MUScoop

The notion of Marquette's making a return to intercollegiate football has been discussed and debated here and elsewhere for years.

I remain among the faction that thinks Marquette should conduct a real and meaningful study into the possibility of bringing back MU football.

Most know the arguments that are made in opposition to Marquette's return to collegiate football. But MU would hardly be the first university to bring back -- or start -- a football program.

Past administrations at Marquette have summarily dismissed the idea of Marquette's restarting a football program. I am certain, however, that those same administrators did not foresee the price Marquette would pay for not investing anew in football.

I have always believed that MU officials made a rash and an ill-advised decision when they decided to have Marquette stop playing intercollegiate football in 1960. That decision, which few saw coming, shocked the university community and many in Milwaukee and throughout Wisconsin and the nation.

I hate everything about the recent conference hopping, which is nothing but a scourge upon collegiate sports. But the latest conference "realignment" only provides a sad education for all of us as to how many universities and athletic conferences are now doing business.

Marquette must be more willing to consider options and opportunities that would likely result in a much different, much brighter future.

The amount of MONEY needed to make MU football a viable option is staggering. It would not only belittle the great basketball program we have and are continuing to build but it would really hurt the projects that MU is trying to do in the future as far as increase its academic appeal and standing.

If we gathered up a few students, we could probably beat the Jets.

Great post. Let me tell you what Bill Cords, Cottingham and Willisms have all said: MARQUETTE WILL NOT BECSTRARTING A FOOTBSLL TEAM. EVER.

I think 15-20 years down the road some of these BCS football schools will also be dropping football. Even with bigger TV dollars they will e losing significant money trying to stay competitive.

For better or worse, the 1960 decision was made. There's nothing we can do to undo it now. It's just too great a financial investment for Marquette to explore.

If someone offers MU 10 figures to start a team, they might listen.   The obstacles of building a stadium anywhere near campus are just too large.   And finally, how many <10K enrollment, private, inner city universities have profitable football programs?     MU isn't rich and the math just isn't there.  

If I had $100 million to give MU, I'd not let them spend a penny of it on starting a football program, or even on looking into starting a football program.

It's not only about starting a football program but about starting one that could one day be part of a power conference ... because anything less, in today's landscape, just doesn't matter.

And that ain't happening. Ever. Period.

Can anyone name all the successful football programs started in the last 20 years?

I'm guessing the answer is zero. 

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 22, 2012, 10:12:39 PM
Can anyone name all the successful football programs started in the last 20 years?

I'm guessing the answer is zero. 

Depends on your definition of "successful".

Quote from: bilsu on November 22, 2012, 08:59:40 PM
I think 15-20 years down the road some of these BCS football schools will also be dropping football. Even with bigger TV dollars they will e losing significant money trying to stay competitive.

And that's before taking into account what schools will have to spend when they will have to pay student-athletes in revenue producing sports which is getting ever closer with the TV revenue going ever higher.

Starting a football team now would be a financial perfect storm; making the maximum investment for a minimal negative return.  

While we are restarting the football program, why don't we also take back the Medical College of Wisconsin.  Then MU would have enough research dollars to be an AAU member.

Is teal really needed?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 22, 2012, 10:12:39 PM
Can anyone name all the successful football programs started in the last 20 years?

I'm guessing the answer is zero. 

Definitely not zero

University of South Florida.  First season, 1997.  First 4 years as Div I-AA as an independent.  Then 2 years as an independent in DivI-A.  Followed by 2 years in CUSA and then Big East.

6 bowl games later (4-2 record) and a record of 108-69 overall as a program, I would say they are successful.


Would MU be USF?  Hell no.  Florida is the perfect state to do it.


Then you have schools like UCONN that have played for 100 years but small time football and didn't commit to the next level until 15 years ago.  UCONN has gone to 5 bowl games since going to D1-A.

Boise State started playing in 1970 but not I-A until 1996, 16 years ago.  We all know the success they have had.


Jay Bee is right, depends what success is but that is three examples of programs that have had success and didn't start DI-A until the last 20 years or in USF's case, didn't play football at all until the last 20 years.

There are others...UCF started DI-AA in 1990.  They started DI-A in 1996.  4 bowl games

The Georgetown Model

The first football team at Georgetown was formed on November 1, 1874, with the earliest recorded intercollegiate games dating to 1887.[1] By the 1940s, Georgetown played in the Orange Bowl, where they lost 14–7 to Mississippi State.

As the college game became more expensive after World War II, Georgetown's program began to lose money rapidly.[2] The Hoyas' last successful season was 1949, when they lost in the Sun Bowl against Texas Western.[2]

After a 2–7 season in 1950, Georgetown attempted to salvage its program by softening its schedule, replacing major opponents such as Penn State, Miami, and Tulsa with Richmond, Bucknell, and Lehigh.[2] The program was losing too much money, however, and on March 22, 1951 the University's president canceled the football program.[2][3]

In 1962, Georgetown allowed its students to start a football program as an exhibition-only club sport. New games began in 1964, with their first match drawing 8,000 spectators to see the Hoyas host another university with an unofficial program, New York University (NYU).[4] Varsity football resumed in 1970 at what later became known as the Division III level.[5] In 1976, Georgetown began an annual rivalry game with the Catholic University Cardinals for the Steven Dean Memorial Trophy. The competition ended in 1993, when Georgetown moved into the Division I Football Championship Subdivision because of NCAA legislation forbidding Division I or II schools from playing football in lower divisions.[citation needed]

In 1993, the team joined the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference, a mostly Catholic conference on the East Coast. With eight wins, The team won the conference championship outright in 1997, and were co-champions in 1998 with nine wins. In 1999 the team joined the Patriot League, a conference that currently prohibits its members from awarding football scholarships.[6] As a non-scholarship FCS program, many of Georgetown's non-conference games are against Ivy League schools, which do not award scholarships for any sport. Without the ability to add scholarships, Georgetown's program fell on hard times in the 2000s. Georgetown has by far the lowest football budget in the Patriot League, at less than half that of the next highest program. Georgetown also has the lowest number of Patriot League FSE's (funded scholarship equivalences) which measures the financial aid given out to its Varsity football players.[citation needed]

During its first decade in the Patriot League, the team managed to not have a winning campaign, with the 2009 season yielding no wins.[6] However, the Hoyas' 2011 Football team finished with a strong 8-3 record and second place in the Patriot League, becoming the first Hoya squad to produce a winning record in twelve seasons, and head coach Kevin Kelly was named the conference Coach of the Year.[

Quote from: MU Avenue on November 22, 2012, 08:20:20 PM
The notion of Marquette's making a return to intercollegiate football has been discussed and debated here and elsewhere for years.

I remain among the faction that thinks Marquette should conduct a real and meaningful study into the possibility of bringing back MU football.

Most know the arguments that are made in opposition to Marquette's return to collegiate football. But MU would hardly be the first university to bring back -- or start -- a football program.

Past administrations at Marquette have summarily dismissed the idea of Marquette's restarting a football program. I am certain, however, that those same administrators did not foresee the price Marquette would pay for not investing anew in football.

I have always believed that MU officials made a rash and an ill-advised decision when they decided to have Marquette stop playing intercollegiate football in 1960. That decision, which few saw coming, shocked the university community and many in Milwaukee and throughout Wisconsin and the nation.

I hate everything about the recent conference hopping, which is nothing but a scourge upon collegiate sports. But the latest conference "realignment" only provides a sad education for all of us as to how many universities and athletic conferences are now doing business.

Marquette must be more willing to consider options and opportunities that would likely result in a much different, much brighter future.

2 years ago:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21422.msg231119#msg231119

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21458.0

Wisconsin is a great source of FB talent.

Says I, who hails from one of the true FB hot beds...CA.

Quick trivia question for everyone...college football programs are growing in ranks or dropping?

If you said dropping, you would be wrong.

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/08/20/In-Depth/New-teams.aspx?


Another interesting article...25 programs to be added by 2014....including the University of New Orleans.



http://www.examiner.com/article/25-college-football-programs-to-launch-by-2014



http://www.cbs42.com/sports/story/Colleges-continue-to-add-football-teams/5N-fdo8Pz0C4Fv9mfo_Ylw.cspx

Quote from: brewcity77 on November 22, 2012, 09:02:45 PM
For better or worse, the 1960 decision was made. There's nothing we can do to undo it now. It's just too great a financial investment for Marquette to explore.

Then again, there's a significant number of people in 'MU nation' who still refer to the Warriors. Me included.

There is no point to adding football.  The only reason to consider doing so is to be added to a major conference and that isn't going to happen.  Non-scholarship FCS football like Georgetown plays is absolutely useless and a drain on resources.  It's a step above a club sport.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 22, 2012, 11:48:38 PM
Definitely not zero

University of South Florida.  First season, 1997.  First 4 years as Div I-AA as an independent.  Then 2 years as an independent in DivI-A.  Followed by 2 years in CUSA and then Big East.

6 bowl games later (4-2 record) and a record of 108-69 overall as a program, I would say they are successful.


Would MU be USF?  Hell no.  Florida is the perfect state to do it.


Then you have schools like UCONN that have played for 100 years but small time football and didn't commit to the next level until 15 years ago.  UCONN has gone to 5 bowl games since going to D1-A.

Boise State started playing in 1970 but not I-A until 1996, 16 years ago.  We all know the success they have had.


Jay Bee is right, depends what success is but that is three examples of programs that have had success and didn't start DI-A until the last 20 years or in USF's case, didn't play football at all until the last 20 years.

There are others...UCF started DI-AA in 1990.  They started DI-A in 1996.  4 bowl games

Let's be real, we all know why MU Avenue starts a thousand threads about football and why we participate ...


We hope to start a team and somehow that team will garner us entry into the Big 10.  That will never, ever, ever happen. Otherwise, why bother?  Go to a Tosa East game, it will be more fun/competitive and cost way less than 125 million.

Actually, I take all this back, their is one way it will happen ... First MU raises billions for its endowment, they use that money to raise the academic reputation of the school, to an ivy caliber (and way above UW).   Then after 10 years in the top 10 of US News College Rankings (and preferably the top 5), it can start a FB program.  The traditionals that desperately want in to a top flight academic institution but cannot get offers from Stanford or ND will flock to this startup.

For this to happen, a first step has to occur. MU Avenue has to stop starting threads on this subject and give his life savings to MU's endowment.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 23, 2012, 12:53:02 AM
http://www.cbs42.com/sports/story/Colleges-continue-to-add-football-teams/5N-fdo8Pz0C4Fv9mfo_Ylw.cspx

Good Post CBB ...

For all those that want MU to start FB, what school on the list below do you wish we were?  Which of these schools is getting invited into a BCS conference in your lifetime?  (The answer is none).  How many of these schools have you heard of before (that is why most are starting FB programs).

Again, the point of this thread, and discussion about MU FB, is to be a BCS school.  Otherwise it is a waste of MU resources to create a glorified HS program.

Five programs launching in 2012:
Blufield College - Bluefield, Va. (NAIA)
Lindenwood University-Belleville - Belleville, Ill. (NAIA)
Misericordia University - Dallas, Pa. (NCAA D-III)
Point University - West Point, Ga. (NAIA)
Wayland Baptist University - Plainview, Texas (NAIA)

17 programs launching in 2013-2015:
Alderson-Broaddus College - Philippi, W. Va. (NCAA D-II) 2013
Berry College - Mount Berry, Ga. (NCAA D-III) 2013
Florida Tech - Melbourne, Fla. (NCAA D-II) 2013
Hendrix College - Conway, Ark. (NCAA D-III) 2013
Mercer University - Macon, Ga. (NCAA D-I FCS Pioneer Football League) 2013
Oklahoma Baptist University - Shawnee, Okla. (NAIA) 2013
Reinhardt University - Waleska, Ga. (NAIA) 2013
Southwestern University - Georgetown, Texas (NCAA D-III) 2013
Stetson University - DeLand, Fla. (NCAA D-I FCS Pioneer Football League) 2013
University of North Carolina at Charlotte - Charlotte, NC (NCAA D-I FCS Independent) 2013
Warner University - Lake Wales, Fla. (NAIA) 2013
College of Idaho - Caldwell, Idaho (NAIA) 2014
George Fox University - Newberg, Ore. (NCAA D-III) 2014
Houston Baptist University - Houston, Texas (NCAA D-I FCS Southland Conference) 2014
Kennesaw State University - Kennesaw, Ga. (NCAA D-I FCS Conference TBA) 2014
Finlandia University - Hancock, Mich. (NCAA D-III) 2014
Unviersity of New Orleans - New Orleans, La. (NCAA D-I FCS Independent) 2014


Nine programs launched in 2011:
Ave Maria University - Ave Maria, Fla. (NAIA)
Concordia University - Ann Arbor, Mich. (NAIA)
Ohio Mid-Western College - Sharonville, Ohio (U.S. Collegiate Athletics Association)
Presentation College - Aberdeen, SD (NCAA D-III)
Robert Morris University - Chicago, Ill. (NAIA)
Siena Heights University - Adrian, Mich. (NAIA)
Stevenson University - Owings Mills, Md. (NCAA D-III)
University of Texas at San Antonio - San Antonio, Texas (NCAA D-I FBS Conference USA)
Virginia University of Lynchburg - Lynchburg, Va. (U.S. Collegiate Athletics Association)

Six programs launched in 2010:
Georgia State University - Atlanta, Ga. (NCAA D-I FBS - transitional - FCS Colonial Athlatic Association/FBS Sun Belt Conference in 2013)
Lamar University - Beaumont, Texas (NCAA D-I FCS Southland Conference)
Lindsey Wilson College - Columbia, Ky. (NAIA)
Notre Dame College - South Euclid, Ohio (NAIA)
Pacific University - Forest Grove, Ore. (NCAA D-III)
University of South Alabama - Mobile, Ala. (NCAA D-I FBS Sun Belt Conference)

Five programs launched in 2009:
Anna Maria College - Paxton, Mass. (NCAA D-III)
Castleton State College - Castleton, Vt. (NCAA D-III)
Old Dominion University - Norfork, Va. (NCAA D-I FCS Colonial Athletic Confernence/FBS Conference USA in 2013)
University of New Haven - West Haven, Conn. (NCAA D-II)
University of the Incarnate Word - San Antonio, Texas (NCAA D-II)

Eight programs launched in 2008:
Campbell University - Buies Creek, N.C. (NCAA D-I FCS Pioneer League)
College of St. Scholastica - Duluth, Minn. (NCAA D-III)
Colorado State University-Pueblo - Pueblo, Colo. (NCAA D-II)
Dordt College - Sioux Center, Iowa (NAIA)
Grand View University - Des Moines, Iowa (NAIA)
Kentucky Christian University - Grayson, Ky. (NAIA)
Lake Erie College - Plainsville, Ohio (NCAA D-II)
Lincoln University of Pennsylvania - Lincoln University, Penn. (NCAA D-II)

Chicos and Another have got it.  Starting a poverty program like almost all of the above basically entails buying some helmets and pads, and maybe it can grow over time, like decades.  Starting USF football entails having an ideal situation and committing a ton of resources.  And don't forget they're not exactly in a perfect place as far as conference realignment goes.  Time to open an MU satellite campus in Florida or Texas that actually has 3x the enrollment we have now.

Even if you got all the issues directly related to football solved, there is still Title IX to deal with.  If you are going to add football scholarships, you are going to either have to cut other men's scholarships, add more women's scholarships, or both.  In reality, that would probably mean dropping other men's teams or adding women's teams.

Quote from: warriorchick on November 23, 2012, 08:21:44 AM
Even if you got all the issues directly related to football solved, there is still Title IX to deal with.  If you are going to add football scholarships, you are going to either have to cut other men's scholarships, add more women's scholarships, or both.  In reality, that would probably mean dropping other men's teams or adding women's teams.

As noted above, if you dropped every men's sport except basketball, that would not be enough to add football under title IX.  You would still have to add women's sports.

And if you did drop everything, you risk membership in the BE.  Yes BE is about basketball but they also expect you to be competitive, or at least try, in everything else.

Quote from: chapman on November 22, 2012, 09:26:53 PM
If I had $100 million to give MU, I'd not let them spend a penny of it on starting a football program, or even on looking into starting a football program.

To be fair, tower912 said 10 figures

When you have a state school like USF or Charlotte, and can commit hundreds of millions of dollars to building a football program from scratch, then you might be able to meet with some success. But Marquette is a private school, with a fraction of the enrollment as some of these other schools, and practically zero public funds would be committed towards coaches' salaries, schollies, or a stadium.

Do you know who the last PRIVATE school to start a football program was, who still maintains that football program in FBS today?
The University of Miami. In 1927.

It's not a coincidence that only 2 Catholic schools (Notre Dame and Boston College) play FBS-level football, and that approximately 87% of all FBS programs are state schools. It is a tremendous undertaking of resources.

List of NCAA-sanctioned sports that Marquette will have before they resurrect football:

Cricket
Equestrian
Rodeo
Sand Volleyball
Synchronized Swimming
Water Skiing

Quote from: warriorchick on November 23, 2012, 09:24:57 AM
List of NCAA-sanctioned sports that Marquette will have before they resurrect football:

Cricket
Equestrian
Rodeo
Sand Volleyball
Synchronized Swimming
Water Skiing

MU would be better off pushing speed-skating as a NCAA sport and becoming the preeminent school in the sport.

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on November 23, 2012, 09:23:14 AM
When you have a state school like USF or Charlotte, and can commit hundreds of millions of dollars to building a football program from scratch, then you might be able to meet with some success. But Marquette is a private school, with a fraction of the enrollment as some of these other schools, and practically zero public funds would be committed towards coaches' salaries, schollies, or a stadium.

Do you know who the last PRIVATE school to start a football program was, who still maintains that football program in FBS today?
The University of Miami. In 1927.

It's not a coincidence that only 2 Catholic schools (Notre Dame and Boston College) play FBS-level football, and that approximately 87% of all FBS programs are state schools. It is a tremendous undertaking of resources.

+1 Good Post

Added:

From 1927 to 1980, a total of 53 years. The U was only in 8 bowl games winning three.

January 1, 1935 Orange Bowl L Bucknell 0 26
January 1, 1946 Orange Bowl W Holy Cross 13 6
January 1, 1951 Orange Bowl L Clemson 14 15
January 1, 1952 Gator Bowl W Clemson 14 0
December 16, 1961 Liberty Bowl L Syracuse 14 15
December 15, 1962 Gotham Bowl L Nebraska 34 36
December 10, 1966 Liberty Bowl W Virginia Tech 14 7
December 23, 1967 Bluebonnet Bowl L Colorado 21 31

Are we ready for MU to be a middling team for 50+ years before it becomes good enough to become a BCS conference worthy team?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 23, 2012, 09:29:57 AM
MU would be better off pushing speed-skating as a NCAA sport and becoming the preeminent school in the sport.

Concur.  We could build a program that #1 in the country every year, if that were the goal.

Another, I'm not against offering football, even if it is lower level to start.  I do, however, recognize what an enormous uphill battle it would be.

When I was at IU and KU, we sucked at football (actually KU we weren't bad), but it was still an event, a source of pride, etc.  I work with a few folks that were at USD when Harbaugh was the coach down there and it had the campus electrified.

Is it worth doing?  Probably not. Too many obstacles, enormous resources, etc.  However, it could be done and I don't buy into the notion that it can't.  Nor do I buy into the notion that having lower level football is a bad thing. 

I'll equate a high school story to you...yes, I know it's high school and a big difference, but allow me.  When I played football at my Catholic high school we were a tiny school of 550 kids and one of the lowest divisions in California high school football.   About 10 years ago the school decided to "go for it".  We have an enrollment today of 530 but tonight play Mater Dei, one of the best programs in the country and ranked 10th in the nation in the semi-finals of the highest division in the state.  Last we my alma mater beat the defending state champion to get to this game.  My little school, currently ranked 13th in the nation by MaxPreps....the game is on national television.  The winner will likely play St. John Boscho next Saturday at Angels Stadium for the Pac 5 championsip...St. John Boscho is currently ranked #1 in the nation.    The talent on the field tonight will be pretty sick.  My school put out one DII player when I was there.  Now we regularly put guys out to UCLA, USC, Florida State, Stanford, Notre Dame, Arizona, Colorado, etc...that little school of 530 (coed by the way, only 250 boys go to the school).  We have several guys in the NFL.  We hired the right coach 14 years ago, put money into it, upgraded the facilities and changed the culture and did it at a TINY little school in the biggest state in the country.  Not an easy feat.  Go Seraphs!

High school isn't college, but my point was that with the right people and resources you can do some pretty amazing things.  No one on the planet 15 years ago would have thought Boise State would be a nationally ranked football program finishing in the top 10 multiple years.  No one would have thought UCONN would play in a New Year's Eve bowl, or UAB would produce players like Roddy White in the NFL.   

You just never know.  I would love to see lower level football started and see where it goes.  I think starting out with the idea of a DI in 5 years would be nuts and a waste of money.

Some stats

127 FBS schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_programs

82 (65%) started playing football before 1900

Only 10 started playing football since 1996, all large public schools

School  First Played Joined FBS
Charlotte  2013    2015
UTSA       2011    2012
Georgia State  2010  2013
Old Dominion   2009  2015
South Alabama 2009  2012
FIU                 2002  2006            
Florida Atlantic  2001  2006
South Florida    1997   2001
UAB                1991   1996
UCF                1979    1996

Private Schools in FBS, total of 17 of 127 (13%)

School          First Played
Miami                 1927
BYU                   1921
SMU                  1915
Rice                   1912
Baylor                1899
TCU                   1896
Tulsa                 1895
Tulane               1893
Boston College     1893
Stanford             1891
Vanderbilt           1890
Syracuse            1889
Duke                  1888
USC                   1888
Wake Forest        1888  
ND                     1887
Northwestern       1875


---

Make me the case the MU would be the 18th on this list.  It is not possible.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 23, 2012, 10:02:38 AM
Another, I'm not against offering football, even if it is lower level to start.  I do, however, recognize what an enormous uphill battle it would be.

...

You just never know.  I would love to see lower level football started and see where it goes.  I think starting out with the idea of a DI in 5 years would be nuts and a waste of money.

I don't think anyone here that wants football (MU Avenue) is thinking we start a NAIA type program playing in front of 2k to 3K on the soccer field in the valley.  Remember we cannot have a D III football if we have a D1 basketball program.  No, they want to be in the Big 10 in a few years.

And yes it would cost millions to start even a NAIA program because of Title IX.  85 to 95 men's scholarships has to be offset with a reduction in other men's programs and/or an increase in women's programs.  So yes, even an NAIA program would cost millions.  What existing Men's program you want to cut to make room for football?  Soccer?

I can think of other more worthwhile things MU could so with those millions ... including setting it on fire.

All the schools Chicos and Another posted that started Football recently, did not do it to be successful.  They fully intend on losing and losing badly each year.

There are a few small schools that no one ever heard of, that had given up football because it was costing them a fortune.  After a few years, they realized that even in cities 100 miles away, no one new who they were or where they were located.  So they decided to go ahead and lose a ton of money on football so that they can lose by 60-70 its a game so hopefully people look them up.

If that is what you want from MU, then by all means dig in.  But, people know of MU across the country because of its basketball program.  Because of that program the academics are being boosted.

Pissing $100 million away to be awful will only hurt the image of MU.

Quote from: warriorchick on November 23, 2012, 09:24:57 AM
List of NCAA-sanctioned sports that Marquette will have before they resurrect football:

Cricket
Equestrian
Rodeo
Sand Volleyball
Synchronized Swimming
Water Skiing

Is Nude Coed Beer Sliding on the list? From what I saw at the Lanche we could be competitive and for less than $125M

Quote from: unforgiven on November 23, 2012, 12:04:41 PM
Is Nude Coed Beer Sliding on the list? From what I saw at the Lanche we could be competitive and for less than $125M

Never hurts to ask.

It doesn't look like you even need a lot of schools to have teams for a sport to be approved.  Men's Cheerleading only has 3  - one in each Division.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are+landing+page

Quote from: warriorchick on November 23, 2012, 12:14:07 PM
Men's Cheerleading only has 3  - one in each Division.

How is this a "sport?"

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 23, 2012, 10:23:14 AM


Private Schools in FBS, total of 17 of 127 (13%)

School          First Played
Miami                 1927
BYU                   1921
SMU                  1915
Rice                   1912
Baylor                1899
TCU                   1896
Tulsa                 1895
Tulane               1893
Boston College     1893
Stanford             1891
Vanderbilt           1890
Syracuse            1889
Duke                  1888
USC                   1888
Wake Forest        1888  
ND                     1887
Northwestern       1875

Im guessing that MU's endowment is well under half of the lowest endowment of all of these private schools listed. For private schools, football should come after a billion dollar endowment.

Edite: looks like Tulsa's is just over 800M. close enough

Quote from: forgetful on November 23, 2012, 11:55:14 AM
All the schools Chicos and Another posted that started Football recently, did not do it to be successful.  They fully intend on losing and losing badly each year.

There are a few small schools that no one ever heard of, that had given up football because it was costing them a fortune.  After a few years, they realized that even in cities 100 miles away, no one new who they were or where they were located.  So they decided to go ahead and lose a ton of money on football so that they can lose by 60-70 its a game so hopefully people look them up.

If that is what you want from MU, then by all means dig in.  But, people know of MU across the country because of its basketball program.  Because of that program the academics are being boosted.

Pissing $100 million away to be awful will only hurt the image of MU.

+1

Just to add, MU has name recognition.  I travel the country on business and everyone has heard of the school (even if some struggle to place it in Milwaukee).  It has solid name recognition as a Milwaukee school in the northeast thanks to the Big East.

So, adding a mediocre anything will not help the school.  What it needs is something it can excel at.

That is why I suggested speed-skating because of the Petit Center.  Let MU "own" the Winter Olympics coverage because of speed-skating.  That would do more than a lousy low division football team no one cares about.

Quote from: forgetful on November 23, 2012, 11:55:14 AM
All the schools Chicos and Another posted that started Football recently, did not do it to be successful.  They fully intend on losing and losing badly each year.

I don't believe that to be true at all.  Some expect to lose early on, but that doesn't mean they expect to lose forever.  It depends the level those programs wish to compete in.

Back in 1989, would anyone associated with MU basketball think within 15 years we would go to the Final Four, be part of the Big East conference?  People would say you are crazy.  10 years ago would anyone at Boise State think they would be playing in several New Year's Day bowl games (and winning them)?  18 years ago there were people (MOST) saying delivering television through a satellite to people's homes was a waste of money and an idea that would die within 2 or 3 years.

It can be done.  It's hard as hell, a lot of luck, timing, etc, but with the right people (hires), the right infrastructure, one never knows the possibilities that are out there.  It's not going to happen here, that's for sure.  Unfortunately, MU is in a real bind as a result of us not having a program.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 23, 2012, 03:58:59 PM
Unfortunately, MU is in a real bind as a result of us not having a program.

Correct.  But that cannot be changed.  If you look at all those teams that have added football in the last 35 years, none of them are in BCS conferences with the exception of South Florida...and soon to be Central Florida.  (Note: That is if you still want to call the Big East a BCS conference.)

So what is the ultimate end game for football?  That MU could reach Conference USA level?  And then what?  We return to Conference USA?

The fact is that Marquette will never get full membership to a big money conference.  And that is the only way that Marquette can make money playing football.  Otherwise it is a drain and not worth the costs.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 23, 2012, 03:58:59 PM
I don't believe that to be true at all.  Some expect to lose early on, but that doesn't mean they expect to lose forever.  It depends the level those programs wish to compete in.

Back in 1989, would anyone associated with MU basketball think within 15 years we would go to the Final Four, be part of the Big East conference?  People would say you are crazy.  10 years ago would anyone at Boise State think they would be playing in several New Year's Day bowl games (and winning them)?  18 years ago there were people (MOST) saying delivering television through a satellite to people's homes was a waste of money and an idea that would die within 2 or 3 years.

It can be done.  It's hard as hell, a lot of luck, timing, etc, but with the right people (hires), the right infrastructure, one never knows the possibilities that are out there.  It's not going to happen here, that's for sure.  Unfortunately, MU is in a real bind as a result of us not having a program.

Several of those schools on the list I know for a fact have no intentions of ever being competitive.  But for humor sake, which of those teams you listed do you think will be completive at any point in the next 20 years.

If MU still had a football program, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because we would be in a bottom feeder conference somewhere with little to know basketball program to speak of.  Why??? Because we wouldn't have had the money to commit to the program that we have today.

For someone that is supposedly in business and previously academics you seem to be very poor at rational decision making when it comes to business and academic matters.

Quote from: forgetful on November 23, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
Several of those schools on the list I know for a fact have no intentions of ever being competitive.  But for humor sake, which of those teams you listed do you think will be completive at any point in the next 20 years.

If MU still had a football program, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because we would be in a bottom feeder conference somewhere with little to know basketball program to speak of.  Why??? Because we wouldn't have had the money to commit to the program that we have today.

For someone that is supposedly in business and previously academics you seem to be very poor at rational decision making when it comes to business and academic matters.

+1

It has been suggested in previous posts that MU dropped football in 1960 and decided to emphasize basketball.  It is reasonable to assume that means no Al or if we did hire Al, he would have left much sooner not wanting to play second banana to football.

Can't have it both ways. Cannot assume MU basketball would be what it is today plus football if we never dropped it 52 years ago.  Most likely we would be a much watered down version of both and thus worse off than with as a nationally recognized  basketball power with no football team.

Quote from: honkytonk on November 23, 2012, 12:57:49 PM
Im guessing that MU's endowment is well under half of the lowest endowment of all of these private schools listed.

I'm hoping this isn't a reference to the endowment of alums

For those of you interested in watching a half-competitive football team with "MU" on the jerseys (and not merely concerned with conference affiliation) may I suggest donating some marketing insight to the MU club team? Most students at MU have no idea the club football team exists. I went to the club team "try out" my freshman year. My 6'1" 160-pound frame impressed the coaches..."wow, we finally have a quarterback!" I had never played an organized highschool football snap.

State schools in Wisconsin have Rugby club teams that students actually get excited about. Maybe MU could establish a relatively respected club team through decent marketing to the students. Heck, I would watch an exhibition against Riverfalls.

Bonus: club teams are not officially sanctioned by the university, so they could even be dubbed Warriors!

What is the Public vs Private breakdown of the below list?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 23, 2012, 06:53:24 AM
Good Post CBB ...

For all those that want MU to start FB, what school on the list below do you wish we were?  Which of these schools is getting invited into a BCS conference in your lifetime?  (The answer is none).  How many of these schools have you heard of before (that is why most are starting FB programs).

Again, the point of this thread, and discussion about MU FB, is to be a BCS school.  Otherwise it is a waste of MU resources to create a glorified HS program.

Five programs launching in 2012:
Blufield College - Bluefield, Va. (NAIA)
Lindenwood University-Belleville - Belleville, Ill. (NAIA)
Misericordia University - Dallas, Pa. (NCAA D-III)
Point University - West Point, Ga. (NAIA)
Wayland Baptist University - Plainview, Texas (NAIA)

17 programs launching in 2013-2015:
Alderson-Broaddus College - Philippi, W. Va. (NCAA D-II) 2013
Berry College - Mount Berry, Ga. (NCAA D-III) 2013
Florida Tech - Melbourne, Fla. (NCAA D-II) 2013
Hendrix College - Conway, Ark. (NCAA D-III) 2013
Mercer University - Macon, Ga. (NCAA D-I FCS Pioneer Football League) 2013
Oklahoma Baptist University - Shawnee, Okla. (NAIA) 2013
Reinhardt University - Waleska, Ga. (NAIA) 2013
Southwestern University - Georgetown, Texas (NCAA D-III) 2013
Stetson University - DeLand, Fla. (NCAA D-I FCS Pioneer Football League) 2013
University of North Carolina at Charlotte - Charlotte, NC (NCAA D-I FCS Independent) 2013
Warner University - Lake Wales, Fla. (NAIA) 2013
College of Idaho - Caldwell, Idaho (NAIA) 2014
George Fox University - Newberg, Ore. (NCAA D-III) 2014
Houston Baptist University - Houston, Texas (NCAA D-I FCS Southland Conference) 2014
Kennesaw State University - Kennesaw, Ga. (NCAA D-I FCS Conference TBA) 2014
Finlandia University - Hancock, Mich. (NCAA D-III) 2014
Unviersity of New Orleans - New Orleans, La. (NCAA D-I FCS Independent) 2014


Nine programs launched in 2011:
Ave Maria University - Ave Maria, Fla. (NAIA)
Concordia University - Ann Arbor, Mich. (NAIA)
Ohio Mid-Western College - Sharonville, Ohio (U.S. Collegiate Athletics Association)
Presentation College - Aberdeen, SD (NCAA D-III)
Robert Morris University - Chicago, Ill. (NAIA)
Siena Heights University - Adrian, Mich. (NAIA)
Stevenson University - Owings Mills, Md. (NCAA D-III)
University of Texas at San Antonio - San Antonio, Texas (NCAA D-I FBS Conference USA)
Virginia University of Lynchburg - Lynchburg, Va. (U.S. Collegiate Athletics Association)

Six programs launched in 2010:
Georgia State University - Atlanta, Ga. (NCAA D-I FBS - transitional - FCS Colonial Athlatic Association/FBS Sun Belt Conference in 2013)
Lamar University - Beaumont, Texas (NCAA D-I FCS Southland Conference)
Lindsey Wilson College - Columbia, Ky. (NAIA)
Notre Dame College - South Euclid, Ohio (NAIA)
Pacific University - Forest Grove, Ore. (NCAA D-III)
University of South Alabama - Mobile, Ala. (NCAA D-I FBS Sun Belt Conference)

Five programs launched in 2009:
Anna Maria College - Paxton, Mass. (NCAA D-III)
Castleton State College - Castleton, Vt. (NCAA D-III)
Old Dominion University - Norfork, Va. (NCAA D-I FCS Colonial Athletic Confernence/FBS Conference USA in 2013)
University of New Haven - West Haven, Conn. (NCAA D-II)
University of the Incarnate Word - San Antonio, Texas (NCAA D-II)

Eight programs launched in 2008:
Campbell University - Buies Creek, N.C. (NCAA D-I FCS Pioneer League)
College of St. Scholastica - Duluth, Minn. (NCAA D-III)
Colorado State University-Pueblo - Pueblo, Colo. (NCAA D-II)
Dordt College - Sioux Center, Iowa (NAIA)
Grand View University - Des Moines, Iowa (NAIA)
Kentucky Christian University - Grayson, Ky. (NAIA)
Lake Erie College - Plainsville, Ohio (NCAA D-II)
Lincoln University of Pennsylvania - Lincoln University, Penn. (NCAA D-II)

What color would our turf be?

Quote from: forgetful on November 23, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
Several of those schools on the list I know for a fact have no intentions of ever being competitive.  But for humor sake, which of those teams you listed do you think will be completive at any point in the next 20 years.

If MU still had a football program, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because we would be in a bottom feeder conference somewhere with little to know basketball program to speak of.  Why??? Because we wouldn't have had the money to commit to the program that we have today.

For someone that is supposedly in business and previously academics you seem to be very poor at rational decision making when it comes to business and academic matters.

"Several" is a lot different than "All the schools Chicos and Another posted that started Football recently, did not do it to be successful."  I'd also like to know who you know for a fact is only fielding a team not to be competitive because if that were to ever get out it would create enormous problems for those programs.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.  It ultimately comes down to defining success.  Pick any of those programs..Florida Tech...they plan on being competitive at the DII level within their conference.  Does that mean they will win a national title at the DII level?  Success is judged in many ways.  You have to realize that some of these schools are also fighting a gender gap issue where they need men on campus and this is one way to get men enrolled.  With some success, they hope to get more men involved.

As far as your basketball commentary, impossible to know or predict what would have happened if MU kept football and what impact that would have on hoops.  No one here knows that, no one.  You could make the same argument about the MU medical school. You could also turn it on it's head and if MU still had the medical school we might be a more prestigious school right now, with a larger endowment.  We just don't know.  There are bets made all the time in business and athletics, some work and some don't.  Some are based on rational thought, some might not be, but I feel pretty darn good about the decisions I've made the last 15 plus and bets I've placed and what they have led to.   ;)

We can both come up with examples where the bets failed miserably and those where the bets succeeded like no other.  That's a given.

Look at the state of Wisconsin alone for some examples.  In the late 1980's UW-madison may have been one of the 5 worst football programs in America.  Now they are a perennial top 20 program.  MU basketball was a complete joke, now one of the better programs in the country.  UW-madison basketball, a complete joke for 50+ years...now arguably one of the best programs in the country.  The Green Bay Packers, 20 years of horrid football, couldn't even sell out Milwaukee County Stadium.  They all made some bets, made the right hires, had a little luck, but most of all didn't settle.  You look at where those entities were in the mid to late 1980's and where they are today...they made some bets and most of their bets paid off.  Whether it was changing conferences, investing in their facilities, making bold hires, pumping money into the programs, they made bets and those bets paid off.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 23, 2012, 04:31:49 PM
+1

It has been suggested in previous posts that MU dropped football in 1960 and decided to emphasize basketball.  It is reasonable to assume that means no Al or if we did hire Al, he would have left much sooner not wanting to play second banana to football.

Can't have it both ways. Cannot assume MU basketball would be what it is today plus football if we never dropped it 52 years ago.  Most likely we would be a much watered down version of both and thus worse off than with as a nationally recognized  basketball power with no football team.

It is quite correct to assume that MU basketball would not be what it is today if MU never dropped football.  Football was dropped because it had become a financial disaster that threatened to take down the whole athletic department.  The decision was made to emphasize men's basketball because it was seen as the only realistic possibility for generating the cash necessary to get the athletic department out from under the debt load that it was straddled under from the already discontinued football program.

CBB

All your points about defining success are noted.  But the reason these football threads get started is the belief that MU is fully capable of going from nothing to a FBS caliber team in just a few years.  Not that in 10 years we could be a very good NAIA program.  No MU Avenue and the rest that start these threads believe we can beat UW in Camp Randall in 2018 if we only get about starting the program now.

That is not possible, especially for a private school.  As noted above, the last private school to become a FBS member was The U (Miami), they started football in 1927 and became a FBS member in 1978.

Those starting football with the intention of competing at the FBS are large state schools with huge budgets (relative to private schools like MU).  Their primary motivation is to raise the profile of the school.  MU doesn't need to raise its profile, BB did that.

So what purpose would even a very good NAIA program accomplish?  More donation?  Enough to justify the millions to start FB?  I doubt it.  Raise our reputation?  I would argue a pathetic football program would hurt MU's reputation.  Remember we are not Townson State trying to raise our profile.  Everyone has heard of MU.  Associating it with mediocrity and losing would hurt more than the perceived rise in our profile.

What about title IX?  Are you cutting all the men's program or magically finding millions more to start enough women's programs to add another 95 scholarships.

Quote from: LittleMurs on November 23, 2012, 08:04:11 PM
It is quite correct to assume that MU basketball would not be what it is today if MU never dropped football.  Football was dropped because it had become a financial disaster that threatened to take down the whole athletic department.  The decision was made to emphasize men's basketball because it was seen as the only realistic possibility for generating the cash necessary to get the athletic department out from under the debt load that it was straddled under from the already discontinued football program.

Wait, this is not what MU Avenue wrote to start this thread ...

I have always believed that MU officials made a rash and an ill-advised decision when they decided to have Marquette stop playing intercollegiate football in 1960. That decision, which few saw coming, shocked the university community and many in Milwaukee and throughout Wisconsin and the nation.

LM is right.  FB was killing MU in 1960.  It had no choice but to get rid of it.  It was not a rash or shocking decision felt across the nation.

Hey, here's an idea.

Why don't we worry about the university fully funding the scholarships that the athletic department is currently allowed to fund before we worry about saddling the university with any other costs?

For Fiscal Year 2011, MU had $881,000 worth of scholarships that went unfunded. That's apparently 40 scholarships worth. And this is BEFORE lacrosse kicks in. Lacrosse will kick that number up to $1,881,000.

http://www.gomarquette.com/sports/blue-gold/spec-rel/061110aaj.html

Quote from: Brewtown Andy on November 24, 2012, 02:03:41 AM
Hey, here's an idea.

Why don't we worry about the university fully funding the scholarships that the athletic department is currently allowed to fund before we worry about saddling the university with any other costs?

For Fiscal Year 2011, MU had $881,000 worth of scholarships that went unfunded. That's apparently 40 scholarships worth. And this is BEFORE lacrosse kicks in. Lacrosse will kick that number up to $1,881,000.

http://www.gomarquette.com/sports/blue-gold/spec-rel/061110aaj.html

Don't look now but LW wants you to pucker up!

While sitting at a little bed and breakfast outside Louisville this morning, I did a little research on what Marquette would need to do to get a football program up and running, and put up a thread about it. I think it should be required reading for anyone who wants to seriously discuss football's future at Marquette :)

Enjoy!

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34482.0

Quote from: warriorchick on November 23, 2012, 09:24:57 AM
List of NCAA-sanctioned sports that Marquette will have before they resurrect football:

Cricket
Equestrian
Rodeo
Sand Volleyball
Synchronized Swimming
Water Skiing

Co-ed Perpetual Motion

Chicos, what exactly is your end-game with regards to Marquette football?  What do you think it would accomplish?  If everything goes well, what can Marquette hope to attain? 

Because in my opinion, unless it can get Marquette into a BCS conference as a full-member, then it is a wasteful drain on resources.  And I don't think Marquette will ever be under consideration as a full-member of a BCS conference.

And MU Avenue, had Marquette not dropped football in the 1960s and somehow managed to survive to this day, where do you think Marquette would be now?  Milwaukee doesn't sit on a hot-bed of football talent like Miami and TCU do...where they can get the scraps that the big schools leave behind and still put together a quality program.  At best, we would probably be Tulsa - a program in a mid-level conference that can occasionally compete but really never have a chance at anything significant.  Is that something that we really want?

Quote from: 77ncaachamps on November 23, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
What is the Public vs Private breakdown of the below list?

University of New Haven - They actually had a topknotch DII football program and dropped it year 2000-ish because of money issues and then restarted it in 2009 (thanks to founder of STARTER).  They actually play in the DII playoffs today.  They also play on the same blue turf as Boise State.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 24, 2012, 08:04:26 AM
Chicos, what exactly is your end-game with regards to Marquette football?  What do you think it would accomplish?  If everything goes well, what can Marquette hope to attain? 

Because in my opinion, unless it can get Marquette into a BCS conference as a full-member, then it is a wasteful drain on resources.  And I don't think Marquette will ever be under consideration as a full-member of a BCS conference.

And MU Avenue, had Marquette not dropped football in the 1960s and somehow managed to survive to this day, where do you think Marquette would be now?  Milwaukee doesn't sit on a hot-bed of football talent like Miami and TCU do...where they can get the scraps that the big schools leave behind and still put together a quality program.  At best, we would probably be Tulsa - a program in a mid-level conference that can occasionally compete but really never have a chance at anything significant.  Is that something that we really want?

Boise or the state of Idaho doesn't sit in a hot bed of football talent either.   ;)

I'd rather be Tulsa than nothing at all. 

It's ironic, though, that you used TCU.  Where was TCU for much of the last 60 years?  From 1959 to 1999 they had zero top 25 finishes.  Since 2000, they have had 9.  As mentioned earlier, it takes a bit of vision, the right hires, the right resources, a little luck.

Look, I totally get where people are coming from.  If we were to start something and try to be a FBS program, it would be very difficult with a lot of luck, tremendous resources, etc.  I don't think it is realistic.

My frustration goes back many years on this...back when I worked in the athletic department.  This day was coming and everyone knew it.  It's just unfortunate.  I had opined 4 years ago in a Cracked Sidewalks article that we better have a plan then because this day is coming and we are going to be in a world of hurt when it comes.  We're at a critical crossroads right now, one we have known about for a long time.

To answer your question on football, there are a number of schools that have football at minimal cost. Not $100 million, hell, not $1 million.   It brings males onto the campus which has a positive Title IX impact for gender equity ratios.  You can do it without scholarships, without much expenditures.  Now, some will say what's the point?  Fair question, but I've given one reason and that is bringing males to campus...tuition paying males.  It is clear from some of the comments in this thread that some people still do not understand Title IX or how it works. The other is that football is part of the college environment.  There's a reason why so many schools are adding football programs.  There have been multiple examples of schools increasing enrollment when football added and the reason is simple.  One, you need a football team and that means bodies.  Add a marching band, that adds bodies.  The New York Times noted this probably 5 years ago or so, wish I could find the article, but it talks of how smaller schools adding football = greater enrollment. 

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 23, 2012, 08:04:46 PM
CBB

All your points about defining success are noted.  But the reason these football threads get started is the belief that MU is fully capable of going from nothing to a FBS caliber team in just a few years.  Not that in 10 years we could be a very good NAIA program.  No MU Avenue and the rest that start these threads believe we can beat UW in Camp Randall in 2018 if we only get about starting the program now.

That is not possible, especially for a private school.  As noted above, the last private school to become a FBS member was The U (Miami), they started football in 1927 and became a FBS member in 1978.

Those starting football with the intention of competing at the FBS are large state schools with huge budgets (relative to private schools like MU).  Their primary motivation is to raise the profile of the school.  MU doesn't need to raise its profile, BB did that.

So what purpose would even a very good NAIA program accomplish?  More donation?  Enough to justify the millions to start FB?  I doubt it.  Raise our reputation?  I would argue a pathetic football program would hurt MU's reputation.  Remember we are not Townson State trying to raise our profile.  Everyone has heard of MU.  Associating it with mediocrity and losing would hurt more than the perceived rise in our profile.

What about title IX?  Are you cutting all the men's program or magically finding millions more to start enough women's programs to add another 95 scholarships.

First, you can't be in the NCAA and add a NAIA program, so that's just wrong to begin with unless something has changed.

I just responded to Sultan on reasons why....increases enrollment, helps with Title IX gender equity because you bring more males to campus.  It's a reason why many smaller schools are doing this.  As you may know, Title IX has a three prong legal test to it.  One of those is the opportunities based on the ratio of males to females as part of the general student body.  Most schools have more females than males, and that means athletic department opportunities are supposed to reflect that same male to female ratio.  That is the case at MU as well. An easy way to increase the male enrollment is to add football, non-scholarship.  You get the benefit of more males on campus which changes the ratio, you get more $$ from tuition paying football players.  Look at the studies \ articles of schools (especially smaller ones) that have added football and the impacts of enrollment at the school.

There are a number of articles on this, here is another...I'd invite you to read the portion titled "the sensible option" that gets into the budget, the benefits and other positive attributes.  http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/news_2011_0622_colleges_continue_to_add_football_teams.html

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 24, 2012, 12:42:51 PM
My frustration goes back many years on this...back when I worked in the athletic department.  This day was coming and everyone knew it.  It's just unfortunate.  I had opined 4 years ago in a Cracked Sidewalks article that we better have a plan then because this day is coming and we are going to be in a world of hurt when it comes.  We're at a critical crossroads right now, one we have known about for a long time.

And what would have happened even if MU decided to bring back football 20 years ago?  Honestly, what would we be?  Villanova?  And what good is that doing them?

And you might want to be Tulsa.  I certainly don't want that for Marquette.

Quote from: cheebs09 on November 22, 2012, 08:42:05 PM
If we gathered up a few students, we could probably beat the Jets.

Or Rutgers.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 24, 2012, 01:01:16 PM
First, you can't be in the NCAA and add a NAIA program, so that's just wrong to begin with unless something has changed.

I just responded to Sultan on reasons why....increases enrollment, helps with Title IX gender equity because you bring more males to campus.  It's a reason why many smaller schools are doing this. 

... and you cannot be D III in football and D1 in basketball.

It helps increase enrollment for schools that have name recognition problems.  That is not a problem MU has.  Is gender equity a problem at MU?  I don't know but my guess is no.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 24, 2012, 03:29:16 PM
... and you cannot be D III in football and D1 in basketball.

It helps increase enrollment for schools that have name recognition problems.  That is not a problem MU has.  Is gender equity a problem at MU?  I don't know but my guess is no.

No....gender equity is not a problem at MU.  Add a football team and it would likely become one.

No football is better than bad football.

I know we don't want to believe this because we like football, but honestly, no football is better than bad football.

If you love college football, you need to go to a school that has it.

MU isn't going to have it. Ever. Never. Ever.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 24, 2012, 03:29:16 PM
... and you cannot be D III in football and D1 in basketball.

It helps increase enrollment for schools that have name recognition problems.  That is not a problem MU has.  Is gender equity a problem at MU?  I don't know but my guess is no.

But you can be non-scholarship football and DI in basketball.  G'Town, Dayton, Butler, San Diego, Drake, Jacksonville, Davidson, all do it.

Most schools have a gender equity issue when it comes to athletics.  Remember that wrestling team we used to have...gone.  52% female, 48% male.  Not nearly as bad as some schools, but we've had to cut several teams since 1997 as a result of Title IX. 

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 24, 2012, 03:58:08 PM

No....gender equity is not a problem at MU.  Add a football team and it would likely become one.

That is incorrect.

You add a NON-scholarship program and it does the exact opposite.  You close the female to male gap in student gender equity ratio.  It's why some schools are doing that very thing.

I found the article....thought it was 5 years old, a bit older at 6... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/education/10football.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Part of the reason I was familiar with the article has to do Shenandoah University...I knew the Dean of the Business School there when they were talking about this years ago.

At any rate, with non-scholarship football it actually improves the gender equity situation, not the opposite. If you add a scholarship program, then yes, you make the problem worse.  That's why I'm saying if you go down this path, do it with a non-scholarship program like the Pioneer League schools as an example.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 24, 2012, 07:10:22 PM
That is incorrect.

You add a NON-scholarship program and it does the exact opposite.  You close the female to male gap in student gender equity ratio.  It's why some schools are doing that very thing.

I found the article....thought it was 5 years old, a bit older at 6... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/education/10football.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Part of the reason I was familiar with the article has to do Shenandoah University...I knew the Dean of the Business School there when they were talking about this years ago.

At any rate, with non-scholarship football it actually improves the gender equity situation, not the opposite. If you add a scholarship program, then yes, you make the problem worse.  That's why I'm saying if you go down this path, do it with a non-scholarship program like the Pioneer League schools as an example.

Chicos, that is not true.  One of the three-prong tests has to do with opportunities that are proportionate to the student body.  That means that it is more than financial aid, it has to do with roster size.  Adding a football team, even non-scholarship, will put MU out of whack. 

Furthermore, the examples you provide are not similar to MU at all.  Those are small colleges made up primarily of women.  Adding football doesn't harm those schools because you are attracting males without throwing ratios out of whack.  Since MU is basically 50/50 right now, adding football would put it out of proportion.

With all this football driven chaos, wait for the class action law suit on gender bias. Why does a college team need 80 full scholarships when the NFL roster limits the team to 53?  Why does ESPN show less NCAA women's sports than poker or Little League?   Why has the percent of women coaches dropped since Title IX?  If there is a soft underbelly to all the irrationality, wait for someone to step into the fold when other sports start getting dropped or short changed.

Before anyone chimes in about ratings, popularity...consider the ad/sponsorship dollars and viewership that gymnastics, tennis, golf and figure skating deliver. Consider that some of the highest rated and first to sell out Olympic venues are swimming, sand volleyball and gymnastics. Women's soccer is very popular. Why 80 full rides for scholarships for football when other sports share partials.  Why doesn't ESPN promote the women's sports like they do Little League to attract the other half of the viewing audience? If more male university presidents and Athletics Directors find $50 million to buy themselves into a football conference of their choosing...making football even more unprofitable, what does that open them up to in terms of equal measure?

It would be hard to argue gender bias with Title IX in place...which addresses that very issue.  And the fact is that opportunities for women in athletics exist now more than they ever have.  And at *some* schools, football profits have had a hand in making that happen.  The three prong-test is this....

...the ratio of slots for men's to women's sports has to have roughly the same ratio as the student body at large.

....the scholarship dollars have to be roughly equal.

...the quality of facilities has to be equitable.  Usually what that means is for every "first class" facility devoted to a men's sport, a similar facility has to be devoted to a women's one.

So for a school to be in compliance with title IX, it has to devote similar scholarship dollars.  So that takes care of the 80 scholarships for football versus the partials for women's soccer.  Schools fiddle with this by limiting scholarships and roster sizes for men's sports, while offering more for women's sports.  For instance, in looking at Wisconsin, they offer one additional women's sport, and likely offer more scholarships in sports like rowing, lightweight rowing and cross country then they do for men.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on November 25, 2012, 09:57:31 AM
With all this football driven chaos, wait for the class action law suit on gender bias. Why does a college team need 80 full scholarships when the NFL roster limits the team to 53?  Why does ESPN show less NCAA women's sports than poker or Little League?   Why has the percent of women coaches dropped since Title IX? If there is a soft underbelly to all the irrationality, wait for someone to step into the fold when other sports start getting dropped or short changed.

Before anyone chimes in about ratings, popularity...consider the ad/sponsorship dollars and viewership that gymnastics, tennis, golf and figure skating deliver. Consider that some of the highest rated and first to sell out Olympic venues are swimming, sand volleyball and gymnastics. Women's soccer is very popular. Why 80 full rides for scholarships for football when other sports share partials.  Why doesn't ESPN promote the women's sports like they do Little League to attract the other half of the viewing audience? If more male university presidents and Athletics Directors find $50 million to buy themselves into a football conference of their choosing...making football even more unprofitable, what does that open them up to in terms of equal measure?

I'm not entirely sure what your point is in the above post, but if class-action lawsuits go against ESPN for not showing women sports, that is way out of line to me. ESPN isn't stupid. If they could make money showing women's sports they'd show the hell out of them. They already do, if you didnt notice, with the WNBA and women's baketball and that's pretty much been forced onto them.

Guess what? Women don't watch women's sports. And there's your problem - there is no market for it. And the Olympics get good ratings...cause they're the Olympics! Not comparable at all.

Oh, and technically football isn't men's football. It's just football.

Quote from: Aughnanure on November 25, 2012, 10:59:35 AM
I'm not entirely sure what your point is in the above post, but if class-action lawsuits go against ESPN for not showing women sports, that is way out of line to me. ESPN isn't stupid. If they could make money showing women's sports they'd show the hell out of them. They already do, if you didnt notice, with the WNBA and women's baketball and that's pretty much been forced onto them.

Guess what? Women don't watch women's sports. And there's your problem - there is no market for it. And the Olympics get good ratings...cause they're the Olympics! Not comparable at all.

Oh, and technically football isn't men's football. It's just football.

The point is very few NCAA football programs are profitable and all this chaos is drawing further ire....right in the middle of this are networks like Fox and ESPN driving this change.  I gave you examples where women's ratings were successful...yet these networks push the universities down the football focus.  Rightly so for ratings...but if there is a chink in the armor it is the further distortion away from equal opportunity of university investments to pay other conferences for football focused switches.  Maryland's sports are already in major trouble and a $50 million pay out is going to help?  Maybe Under Armor steps in to bail them out...but that causes even more of a public spotlight on this distortion.

I know of no women's scholarship football programs, please enlighten me.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on November 25, 2012, 11:19:58 AM
The point is very few NCAA football programs are profitable and all this chaos is drawing further ire....right in the middle of the this are networks like Fox and ESPN driving this change.  I gave you examples where women's ratings were successful...yet these networks push the universities down the football focus.  Rightly so for ratings...but if there is a chink in the armor it is the further distortion away from equal opportunity of university investments to pay other conferences for football focused switches.  Maryland's sports are already in major trouble and a $50 million pay out is going to help?  Maybe Under Armor steps in to bail them out...but that causes even more of a public spotlight on this distortion.

I know of no women's scholarship football programs, please enlighten me.

No one cares about Olympic sports outside the Olympics (not just a female sports problem). Maryland ain't paying $50 million. Have women played college football? The answer is yes.

I get, and basically agree, with your point about the money problem. But I think it overlooks the fact that the money made off football pays for all the other non-revenue sports - and that fighting against it could be a double-edged sword. Could a compromise include how much of the money made from football goes to other non-revenue and female sports?

Quote from: Aughnanure on November 25, 2012, 11:28:22 AM
No one cares about Olympic sports outside the Olympics (not just a female sports problem). Maryland ain't paying $50 million. Have women played college football? The answer is yes.

I get, and basically agree, with your point about the money problem. But I think it overlooks the fact that the money made off football pays for all the other non-revenue sports - and that fighting against it could be a double-edged sword. Could a compromise include how much of the money made from football goes to other non-revenue and female sports?

I think we generally agree on all this...my only point to be a bit clearer is that while the BCS can solely focus on football...and ignore the NCAA...the federal government entrusts the NCAA to enforce Title IX...football and the Olympic sports must be equal on male/female...BCS or no BCS. Universities are in danger with all this pr of opening themselves up....and the evidence of the schools and their network partners are not in their favor. In terms of distortion. It will only take one suit...and with the football money being thrown around, there are plenty of lawyers willing to take this on is my guess.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on November 25, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
I think we generally agree on all this...my only point to be a bit clearer is that while the BCS can solely focus on football...and ignore the NCAA...the federal government entrusts the NCAA to enforce Title IX...football and the Olympic sports must be equal on male/female...BCS or no BCS. Universities are in danger with all this pr of opening themselves up....and the evidence of the schools and their network partners are not in their favor. In terms of distortion. It will only take one suit...and with the football money being thrown around, there are plenty of lawyers willing to take this on is my guess.

Would that change if the big-football conferences (aka, the 4x16-20 model) take their ball completely out of the NCAA as everyone has started to suggest? I would assume they'd still open themselves up to lawsuits, but just curious as the likelihood the BCS schools (or whatever you call them) separate themselves away from the mid-major football schools and control their own rules and TV money seems to be gaining momentum.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on November 25, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
I think we generally agree on all this...my only point to be a bit clearer is that while the BCS can solely focus on football...and ignore the NCAA...the federal government entrusts the NCAA to enforce Title IX...football and the Olympic sports must be equal on male/female...BCS or no BCS.

The federal government doesn't entrust the NCAA to enforce Title IX.  The Department of Justice enforces Title IX.  The NCAA has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, I don't think you can say that the BCS schools are "ignoring the NCAA."  They are members of the NCAA...the NCAA regulates their eligibility, etc....  The NCAA hasn't overseen television contracts since they lost a lawsuit a couple decades ago.  The NCAA has never controlled conference membership.  Honestly from a legal perspective, nothing has changed.

Marquette helmet of 1960

(http://www.nationalchamps.net/Helmet_Project/Marquette_WI.gif)



I would recommend reading any number of articles about the Pioneer League schools and Title IX.  Because they are non-scholarship, it doesn't impact them in terms of having to add scholarship programs for women.  Also some non Pioneer league schools, like Duquense...see article attached.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=20060603&id=TvVRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OnIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6519,1054019

It's one of the issues the Patriot League is having to engage in now that they are going to scholarships in 2013, they have Title IX issues to deal with, but the Pioneer League does not.  Dayton, Butler, San Diego...all articles on the web about their non-scholarship programs and how that allows them to stay in compliance with Title IX.

Campbell, Marist, Mercer, Jacksonville all came to the same conclusions in the last few years and opted for non-scholarship football.

http://jacksonville.com/sports/college/2011-08-20/story/qampa-ju-president-kerry-romesburg-miami-situation-sad-thing

Is any of this going to happen at MU....unlikely.  Fun to dream about.  I've been to a few USD games and two Dayton football games.  Had a good time.  One of the Dayton games I attended had about 7,500 fans.  I think it holds around 10K. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 23, 2012, 10:02:38 AM
Another, I'm not against offering football, even if it is lower level to start.  I do, however, recognize what an enormous uphill battle it would be.

When I was at IU and KU, we sucked at football (actually KU we weren't bad), but it was still an event, a source of pride, etc.  I work with a few folks that were at USD when Harbaugh was the coach down there and it had the campus electrified.

Is it worth doing?  Probably not. Too many obstacles, enormous resources, etc.  However, it could be done and I don't buy into the notion that it can't.  Nor do I buy into the notion that having lower level football is a bad thing. 

I'll equate a high school story to you...yes, I know it's high school and a big difference, but allow me.  When I played football at my Catholic high school we were a tiny school of 550 kids and one of the lowest divisions in California high school football.   About 10 years ago the school decided to "go for it".  We have an enrollment today of 530 but tonight play Mater Dei, one of the best programs in the country and ranked 10th in the nation in the semi-finals of the highest division in the state.  Last we my alma mater beat the defending state champion to get to this game.  My little school, currently ranked 13th in the nation by MaxPreps....the game is on national television.  The winner will likely play St. John Boscho next Saturday at Angels Stadium for the Pac 5 championsip...St. John Boscho is currently ranked #1 in the nation.    The talent on the field tonight will be pretty sick.  My school put out one DII player when I was there.  Now we regularly put guys out to UCLA, USC, Florida State, Stanford, Notre Dame, Arizona, Colorado, etc...that little school of 530 (coed by the way, only 250 boys go to the school).  We have several guys in the NFL.  We hired the right coach 14 years ago, put money into it, upgraded the facilities and changed the culture and did it at a TINY little school in the biggest state in the country.  Not an easy feat.  Go Seraphs!

High school isn't college, but my point was that with the right people and resources you can do some pretty amazing things.  No one on the planet 15 years ago would have thought Boise State would be a nationally ranked football program finishing in the top 10 multiple years.  No one would have thought UCONN would play in a New Year's Eve bowl, or UAB would produce players like Roddy White in the NFL.   

You just never know.  I would love to see lower level football started and see where it goes.  I think starting out with the idea of a DI in 5 years would be nuts and a waste of money.

So who won the big game on Friday night?  The suspense is killing me. 

Chicos,

I thought this thread was about "big-time" football. Pioneer League is one baby step above club football.  What would be the point?

Quote from: warriorchick on November 25, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
Chicos,

I thought this thread was about "big-time" football. Pioneer League is one baby step above club football.  What would be the point?

Exactly.  I have never understood why schools like Butler bother with non-scholarship football.  At least, FCS level can bring championships and some glory.  A school like Butler doesn't compete for anything noteworthy and are actually worse than the highest levels of D3 football.

Quote from: warriorchick on November 25, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
Chicos,

I thought this thread was about "big-time" football. Pioneer League is one baby step above club football.  What would be the point?

+1

I don't see the point either

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 25, 2012, 06:56:00 PM

Exactly.  I have never understood why schools like Butler bother with non-scholarship football.  At least, FCS level can bring championships and some glory.  A school like Butler doesn't compete for anything noteworthy and are actually worse than the highest levels of D3 football.

I was fortunate enough to get a personal tour of Butler last year from the VP of Academic Affairs (a Marquette alum and a personal friend). From what I gathered from him, the football team is basically a great excuse for students to get together on a Saturday afternoon.  I don't think they even charge admission.  We would be better off promoting our club football team better rather than go through the machinations of putting together a "real" team.

Quote from: SoCalEagle on November 25, 2012, 04:53:30 PM
So who won the big game on Friday night?  The suspense is killing me.  

Mater Dei.  They're in the top 10 nationally for a reason.  Fun game.  Our boys trailed 7-0 in the 4th quarter in a great defensive battle.  Gave up two TD's in the final quarter.  Game was played in the fog for the entire first half...crazy.  You could hardly see a thing.  Cool to have Brent Musberger talk about the contest during last night's Notre Dame - USC game.

(http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-11/73432256.jpg)



Our little school of 530 in the Pac 5 semis in their very first year, the highest level of football in the state of California.  Hopefully a sign of things to come in the future.  


Doubt we'll ever be like Mater Dei with all their money, 2000+ students, etc, or even Oaks Christian (Clay Matthews fame, Wayne Gretzky's kids and Will Smith's kids...LOTS of $$$), but with a Sophomore QB that already has offers from Miami, UCLA, and Arizona State, who knows.  Fun times ahead I hope.  

Quote from: warriorchick on November 25, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
Chicos,

I thought this thread was about "big-time" football. Pioneer League is one baby step above club football.  What would be the point?

I thought it was about football and Marquette.  I would solicit many opinions from the schools that play Pioneer League football and ask whether it is worth it.  By the way, it is not one step above club football, let along a baby step.  The Pioneer League has done extremely well against DII scholarship programs in the last decade, in some cases knocking off schools with 63 scholarships to their zero.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 25, 2012, 07:24:33 PM
I thought it was about football and Marquette.  I would solicit many opinions from the schools that play Pioneer League football and ask whether it is worth it.  By the way, it is not one step above club football, let along a baby step.  The Pioneer League has done extremely well against DII scholarship programs in the last decade, in some cases knocking off schools with 63 scholarships to their zero.

Again, what would the Pioneer League do for us that a well-promoted club team wouldn't?

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 25, 2012, 06:56:00 PM

Exactly.  I have never understood why schools like Butler bother with non-scholarship football.  At least, FCS level can bring championships and some glory.  A school like Butler doesn't compete for anything noteworthy and are actually worse than the highest levels of D3 football.

As just stated, that's not true at all.  They beat DII schools and DIII schools.  They have a championship to play for.  The winner of the Pioneer Football League receives an automatic bid to the FCS football championships starting in 2013. They join the Big Sky, Southern, Southland, MEAC, NEC, CAA, Big South, MVFC, OVC, Patriot Leagues in the FCS with automatic qualifiers.

So they are competing for national championships and that is noteworthy, and they are better than

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2012-08-23/pioneer-football-league-gains-automatic-bid-2013-postseason

Prior to that, they were eligible to receive At-Large bids. 

Quote from: warriorchick on November 25, 2012, 07:27:47 PM
Again, what would the Pioneer League do for us that a well-promoted club team wouldn't?

Compete for NCAA national championship.  Add males to the campus...tuition paying males to help with gender equity ratios, bring football back to campus for the first time in 50 years, etc, etc.

For the same reason why Georgetown, Butler, Dayton, Drake, Davidson, Morehead State, San Diego, Valpo, Mercer, Jacksonville, etc all have teams and why other schools are adding them now.

The comparison to a club level is quite frankly way out there and just flat wrong.  No other way to put it.  These kids are competing for NCAA national championship, not some club level nonsense.  

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what PFL football is, the benefits to Title IX, etc based on comments here.  My guess is most posters here really don't understand it and it's all or nothing at the FBS level, which I don't believe is realistic. 

But yes, MU could have football, play for NCAA titles, have it non-scholarship, and not have it impact Title IX as a result.  Some of you may not be interested, others might.  I'm merely pointing out that it can be done, is being done and can have some ancillary benefits as well.

Chicos the point is not about what the team could play for, but what they could do for the university.  None of the things you list would benefit MU as a whole.

We don't have a problem with gender imbalance, others have pointed this out.

We don't have a problem with national recognition.

We don't have a problem of students being involved in campus sports (basketball more than covers this).

To make the next step towards national prominence as a top tier university is:  

1.  More research dollars.

2.  Larger Endowment.

Adding a crappy football team doesn't help anywhere.

Quote from: forgetful on November 25, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
Chicos the point is not about what the team could play for, but what they could do for the university.  None of the things you list would benefit MU as a whole.

We don't have a problem with gender imbalance, others have pointed this out.

We don't have a problem with national recognition.

We don't have a problem of students being involved in campus sports (basketball more than covers this).

To make the next step towards national prominence as a top tier university is:  

1.  More research dollars.

2.  Larger Endowment.

Adding a crappy football team doesn't help anywhere.

+1000000

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 25, 2012, 07:22:39 PM
Mater Dei.  They're in the top 10 nationally for a reason.  Fun game.  Our boys trailed 7-0 in the 4th quarter in a great defensive battle.  Gave up two TD's in the final quarter.  Our little school of 530 in the Pac 5 semis in their very first year, the highest level of football in the state of California.  Hopefully a sign of things to come in the future.  
Doubt we'll ever be like Mater Dei with all their money, 2000+ students, etc, or even Oaks Christian (Clay Matthews fame, Wayne Gretzky's kids and Will Smith's kids...LOTS of $$$), but with a Sophomore QB that already has offers from Miami, UCLA, and Arizona State, who knows.  Fun times ahead I hope.  

What's the current Pac 5 exit fee for a school wanting to change conferences?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 25, 2012, 07:30:11 PM
As just stated, that's not true at all.  They beat DII schools and DIII schools.  They have a championship to play for.  The winner of the Pioneer Football League receives an automatic bid to the FCS football championships starting in 2013. They join the Big Sky, Southern, Southland, MEAC, NEC, CAA, Big South, MVFC, OVC, Patriot Leagues in the FCS with automatic qualifiers.

So they are competing for national championships and that is noteworthy, and they are better than

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2012-08-23/pioneer-football-league-gains-automatic-bid-2013-postseason

Prior to that, they were eligible to receive At-Large bids. 

Cool!  So they are the equivalent of the Patriot League in FCS.  Completely useless.  No thanks.

Chicos....seriously you are maddening....

1. Marquette doesn't have a glaring need to add "tuition paying males."  It isn't a former women's college. 

2. They would be non-competitive in a division of football that no one cares about.

3. YOU are the one that fails to understand Title IX.  I have pointed this out to your earlier, but scholarships are only one of the tests.  The other is participation slots.  You know how I know this?  Because the school I work for was investigated by the DOJ for this very issue.  Scholarships were not a problem...participation was.  I handled the PR for this on campus, talked to the AD about it at least once a week, and even read the DOJ report.  So Marquette adding football WILL impact Title IX.

Adding non-scholarship football ads NOTHING to MU.  Not one ounce of anything good.

Sorry if I'm maddening, it's what I do.  

Sultan, I assisted on some consulting work to have football added to a university under NCAA jurisdiction (not NAIA). I've been through this process before in the last 6 years.

There are three prongs to the Title IX legislation, you have to meet ANY one of the three to be in compliance.  I provided some of the links as to why non-scholarship football works for some schools, specifically links to Jacksonville, Dayton, etc in prior posts.  Georgetown's president is on record a few months ago saying the same thing because now the Patriot League will allow scholarships and G'Town doesn't plan on following suit for many reasons...cost, Title IX, etc.  They may go independent as a result, may join the Pioneer, or choose to stay in the Patriot League and take on scholarship programs..  To be fair and maybe this is where you are going, it isn't going to fix all ills if your school is out of compliance with all three prongs, but absolutely non-scholarship football can have a huge benefit to Title IX.  You're ignoring all those links I provided.   ;)

1) I realize we aren't a former women's college, but neither is G'Town, Butler, San Diego, etc, etc.  We don't have a "glaring need", but I was also there at MU when we had to drop two sports involving men to help get into compliance.  The looks on the faces of the men's wrestling team and what they had to go through, not a pleasant site.

2) How do you know we would be non-competitive, especially over the longhaul?  Why do you say no one cares about it?  They would outdraw EVERY sport at MU sans one...men's basketball.   Avg attendance in the Pioneer league was 3,261..someone cares about it.   ;)  Not one of our sports teams other than men's basketball averages that many people.  (MU women's hoops averaged 1,710 as a frame of reference.)

3)  See above, I understand Title IX very well...even been paid for my understanding of it.   ;)

4)  One could argue adding men's and women's Lacrosse adds nothing to MU as well.  Except in that case, we have huge expenditures AND Title IX implications as a result.  We had to add both, a men's and women's team with scholarships, paid coaching staffs, etc, largely because of Title IX.  That has a real, material impact on MU.  I'm not against adding those teams, but that is an example where we've burdened ourselves with a lot of cost and truly did add a sport that if we are lucky will get about 1,000 people to a game on average.  Syracuse averages 4,400 a game and they are at the top of the Lacrosse world.

Quote from: forgetful on November 25, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
Chicos the point is not about what the team could play for, but what they could do for the university.  None of the things you list would benefit MU as a whole.

We don't have a problem with gender imbalance, others have pointed this out.

We don't have a problem with national recognition.

We don't have a problem of students being involved in campus sports (basketball more than covers this).

To make the next step towards national prominence as a top tier university is:  

1.  More research dollars.

2.  Larger Endowment.

Adding a crappy football team doesn't help anywhere.

I don't disagree with the endowment and the research dollars.  Those are intertwined, however, and since we aren't a research institution it's hard to get there.  I'm certainly not saying football above those two.  If I had my druthers, I would absolutely want to focus on endowment as the #1 priority.  It is woefully under funded for a national school like ours.  Football would be way down the list.  We'll agree to disagree one whether football doesn't help anywhere.  Any time you can get 3K to 5K alumni down to school on a Saturday is a good thing, especially in the fall.  School pride, etc.  There's a reason why so many schools, many our size, keep football around or haven't abandoned it yet.  If it was such a drag you would have schools getting rid of it at a greater pace than those adding it.  Wish we had it, I know we won't.  It's something that other schools our size have over us.  Some care not, some think it would be great to have it.  To each their own.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 25, 2012, 09:04:40 PM

Cool!  So they are the equivalent of the Patriot League in FCS.  Completely useless.  No thanks.

I know you are a big UW-madison football fan so I get the rationale when it isn't major college football, but if you ever have a chance I would recommend taking in the Lehigh - Lafayette game, longest played game in the country.  Or the Harvard - Yale game.  Both non-scholarship and outstanding tradition, competition, etc.  

It's very cool and a big deal.  Put it on your bucket list Sultan, you'll enjoy it...I guarantee it.

Most players on non-scholarship football teams TURNED DOWN scholarships at other schools.  For example, at Drake 2/3 of their football team turned down scholarships to play football at other schools because they wanted to attend Drake.  USD, same thing.  Georgetown, very much the same thing.


Many people do care about non-scholarship football programs.  Chuck Noll, 4 time winning Super Bowl coach...university of Dayton alum.  Jon Gruden, Super Bowl winning coach...university of Dayton alum, QB.  

As those two, and many others have said, small time college football allowed them to learn the game and the principles of competition.  

Has his "timeout" made us forget that Chicos is insanely starved for attention and will do anything to get people talking to/about him? He's the equivalent of an MUScoop Kardashian.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 25, 2012, 09:59:39 PM
Sorry if I'm maddening, it's what I do.  

Sultan, I assisted on some consulting work to have football added to a university under NCAA jurisdiction (not NAIA). I've been through this process before in the last 6 years.

There are three prongs to the Title IX legislation, you have to meet ANY one of the three to be in compliance.  I provided some of the links as to why non-scholarship football works for some schools, specifically links to Jacksonville, Dayton, etc in prior posts.  Georgetown's president is on record a few months ago saying the same thing because now the Patriot League will allow scholarships and G'Town doesn't plan on following suit for many reasons...cost, Title IX, etc.  They may go independent as a result, may join the Pioneer, or choose to stay in the Patriot League and take on scholarship programs..  To be fair and maybe this is where you are going, it isn't going to fix all ills if your school is out of compliance with all three prongs, but absolutely non-scholarship football can have a huge benefit to Title IX.  You're ignoring all those links I provided.   ;)

1) I realize we aren't a former women's college, but neither is G'Town, Butler, San Diego, etc, etc.  We don't have a "glaring need", but I was also there at MU when we had to drop two sports involving men to help get into compliance.  The looks on the faces of the men's wrestling team and what they had to go through, not a pleasant site.

2) How do you know we would be non-competitive, especially over the longhaul?  Why do you say no one cares about it?  They would outdraw EVERY sport at MU sans one...men's basketball.   Avg attendance in the Pioneer league was 3,261..someone cares about it.   ;)  Not one of our sports teams other than men's basketball averages that many people.  (MU women's hoops averaged 1,710 as a frame of reference.)

3)  See above, I understand Title IX very well...even been paid for my understanding of it.   ;)

4)  One could argue adding men's and women's Lacrosse adds nothing to MU as well.  Except in that case, we have huge expenditures AND Title IX implications as a result.  We had to add both, a men's and women's team with scholarships, paid coaching staffs, etc, largely because of Title IX.  That has a real, material impact on MU.  I'm not against adding those teams, but that is an example where we've burdened ourselves with a lot of cost and truly did add a sport that if we are lucky will get about 1,000 people to a game on average.  Syracuse averages 4,400 a game and they are at the top of the Lacrosse world.

Being paid for it doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.  In general I would say that most people that pay for advice are paying someone that isn't qualified to provide such advice.

If I understand your arguments on here correctly, then the people you consulted for on Title IX deserve their money back. 

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a title IX expert, but Sultan is absolutely correct that by adding a bunch of football players you need to add an equivalent number of opportunities for women.  That is a lot of sports that would need to be added and supported even if you don't add a single scholarship.

Alternatively, to qualify for one of the three prongs of the first component (all three components need to be satisfied) you could demonstrate a recent expansion or attempts to bring about equal opportunities (Adding a football program nullifies this prong), or that the interests and abilities of the female athletes have been met (this would also be unlikely to be met) so to satisfy the first component you would need to have equal participation of men and women in sports comparable to the student body. 

Which women sports would you like to add to satisfy this prong?  Alternatively, which male sports would you like to get rid of.

For those schools that added football to bring the ratios back in line, they either had to accept a disproportionately large number of male applicants or they were in temporarily in violation of Title IX and rolled the dice.

Quote from: forgetful on November 25, 2012, 10:59:18 PM
Being paid for it doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.  In general I would say that most people that pay for advice are paying someone that isn't qualified to provide such advice.

If I understand your arguments on here correctly, then the people you consulted for on Title IX deserve their money back.  

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a title IX expert, but Sultan is absolutely correct that by adding a bunch of football players you need to add an equivalent number of opportunities for women.  That is a lot of sports that would need to be added and supported even if you don't add a single scholarship.

Alternatively, to qualify for one of the three prongs of the first component (all three components need to be satisfied) you could demonstrate a recent expansion or attempts to bring about equal opportunities (Adding a football program nullifies this prong), or that the interests and abilities of the female athletes have been met (this would also be unlikely to be met) so to satisfy the first component you would need to have equal participation of men and women in sports comparable to the student body.  

Which women sports would you like to add to satisfy this prong?  Alternatively, which male sports would you like to get rid of.

For those schools that added football to bring the ratios back in line, they either had to accept a disproportionately large number of male applicants or they were in temporarily in violation of Title IX and rolled the dice.

You are right Forgetful, you are not a Title IX expert.   :D  Let's start with your claim that "all three components need to be satisfied".  Uhm, no they don't. ANY ONE OF THE THREE need to be satisfied, not all three as you claim.

From the law - I used Wiki to keep it simple, but check anywhere you wish..1 of 3, not all 3
HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.

   "All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."
   "Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.
   "The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."
   "Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities."

Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:

   Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
   Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
   Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.



You can add a non-scholarship sport on one side (male) and add another NON-Scholarship sport for women, as an example.  It's all about meeting one of the three prongs.  Well, at least in part.  People get confused and think only the three prongs are the end all be all of Title IX, but that is also incorrect (access to coaches, equipment, facilities, etc, often sit outside that purview but come into play).

The incorrect implication here has been if you add a non-scholarship football team you must add a SCHOLARSHIP women's team(s) to offset it.  That is absolutely, 100% incorrect.  

Many many ways to skin the Title IX cat...that's what consultants are paid for.   ;)   Example:  Want to see where the growth of women's crew,NON-Scholarship women's crew, is taking place and why?  I'll give you three guesses why that is happening and the first two don't count.  

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 25, 2012, 09:59:39 PM
I was also there at MU when we had to drop two sports involving men to help get into compliance.  The looks on the faces of the men's wrestling team and what they had to go through, not a pleasant site.

I knew Barney Karpfinger. He was a very good man running a fine program. The shut down of his program destroyed him.


(http://digitalmarquette.cdmhost.com/utils/getthumbnail/collection/p128701coll5/id/465)

Fred McGaver, Marquette Athletic Hall of Fame

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 26, 2012, 01:11:28 AM
You are right Forgetful, you are not a Title IX expert.   :D  Let's start with your claim that "all three components need to be satisfied".  Uhm, no they don't. ANY ONE OF THE THREE need to be satisfied, not all three as you claim.

From the law - I used Wiki to keep it simple, but check anywhere you wish..1 of 3, not all 3
HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.

    "All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."
    "Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.
    "The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."
    "Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities."

Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:

    Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
    Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
    Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.



You can add a non-scholarship sport on one side (male) and add another NON-Scholarship sport for women, as an example.  It's all about meeting one of the three prongs.  Well, at least in part.  People get confused and think only the three prongs are the end all be all of Title IX, but that is also incorrect (access to coaches, equipment, facilities, etc, often sit outside that purview but come into play).

The incorrect implication here has been if you add a non-scholarship football team you must add a SCHOLARSHIP women's team(s) to offset it.  That is absolutely, 100% incorrect. 

Many many ways to skin the Title IX cat...that's what consultants are paid for.   ;)   Example:  Want to see where the growth of women's crew,NON-Scholarship women's crew, is taking place and why?  I'll give you three guesses why that is happening and the first two don't count. 

Hold on...WHAT???

You just changed your story here.  You never once mentioned adding another women's non-scholarship sport.  You simply mentioned that adding football wouldn't cause compliance issues - and now you have added this caveat.  The link you provided states flat-out what I have been saying...that adding football would put our ratios out of whack.

Look, if you want Marquette to have a football team that's fine.  But I think adding a non-scholarship sport for a couple thousand people to watch fails the cost-benefit analysis.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 25, 2012, 10:24:52 PM
I know you are a big UW-madison football fan so I get the rationale when it isn't major college football, but if you ever have a chance I would recommend taking in the Lehigh - Lafayette game, longest played game in the country.  Or the Harvard - Yale game.  Both non-scholarship and outstanding tradition, competition, etc.

First of all, it would be inaccurate to say that I am a "big" UW-Madison football fan.  I root for them, but I am more of a fan of college football in general.  For instance, this past weekend I watched Florida / Florida State instead of UW.

Second, I attend small school, D3 football games all of the time.  I go to about a handful of games per year.  They are fun events.  However, just because they are fun and worthwhile at that level, doesn't mean that will translate to Marquette.  I think non-scholarship football at the D1 level is a waste of time and money.

As one who has attended more MAC games than B1G/ND games over the years, I can tell you that you can shoot off an uzi in the stands of a mediocre MAC team and not hit anybody.    I have been to games where the actual attendance was <5K in a 30K stadium.    Embarrassing.   I prefer not having football to that. 

Those attending MU prior to 1960 can complain about not having football if they choose.  Those of us after 1960 went to MU knowing that we didn't have football...if it was that big of deal you should have considered going elsewhere...

Can we just start a Hockey program instead?

Quote from: Aughnanure on November 26, 2012, 08:57:53 AM
Can we just start a Hockey program instead?

I'm surpised we've never had more than a club team.

Great.  This board is going to devolve into a continuous argument between Chicos and Sultan.  Sounds like a fun place to hang for me.  ::)

Ummm, 5 pages in and no on has mentioned that college football will be a shell itself in the next 25-30 years because of the lack of control around injuries, concussions...youth programs and colleges won't be able to get insured, pipelines for football programs will dwindle, and the game will eventually become they way boxing is now. 

When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 26, 2012, 07:53:03 AM
Look, if you want Marquette to have a football team that's fine.  But I think adding a non-scholarship sport for a couple thousand people to watch fails the cost-benefit analysis.

Last week 60 minutes did a story on college football.  

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50135410n

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57551556/has-college-football-become-a-campus-commodity/

In it they flat out stated the purpose of football is to raise the profile of the school.  That is mission 1.  Mission 2 is to make Alums feel good about the school so they donate.

Most interesting is this statement by Dave Brandon, former CEO of Dominos Pizza and now Michigan AD ...

-----

Dave Brandon: The business model of big-time college athletics is primarily broken. It's, it's a horrible business model.

Armen Keteyian: Broken.

Dave Brandon: Broken. You've got 125 of these programs. Out of 125, 22 of them were cash flow even or cash flow positive. Now, thankfully, we're one of those. What that means is you've got a model that's not sustainable in most cases. You just don't have enough revenues to support the costs. And the costs continue to go up.

Why? A big reason is universities are in the midst of a sports building binge. Cal Berkeley, for example, renovated its stadium to the tune of $321 million. The list is endless. Michigan's athletic department floated $226 million in bonds to upgrade the Big House.

-----

I assume the "125" he was talking about is actually the 127 schools that make up the FBS.  Only 22 are cash-flow positive.  That's it!  I find that statistic unbelievable.

Why would you want to subject a university that already has national name recognition through basketball to this terrible business model?  I cannot see it.

And, how does a non-scholarship or lower division program help in mission 1 (raising name recognition) or mission 2 (increasing donations)?

Quote from: reinko on November 26, 2012, 09:19:59 AM
Ummm, 5 pages in and no on has mentioned that college football will be a shell itself in the next 25-30 years because of the lack of control around injuries, concussions...youth programs and colleges won't be able to get insured, pipelines for football programs will dwindle, and the game will eventually become they way boxing is now. 

When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

+ 1

after Junior Seau killed himself their was a thread here and I said that the peak of football popularity was right now.  10 to 20 years from now it will be less, maybe far less.

And if Brandon is correct in the post above that only 22 schools are cash flow positive from football, the entire sport is at risk of collapsing, like the 1960 Athletic department of MU.

A few pages ago we detailed how schools are rushing to start football teams.  This is the top.  All downhill from here.

Quote from: reinko on November 26, 2012, 09:19:59 AM


When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

Detroit tried that a few years ago with Reggie Brown.    They intubated him on the field, as he wasn't breathing due to his broken neck.    Detroit also had Mike Utley get paralyzed on the field.   Just more Lions karma.  

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 26, 2012, 07:53:03 AM


Hold on...WHAT???

You just changed your story here.  You never once mentioned adding another women's non-scholarship sport.  You simply mentioned that adding football wouldn't cause compliance issues - and now you have added this caveat.  The link you provided states flat-out what I have been saying...that adding football would put our ratios out of whack.

Look, if you want Marquette to have a football team that's fine.  But I think adding a non-scholarship sport for a couple thousand people to watch fails the cost-benefit analysis.

Not to pick on you Sultan, but I don't think you can simply evaluate college athletics on a cost-benefit scale.

By that measure the vast majority of college sports should be eliminated.

With this said, I'm fine with MU starting a non-scholly program if they think they can draw 3,000 per game (not sure they can). I'm not really sure it's a big benefit to the school, but whatever. People fucking love football.

BUT, I'm not fine with people dreaming big and thinking that MU will ever be able to play FBS football. It's too big of a gap, and it's only getting bigger. It's not going to happen.

Annnnnd, personally, the more and more I read about college athletic budgets, the more I think there is a huge bubble that will burst. Too many people spending too much money without really questioning it. MU might be wise to invest strategically and conservatively at this time. Build up the endowment, be smart with athletic dollars, and be ready as the landscape may change drastically in a few years.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 26, 2012, 07:53:03 AM


Hold on...WHAT???

You just changed your story here.  You never once mentioned adding another women's non-scholarship sport.  You simply mentioned that adding football wouldn't cause compliance issues - and now you have added this caveat.  The link you provided states flat-out what I have been saying...that adding football would put our ratios out of whack.

Look, if you want Marquette to have a football team that's fine.  But I think adding a non-scholarship sport for a couple thousand people to watch fails the cost-benefit analysis.

Again, it depends on the situation Sultan.  You MIGHT have to add a women's non-scholarship team but you might not.  Every situation is different at every school.  If you have a school with a high female to male ratio and you add non-scholarship football the numbers might work for you where you don't have to add women's sports at all.  It depends if you can make the case and the numbers work out.  Some of the examples I provided those schools did just that. 
In other situations, yes, schools have had to add something like a non-scholarship women's crew team at very little cost.  All depends on the situation.  I think too many are making this out to be a cookie cutter scenario, which it isn't.  It depends on each individual school and their set of circumstances.

What I have issues with is the labeling of this type of football as "club" level or some kind of terrible product.  Most of these kids were offered scholarships at other schools but choose to attend the non-scholarship program because it is a better school.  The Ivy League is a great example...they're playing non-scholarship football at Brown vs getting a scholarship to play at Boston U.   Same for G'Town, Bucknell, LeHigh, etc.  These kids are playing for a national title in a NCAA sport at the FCS level.  At some schools (not MU necessarily), it can also help with Title IX by raising the number of males at the school AND increase enrollment (I provided several articles related to that impact effect).  Finally, the avg attendance even for non-scholarship football is greater than anything we have at MU in any sport sans men's hoops, so some people care...more than folks here are giving credit for.

There are any number of benefits which is why some schools have added football programs or kept the ones they have, even if it is not major college football, at a greater rate in the last decade than those who have cancelled their programs.

It's not going to happen, that is clear.  We are all in agreement there.  Unfortunate in my opinion, I think we could do it and do it well without the financial drag that something like Lacrosse is going to put on the program because we had to add two scholarship programs.  I like lacrosse, hope it does well financially and with people showing up.  My sense is football, even at the smaller level, would bring more alumni back to campus and engage students and alumni more than lax does.  Hope I am proven wrong.

Chico's, if you read my actual post from before, you'll see that I have your three prongs in the first component of Title IX.

There are also still two additional components that have to be satisfied.  They deal with all the other financial and supportive aspects of sports that you can not neglect.  They are these ones that you casually throw aside.

As Sultan points out you have now backtracked from a lot of your statements.

I'm not sure if you are an attorney or not, but I hope so because apparently you accepted financial compensation for legal advice.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 26, 2012, 09:26:06 AM
+ 1

after Junior Seau killed himself their was a thread here and I said that the peak of football popularity was right now.  10 to 20 years from now it will be less, maybe far less.

Maybe.  Maybe not.

But even so, schools shouldn't be making decisions based on what MIGHT happen 20 years from now.  They have to make decisions based upon what is best for the school in the near term.  And while television networks are throwing money around like they are, they need to act in their own self interests.  Its not as though these decisions are set in stone.  20 years from now, if football falls off the face of the earth, coaches contracts will eventually end and schools can realign into conferences that meet whatever their needs are at the time.

Let's summarize the reality of college football at Marquette and move on:

  1) We don't have a stadium to play in. Building one will cost hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have. Unless the Pottowattomi come through for us (and I'm sure the NCAA would LOVE a program sponsored by a casino), there is not going to be a stadium to play in. And  then there's a world-class practice facility, which we don't have.

  2) A football program will not get us automatic entry into the ACC or BIG Whatever conference.

  3) We will compete for talent with Michigan, Wisconsin and 300 other fine universities, all of which will have training and practice facilities far superior to anything we would have for years. And they'll play before 75,000 to 100,000 persons, or more, which will be exponentially greater than the handful of people likely to show up for our games.

  4) We are still an academic institution and most of us would rather see scarce resources poured into strengthing Marquette's core business than we would a failing football program.

Did I miss anything???? Now let's move on.

Quote from: dgies9156 on November 27, 2012, 10:13:25 AM
Let's summarize the reality of college football at Marquette and move on:

 1) We don't have a stadium to play in. Building one will cost hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have. Unless the Pottowattomi come through for us (and I'm sure the NCAA would LOVE a program sponsored by a casino), there is not going to be a stadium to play in. And  then there's a world-class practice facility, which we don't have.

 2) A football program will not get us automatic entry into the ACC or BIG Whatever conference.

 3) We will compete for talent with Michigan, Wisconsin and 300 other fine universities, all of which will have training and practice facilities far superior to anything we would have for years. And they'll play before 75,000 to 100,000 persons, or more, which will be exponentially greater than the handful of people likely to show up for our games.

 4) We are still an academic institution and most of us would rather see scarce resources poured into strengthing Marquette's core business than we would a failing football program.

Did I miss anything???? Now let's move on.

5) of the 127 FBS schools, only 17 are private (listed on page 2).  The "youngest" of these private institutions is Miami ("The U") that started football in 1927 and became a FBS member in 1978.

Nothing about MU suggests it is well positioned to be the 18th private school to join the FBS, and the first in over 35 years.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 26, 2012, 07:34:00 PM
My sense is football, even at the smaller level, would bring more alumni back to campus and engage students and alumni more than lax does.  Hope I am proven wrong.

Is that the main benefit to starting a non-scholly football program?

Engaging alumni and students? (allegedly)

There are probably some other avenues MU could use before dedicating time/money to a football program.

Maybe a block party on Wells during alumni weekend? Maybe do the block party in Sept.? Everybody loves standing outside and drinking in the fall...

I just don't know that MU needs to chase football for football's sake. There has to be a specific goal in mind.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 27, 2012, 10:29:35 AM
Is that the main benefit to starting a non-scholly football program?

Engaging alumni and students? (allegedly)

There are probably some other avenues MU could use before dedicating time/money to a football program.

Maybe a block party on Wells during alumni weekend? Maybe do the block party in Sept.? Everybody loves standing outside and drinking in the fall...

I just don't know that MU needs to chase football for football's sake. There has to be a specific goal in mind.

The BCS title! Or maybe an in-state rival for Whitewater?

Chicos behaved for what, a couple of weeks?

Quote from: ringout on November 27, 2012, 11:34:30 AM
Chicos behaved for what, a couple of weeks?

The dude argued his point of view.  That's what the board is about.  Not too many of us on here are willing to change our minds.  Worst you can say about CBB on this thread was when people questioned what he was saying he answered.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2012, 10:21:59 AM
5) of the 127 FBS schools, only 17 are private (listed on page 2).  The "youngest" of these private institutions is Miami ("The U") that started football in 1927 and became a FBS member in 1978.

Nothing about MU suggests it is well positioned to be the 18th private school to join the FBS, and the first in over 35 years.

OK, I missed this. But I will suggest that the ramp-up time from ground zero to FBS title contender is decades. Given the changing landscape of college football NOW, we don't have decades.

I doubt we even have yearS -- if a year.

So move on, folks. Let's do all we can to preserve what we do best, basketball and academics.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 25, 2012, 07:35:22 PM
Compete for NCAA national championship.  Add males to the campus...tuition paying males to help with gender equity ratios, bring football back to campus for the first time in 50 years, etc, etc.

For the same reason why Georgetown, Butler, Dayton, Drake, Davidson, Morehead State, San Diego, Valpo, Mercer, Jacksonville, etc all have teams and why other schools are adding them now.

The comparison to a club level is quite frankly way out there and just flat wrong.  No other way to put it.  These kids are competing for NCAA national championship, not some club level nonsense.  

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what PFL football is, the benefits to Title IX, etc based on comments here.  My guess is most posters here really don't understand it and it's all or nothing at the FBS level, which I don't believe is realistic. 

But yes, MU could have football, play for NCAA titles, have it non-scholarship, and not have it impact Title IX as a result.  Some of you may not be interested, others might.  I'm merely pointing out that it can be done, is being done and can have some ancillary benefits as well.

Blowhard

Chicos has been fine.  He's stuck to the topic at hand.  Some of you should try it for once.

Quote from: reinko on November 26, 2012, 09:19:59 AM
Ummm, 5 pages in and no on has mentioned that college football will be a shell itself in the next 25-30 years because of the lack of control around injuries, concussions...youth programs and colleges won't be able to get insured, pipelines for football programs will dwindle, and the game will eventually become they way boxing is now. 

When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

This is right on.  We live in a litigious society and it will crush football.  I believe that this will lead to football prep school becoming more popular over country lines where legal requirements will not be so strict.  College football and high school football will take a big hit but NFL will continue to be a machine for our lifetimes and they will continue to need elite talent and farms for that talent.  Who wants to come start a football prep school in Mexico?  Seriously...

Quote from: reinko on November 26, 2012, 09:19:59 AM
When, not if, a player dies out on the field on national television either in a NFL or college game...we'll get a wake up.

What makes you think this?  We have had multiple people permanently paralyzed and it hasn't done a thing.  We have had former players kill themselves and it hasn't done a thing.  We are coming off the two latest Super Bowls being the two highest television programs of all time, and the upcoming college championship will likely be the highest rated college football game in history.

Honestly, I don't think Tom Brady's death during the Super Bowl would prevent people from watching the next year.

I can see the day where high schools stop offering it and it moves to a club-style sport.  But that day is a long time away IMO.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 27, 2012, 02:04:01 PM

What makes you think this?  We have had multiple people permanently paralyzed and it hasn't done a thing.  We have had former players kill themselves and it hasn't done a thing.  We are coming off the two latest Super Bowls being the two highest television programs of all time, and the upcoming college championship will likely be the highest rated college football game in history.

Honestly, I don't think Tom Brady's death during the Super Bowl would prevent people from watching the next year.

I can see the day where high schools stop offering it and it moves to a club-style sport.  But that day is a long time away IMO.

Much like most things in our world, things are a bigger deal in this day and age because of the media and how closely connected human beings are.  While I don't think it will be any one incident that would ban football, but most likely a series of horrific injuries at all levels that will make school districts, pop warner leagues, smaller colleges, and eventually larger schools, and one day (IMHO) the NFL will need to DRASTICALLY change how they operate.  I have read that middle school FB players have generally strength and athleticism high school kids had 25 years ago, high school kids now move like D-1 kids did, and now D-1 and NFL players are moving and have the strength no one imagined 30 years ago, and really it's just a matter of time for whatever football 2.0 will be.

I use the boxing analogy as the way I think football become.  Boxing was the sport in this national for 40+ years, and our country starting moving away from the sport in late 80's to mid 90's (for a variety of reasons, just not the violence) but the quality fell off, amongst other reasons our society eventually saw that it might be a bit too violent, and now we have what we have today.  Boring ass Olympic boxing where dudes are in pads head to toe, washed up 40 year olds pummeling each for paychecks, and a handful of elite fighters.  Again, all in states that have to be sanctioned, and have the proper permits, insurance... 

For the future of football, you will have, the "amateurs", so I watered down, overally protected, not much hitting...then maybe elite college or semi-pro or whatever, then some version of the NFL, most likely smaller, still catering to folks who want to see people get popped on a weekly basis. 

Don't get me wrong, I love football, and love the way it is, wish it was safer for the players, but our nation is generally moving in other directions than high risk activities subsided by tax payers and fans wallets.

Quote from: reinko on November 27, 2012, 03:25:33 PM
Much like most things in our world, things are a bigger deal in this day and age because of the media and how closely connected human beings are.  While I don't think it will be any one incident that would ban football, but most likely a series of horrific injuries at all levels that will make school districts, pop warner leagues, smaller colleges, and eventually larger schools, and one day (IMHO) the NFL will need to DRASTICALLY change how they operate.  I have read that middle school FB players have generally strength and athleticism high school kids had 25 years ago, high school kids now move like D-1 kids did, and now D-1 and NFL players are moving and have the strength no one imagined 30 years ago, and really it's just a matter of time for whatever football 2.0 will be.

I use the boxing analogy as the way I think football become.  Boxing was the sport in this national for 40+ years, and our country starting moving away from the sport in late 80's to mid 90's (for a variety of reasons, just not the violence) but the quality fell off, amongst other reasons our society eventually saw that it might be a bit too violent, and now we have what we have today.  Boring ass Olympic boxing where dudes are in pads head to toe, washed up 40 year olds pummeling each for paychecks, and a handful of elite fighters.  Again, all in states that have to be sanctioned, and have the proper permits, insurance... 

For the future of football, you will have, the "amateurs", so I watered down, overally protected, not much hitting...then maybe elite college or semi-pro or whatever, then some version of the NFL, most likely smaller, still catering to folks who want to see people get popped on a weekly basis. 

Don't get me wrong, I love football, and love the way it is, wish it was safer for the players, but our nation is generally moving in other directions than high risk activities subsided by tax payers and fans wallets.

I can't remember where I have read this before...

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 27, 2012, 03:31:36 PM
I can't remember where I have read this before...

Am I missing something??

Quote from: reinko on November 27, 2012, 03:33:36 PM
Am I missing something??

No, I'm being honest... I really can't remember... was it Simmons?  Was it a 30 for 30?

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 27, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
No, I'm being honest... I really can't remember... was it Simmons?  Was it a 30 for 30?

Gotcha...can't imagine mine is an original idea, most likely gleaned from those, and other articles...

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 27, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
No, I'm being honest... I really can't remember... was it Simmons?  Was it a 30 for 30?

maybe this?

start here and read down

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=32449.msg391365#msg391365

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2012, 04:22:30 PM
maybe this?

start here and read down

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=32449.msg391365#msg391365

See, I told ya, gleaned from smarter people than myself!

Quote from: ringout on November 27, 2012, 11:34:30 AM
Chicos behaved for what, a couple of weeks?

How have I misbehaved?

A bit of Marquette trivia for you.

Did you know that Marquette started their final season 3-1 before finishing the season 3-6?

Marquette's last victory ever was 13-12 over Boston College in 1960

The final game MU played was a 33-13 loss to Cincinnati

MU finished with all-time series wins against:
Arizona 6-4
Auburn 1-0
Iowa State 8-2-1
Kansas 4-0
Kansas State 7-6


Other tidbits:
MU went 0-3-3 against Notre Dame
4-32 vs Wisconsin
6-18-1 vs Michigan State
0-0-1 vs Illinois
0-6 vs Indiana
6-6-1 vs Boston College
0-1 vs Army
1-1 vs Iowa
0-1 vs Miami (FL)
3-2 vs Ole Miss
1-1 vs Navy
0-2 vs Northwestern
0-1 vs Oklahoma
1-2 vs Oklahoma State
0-2 vs Penn State
0-3 vs Pitt
0-5 vs Purdue
4-6 vs UW-milwaukee

First participant in the Cotton Bowl, 16-6 loss to TCU and Sammy Baugh