in Northwestern - with ND and Illinois being the "premier" teams.
Northwestern is not large, public nor urban.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on November 02, 2011, 10:01:15 AM
Infrastructure is a huge problem for both schools. Fanbase is probably not as big of a problem for UWM as it is for MU. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but I think UWM has a better shot at drawing 40K per game than MU.
There's not a chance they draw 40,000. That would make them the largest FCS school attendance wise....by 15,000 fans! (Appalachain State draws 25,700 per game...and that's the largest.) Honestly, I didn't realize that FCS attendance was so crappy. Only three schools draw over 20,000 per game. Marquette's basketball attendance would be 12th on the FCS football attendance list.
And wow...didn't realize this...but 40,000 per game would be larger than the average game in the Mountain West Conference, the MAC, the Sun Belt, the WAC and Conference USA. The MAC only averages 15,600 per game.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on November 02, 2011, 09:27:53 AM
I think it is simple.
Why would football at UWM work? I think because basketball is not working. Marquette is obviously dominate for the basketball market in Milwaukee. We are going to have a significant chokehold in every way for basketball. In their situation, if you are going to dump money into a sports program (key point) in order to CREATE a bigger revenue stream, it seems to be common sense to look at football because there is an obvious gap in the market.
It is a shame because I think Marquette has access to more money and would probably have more success at starting a program. Unless you really think this whole thing is a fad and football is king for only now, I think it is clear that you need to start looking to football program. Oh well.
I think the biggest problem is the assumption that because "football is king" that
any football is king. Make no mistake, Division 1 FBS football is king, and other divisions are something different entirely. And recent events have shown pretty conclusively that, in reality, only a subset of D1 FBS is king.
I don't think Marquette (or UWM) will benefit financially from fielding a D3 team (or even D2 or D1 FCS).
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on November 02, 2011, 10:14:57 AM
Don't they have a hard enough time drawing 500 students/game for basketball?
Well, 40K is really a long-shot I know.
And yes, UWM currently struggles to draw fans for hoops, so they would probably struggle to get fans for football as well.
My point was, MU is primarily an alumni/hardcore fan base. Therefore, MU has a bit of a glass ceiling when it comes to attendance. 25K would be a TON for MU, and that would have to include 6K students.
UWM, being a state school, has a better chance of drawing casual people who love Wisconsin stuff, and therefore would enjoy UWM football.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 11:27:00 AM
There's not a chance they draw 40,000. That would make them the largest FCS school attendance wise....by 15,000 fans! (Appalachain State draws 25,700 per game...and that's the largest.) Honestly, I didn't realize that FCS attendance was so crappy. Only three schools draw over 20,000 per game. Marquette's basketball attendance would be 12th on the FCS football attendance list.
And wow...didn't realize this...but 40,000 per game would be larger than the average game in the Mountain West Conference, the MAC, the Sun Belt, the WAC and Conference USA. The MAC only averages 15,600 per game.
40K was a stupid number (by me).
I just think UWM (being a state school) has a higher attendance ceiling than MU.
They still face a lot of the same struggles, but it might be more sustainable at UWM.
I think it is more sustainable because they have a larger financial base from which to work.
And i guess what is interesting about the attendance figures I posted, is that you don't have to draw 40,000 a game. What if they drew 15,000 as an FCS school? And only filled say 50 of their scholarships? If they could get someone to pony up for a stadium (where I don't know), and screw the students a little bit more, they could make a go of it. If things break OK they could be in the Missouri Valley football conference with the likes of Youngstown, Northern Iowa, Indiana State, Illnois State, etc.
But they still face huge hurdles. No stadium. Very little money. Dispassionate fan base.
And as for why MU couldn't do those things, there is a reason why schools from that conference are all public. Private schools just don't have the numbers of students and the financial backing to make it work...especially with the relatively small endowment that MU has.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 09:58:23 AM
I was trying to think of schools that would be in similar situations to UWM...large public urban school in a state that already has a premier football teams. And I came up with a few: UAB, Houston, UCF... So I guess if you use those as a model, and you could get a stadium built, they might be able to make something work given their advantage as a public university.
But I don't think it would ever be very profitable.
UNC Charlotte is a great comparison to where UWM is right now. It will be interesting to see how their program turns out.
Cincy and Temple would be 2 other examples of schools like UAB, Houston and UCF.
Well, Cincy yeah....Temple is private. And you are right, Charlotte is a real good example of a blueprint for them to follow.
Personally, I'm happy that UW-M is spending this money for no other reason than that I'm sure that the report will be publicly available when completed (via FOIA if necessary)
We'll finally be able to see some hard numbers and estimates that will hopefully allow us to label MU Football as either "busted" or "plausible."
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 01:28:05 PM
Well, Cincy yeah....Temple is private. And you are right, Charlotte is a real good example of a blueprint for them to follow.
Temple is a public university with 39k undergrads.
Quote from: muhs03 on November 02, 2011, 01:32:11 PM
Temple is a public university with 39k undergrads.
Holy crap. I have been on this earth for 43 years, and have always been under the assumption that it is a private school. In fact, it never even crossed my mind that it could be public.
My apologies to Litehouse. Thank you for correcting my mistake.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 01:38:02 PM
Holy crap. I have been on this earth for 43 years, and have always been under the assumption that it is a private school. In fact, it never even crossed my mind that it could be public.
My apologies to Litehouse. Thank you for correcting my mistake.
Actually, I just looked it up and I take it back. Its a public university with 27k undergrads and 6k grads.
what if UWM and MU both contributed to a stadium and started football sharing the costs of a stadium
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 12:54:33 PM
I think it is more sustainable because they have a larger financial base from which to work.
And i guess what is interesting about the attendance figures I posted, is that you don't have to draw 40,000 a game. What if they drew 15,000 as an FCS school? And only filled say 50 of their scholarships? If they could get someone to pony up for a stadium (where I don't know), and screw the students a little bit more, they could make a go of it. If things break OK they could be in the Missouri Valley football conference with the likes of Youngstown, Northern Iowa, Indiana State, Illnois State, etc.
But they still face huge hurdles. No stadium. Very little money. Dispassionate fan base.
My question is: why? It's a sincere question, and not intended to be critical of what you said...I'm just trying to understand. What is the goal of having such a football program?
If the goal is to provide another activity to students (attending football games in the fall), to provide another program for alumni to enjoy and support, and to build further name recognition and good will in the community, then I think that's fine. If I lived in or around Milwaukee, I'd like to think that I'd support the team and go to the games. With those goals in mind, if the cost is justified, then go for it.
If the goal is to try to better position ourselves because "football is king" or to make money, then I think it's a waste of time. I just don't believe those are realistic goals for Marquette in creating a football program.
Are you asking "why" for MU or for UWM?
Because I think the answers are different. To be honest, I don't know why MU should do it. We have alumni who are very keyed into our basketball success. It already binds alumni together and gives them a point of pride in the institution. Football at MU would only marginally add to that.
For UWM, they don't have any of that right now. Since they will always be a second rate basketball program, maybe they feel that this would be the way to differentiate their product and generate such feelings amongst their alumni.
So honestly it makes much more sense for UWM to consider football than it does MU. However, I still think it is a big uphill battle.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 02, 2011, 02:18:14 PM
Are you asking "why" for MU or for UWM?
Because I think the answers are different. To be honest, I don't know why MU should do it. We have alumni who are very keyed into our basketball success. It already binds alumni together and gives them a point of pride in the institution. Football at MU would only marginally add to that.
For UWM, they don't have any of that right now. Since they will always be a second rate basketball program, maybe they feel that this would be the way to differentiate their product and generate such feelings amongst their alumni.
So honestly it makes much more sense for UWM to consider football than it does MU. However, I still think it is a big uphill battle.
I wasn't really directing the "why" at any particular school -- just a general question to a school contemplating adding football. I agree with the rest of your post.
Quote from: muball on November 02, 2011, 01:48:15 PM
what if UWM and MU both contributed to a stadium and started football sharing the costs of a stadium
Think of the political wrangling that would need for that to occur. Public/Private partnership.
However, I'm sure there are a lot of well connected folk that would love Milwaukee to have a legitimate football stadium and open the discussion of getting a Packer game there once a year.
It is an interesting idea, just something that would not happen in the current economic/political state.
Quote from: T-Bone on November 02, 2011, 02:33:13 PM
Think of the political wrangling that would need for that to occur. Public/Private partnership.
However, I'm sure there are a lot of well connected folk that would love Milwaukee to have a legitimate football stadium and open the discussion of getting a Packer game there once a year.
How big of a stadium are you going to build where it makes sense to take the Packers out of 73K+ seat Lambeau?
Quote from: T-Bone on November 02, 2011, 02:33:13 PM
Think of the political wrangling that would need for that to occur. Public/Private partnership.
However, I'm sure there are a lot of well connected folk that would love Milwaukee to have a legitimate football stadium and open the discussion of getting a Packer game there once a year.
It is an interesting idea, just something that would not happen in the current economic/political state.
Ship has sailed. After the new Lambeau expansion it will be the 4th largest stadium in the NFL at over 79,000 people.
Quote from: Chili on November 03, 2011, 02:31:37 AM
Ship has sailed. After the new Lambeau expansion it will be the 4th largest stadium in the NFL at over 79,000 people.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on November 03, 2011, 02:14:25 AM
How big of a stadium are you going to build where it makes sense to take the Packers out of 73K+ seat Lambeau?
I didn't realize that Lambeau was that big.
Yeah, I know. But I think it could be interesting *if* Milwaukee's deep pocketed folk were interested in pushing that agenda. Clearly, building something on that scale would be ridiculous in terms of MU or UWM support.
Slightly OT: "
On November 26, 1989, a County Stadium record crowd of 55,892 saw the Packers beat the Vikings, 20–19." - Wikipedia. The economic incentive to bring the team down for a stadium of even that capacity doesn't make sense anymore.
The best thing the Packers ever did was stop coming to Milwaukee and improve the revenue generation at Lambeau. They most certainly are not going to give up Lambeau games at this point. Furthermore, they know Milwaukee fans have no problem driving up to Green Bay for games. They've been doing it for 15+ years now.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 03, 2011, 10:55:22 AM
The best thing the Packers ever did was stop coming to Milwaukee and improve the revenue generation at Lambeau. They most certainly are not going to give up Lambeau games at this point. Furthermore, they know Milwaukee fans have no problem driving up to Green Bay for games. They've been doing it for 15+ years now.
Correct.
The Packers made the decision to play all games at Lambeau well before the decision to renovate. Those ideas were floating around back then, but in it's infancy. What Lambeau has become, though, there is no way the Packers could afford to play a game in Milwaukee any longer.
The Packers used the excuse of County Stadium and Miller Park to move all games to Green Bay. They had really wanted to make that move much earlier. In fact, when Miller Park was being floated around, they were emphatic not to include football as part of the design.
The Packers, and fans, are more than happy to have all the games at Lambeau.