MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: 77ncaachamps on July 11, 2014, 12:21:57 AM
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Football_League
-
I could see it. Though I still maintain hockey would be the better of the two for Marquette.
-
I could see it. Though I still maintain hockey would be the better of the two for Marquette.
It's an idea that makes a lot of sense. Geographically sound, more relevant than tennis, more profitable than track and field, and we already have the facility.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Football_League
And people complain about the Big East not making geographic sense. Geez.
-
It's an idea that makes a lot of sense. Geographically sound, more relevant than tennis, more profitable than track and field, and we already have the facility.
Plus untapped market. I mean the admirals draw fans but a UW vs MU hockey game would be HUGE. Gotta figure the resurgance of the popularity of hockey in chicago would help to since we have so many Chicagoland students.
-
Lemme get Saban on the phone and see if he's interested in coaching.
-
I could see it. Though I still maintain hockey would be the better of the two for Marquette.
I second that. Growing up deeply around hockey I had known Wisconsin was a hockey state because of UW, but upon arrival to Marquette I was surprised to see that Milwaukee was not a hockey town.
-
We need to have a write in campaign to get Derrick Wilson an invite to Next years NFL Combine. I think some team would be willing to take a flyer on him. That would be the closest Marquette comes to football.
-
DeWil would make a great NFL CB/S, maybe even an HBack-type tight end.
Of course that sets the table for Bane as LB/TE if he chooses that direction.
-
It's an idea that makes a lot of sense. Geographically sound, more relevant than tennis, more profitable than track and field, and we already have the facility.
Where?
I think both football and hockey would be a waste of resources.
-
Football is a black hole of expenses. I was involved in MU's Club Football back in the early '70's. The ASMU gave the Team $25,000 for a season. Not chump change at that time. I pointed out that at that same time Notre Dame spent a similar amount for athletic tape and similar training products.
MU had some good players when it folded the team but the money to keep up with the big boys of football just wasn't there. Post World War II there was a growth spurt in collegiate football. Marquette tried to keep up but in the end the resources just weren't there
The start up money required to begin a team would need a huge capital investment and it would take years to make the program self sustaining much less a cash generator.
Even if MU could afford to field a team where would they play? Don't say Miller Park. That's impossible on so many levels.
No one would be happier than myself for a viable football team at MU. Perhaps starting in DIII or DII but I also would like Government to function in Washington DC too. One can dream but when you wake up you would need a tremendous will with very deep pockets to make it happen!
-
No one would be happier than myself for a viable football team at MU. Perhaps starting in DIII or DII
That's can't happen. They would have to start as non-scholarship FCS. That's the Pioneer League.
And most DIII powers would roll over those schools. It isn't good football at all.
-
I second that. Growing up deeply around hockey I had known Wisconsin was a hockey state because of UW, but upon arrival to Marquette I was surprised to see that Milwaukee was not a hockey town.
Wisconsin is not a hockey state.
Maybe compared to, say, Alabama it is. But I think if you polled all Wisconsin sports fans and asked their favorite sport to watch or to play, hockey would be well down the list.
I lived in Minnesota for 10 years. It of course is considered a hockey state; it and Michigan are the closest thing we have to "hockey states" in the U.S. But vast swaths of Minnesota sports fans barely care about hockey, especially NHL and college hockey. And for every hockey player, there are dozens of basketball players.
-
Wisconsin is not a hockey state.
Maybe compared to, say, Alabama it is. But I think if you polled all Wisconsin sports fans and asked their favorite sport to watch or to play, hockey would be well down the list.
I lived in Minnesota for 10 years. It of course is considered a hockey state; it and Michigan are the closest thing we have to "hockey states" in the U.S. But vast swaths of Minnesota sports fans barely care about hockey, especially NHL and college hockey. And for every hockey player, there are dozens of basketball players.
Agreed. I've lived in Minnesota for the past 16 years...and while many consider it a "hockey state," the Wild are still WAY behind the Vikings, Twins and even Timberwolves in terms of general interest and water cooler discussion. There are quite a few people who live and breathe hockey, but those people are outliers even in the quintessential "hockey state."
-
Hockey is a niche sport everywhere in the US. Fans are passionate but relatively small in number.
-
Hockey is a niche sport everywhere in the US. Fans are passionate but relatively small in number.
"Niche" is the perfect word for it.
Not trashing hockey. I like hockey and thoroughly enjoyed this year's NHL playoffs. I used to enjoy the North Stars and Gophers. But I'm a realist.
The Flyers, Rangers, Blackhawks and Stars can sell out their arenas, but that doesn't make Penn, NY, Ill and Tex "hockey states." Even Detroit -- "Hockey Town" has far more Tigers and Lions fans than Wings fans. Probably even more Pistons fans.
-
Where?
I think both football and hockey would be a waste of resources.
The Bradley Center
-
The Bradley Center
Between the Bucks, MU hoops, the Admirals and concerts, I'm not sure how many open dates the BC has during hoops/hockey season.
Add that to the fact that we'd be lucky to get a couple thousand fans, and I'd doubt the cost would be worth it - for MU or the BC. It might be worth it if we could instantly produce a legit D-1 team that would compete with UW-Madison, ND, Michigan, Minnesota, etc...but it would be many years before we'd ever have a chance to get that far.
Seems like we'd need a smaller/cheaper facility to make it worth it at the level we'd start out.
-
Between the Bucks, MU hoops, the Admirals and concerts, I'm not sure how many open dates the BC has during hoops/hockey season.
Add that to the fact that we'd be lucky to get a couple thousand fans, and I'd doubt the cost would be worth it - for MU or the BC. It might be worth it if we could instantly produce a legit D-1 team that would compete with UW-Madison, ND, Michigan, Minnesota, etc...but it would be many years before we'd ever have a chance to get that far.
Seems like we'd need a smaller/cheaper facility to make it worth it at the level we'd start out.
We'd do better than a couple thousand. Heck the club hockey team gets a really good chunk of fans to take buses out to Brookfield. I believe we'd be just fine with fans.
As far as WI being a hockey state or not. Maybe it isn't everywhere but everyone I'm friends with from up north live and die for hockey. They still talk about their HS hockey accomplishments like it's the olympics and there are tons of NHL and AHL players from WI so there obviously is a lot of talent. I'm sure it's similar in minnesota, not trying to act like I know you guys, but how many of you are from St cloud, daluth, morehead etc. I'm sure up there is where Minnesota earns it's hockey state mentality. Same with the U.P. in Michigan. Also you guys are forgetting Massachussetts is HUGE into hockey it gets overshadowed because all Boston sports are fantastic but I gaurantee the Bruins are just as big as the other teams minus the Patriots.
-
Between the Bucks, MU hoops, the Admirals and concerts, I'm not sure how many open dates the BC has during hoops/hockey season.
Add that to the fact that we'd be lucky to get a couple thousand fans, and I'd doubt the cost would be worth it - for MU or the BC. It might be worth it if we could instantly produce a legit D-1 team that would compete with UW-Madison, ND, Michigan, Minnesota, etc...but it would be many years before we'd ever have a chance to get that far.
Seems like we'd need a smaller/cheaper facility to make it worth it at the level we'd start out.
Even if they got 5,000 fans per game, and I think that is a lot, it's going to look terrible in an arena that big.
-
Even if they got 5,000 fans per game, and I think that is a lot, it's going to look terrible in an arena that big.
5k really isnt that much. Thats half the student body and I know more than a few people who refuse to go to basketball games but would hapilly go to hockey games. Plus the fans who just love going to MU sporting events would go regardless. The biggest problem for me is the lack of other high caliber D1 hockey teams. You have the boston schools, the big 10 schools and really nobody else besides really small schools.
-
We'd do better than a couple thousand. Heck the club hockey team gets a really good chunk of fans to take buses out to Brookfield. I believe we'd be just fine with fans.
As far as WI being a hockey state or not. Maybe it isn't everywhere but everyone I'm friends with from up north live and die for hockey. They still talk about their HS hockey accomplishments like it's the olympics and there are tons of NHL and AHL players from WI so there obviously is a lot of talent. I'm sure it's similar in minnesota, not trying to act like I know you guys, but how many of you are from St cloud, daluth, morehead etc. I'm sure up there is where Minnesota earns it's hockey state mentality. Same with the U.P. in Michigan. Also you guys are forgetting Massachussetts is HUGE into hockey it gets overshadowed because all Boston sports are fantastic but I gaurantee the Bruins are just as big as the other teams minus the Patriots.
MN is in a whole different category when it comes to hockey popularity.
WI isn't even close. It's not a good comparison.
-
You have the boston schools, the big 10 schools and really nobody else besides really small schools.
This isn't true. At all.
Go back and look at the WCHA. LOTS of good/great teams that aren't from Hockey East, and didn't move to the B10.
EDIT This will save you some time.
Some great hockey programs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Collegiate_Hockey_Conference
-
Even if they got 5,000 fans per game, and I think that is a lot, it's going to look terrible in an arena that big.
The Admirals average 5,624. They reached their best in 11-12 with 6,226. It's safe to assume that a handful of those are hardcore hockey fans that we could draw. In terms of NCAA attendence similar schools like BC average 6,384 and Notre Dame 4,885 . Numbers 6 and 13 respectively. It should be noted that in order to house D1 hockey the arena does not have to be that big. Heck there's smaller ones than the AL out there. So if you put in the hockey capacity there that's one option. Option two is the bradley center only renting the lower bowl, which I believe the admirals do for a lot of games?.
-
MN is in a whole different category when it comes to hockey popularity.
WI isn't even close. It's not a good comparison.
Not denying that. I'm just saying that WI can still be considered a Hockey state even though it doesn't measure up to say Minnesota.
-
5k really isnt that much. Thats half the student body and I know more than a few people who refuse to go to basketball games but would hapilly go to hockey games. Plus the fans who just love going to MU sporting events would go regardless. The biggest problem for me is the lack of other high caliber D1 hockey teams. You have the boston schools, the big 10 schools and really nobody else besides really small schools.
The Admirals get about 5,600 per game. I really doubt they would outdraw them. And even if they do, I'm not sure what the point of adding the sport would be.
But there are a bunch of schools in the midwest that play hockey. The NCHC is a very good conference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Collegiate_Hockey_Conference
-
Not denying that. I'm just saying that WI can still be considered a Hockey state even though it doesn't measure up to say Minnesota.
Okay, it's a Hockey state.
Still doesn't mean MU should have a team.
Not enough support or interest.
-
The Admirals average 5,624. They reached their best in 11-12 with 6,226. It's safe to assume that a handful of those are hardcore hockey fans that we could draw. In terms of NCAA attendence similar schools like BC average 6,384 and Notre Dame 4,885 . Numbers 6 and 13 respectively. It should be noted that in order to house D1 hockey the arena does not have to be that big. Heck there's smaller ones than the AL out there. So if you put in the hockey capacity there that's one option. Option two is the bradley center only renting the lower bowl, which I believe the admirals do for a lot of games?.
Well, that's sort of the problem. ND and BC are historically successful programs with generations of fans, and they don't draw huge attendance.
I'm not sure that a start-up program is really going to be able to get close to that.
PLUS: It's expensive to rent the BC, so unless MU can draw a decent crowd, it's a losing proposition. I'm not exactly sure how the Admirals business model works, or who is paying the players salaries and whatnot. They might not exactly be "profitable" either.
Hockey is a better idea than football, but I'm not sure that it's a "good" idea.
-
Well, that's sort of the problem. ND and BC are historically successful programs with generations of fans, and they don't draw huge attendance.
I'm not sure that a start-up program is really going to be able to get close to that.
PLUS: It's expensive to rent the BC, so unless MU can draw a decent crowd, it's a losing proposition. I'm not exactly sure how the Admirals business model works, or who is paying the players salaries and whatnot. They might not exactly be "profitable" either.
Hockey is a better idea than football, but I'm not sure that it's a "good" idea.
It was a worth it investment pre-lacrosse. If we knew all the good lax schools were going to dip out it would've made more sense to invest in Hockey and hopefully turn a profit over time.
True about ND and BC but BC has to compete with BU hockey, UMass, UMass Lowell, Bruins, etc. ND isn't in a major market. We'd have the admirals, maybe to an extremely small extent UW, and the Blackhawks. So the student section draw is really the only comparable factor. I think it's fair to assume that the hockey market in our section of WI is largely untapped.
-
I'm not sure what the point of adding the sport would be.
So they could replace one of the irrelevant sports with a sport that actually has a following and might benefit the university, even if its only in a small way.
-
Born and raised in WI, I have not known anyone that watches hockey unless UW is in the finals. I lived in MN 2 years and was amazed how many times I saw kids playing hockey instead of shooting hoops in the neighborhoods - never have I seen that in WI.
-
Born and raised in WI, I have not known anyone that watches hockey unless UW is in the finals. I lived in MN 2 years and was amazed how many times I saw kids playing hockey instead of shooting hoops in the neighborhoods - never have I seen that in WI.
Ah but where in WI? Cause that could be the reason.
-
So they could replace one of the irrelevant sports with a sport that actually has a following and might benefit the university, even if its only in a small way.
Hockey would be just as irrelevant.
-
Ah but where in WI? Cause that could be the reason.
Milwaukee, fair enough, maybe hockey is big up nort' and I never heard about it
-
Hockey would be just as irrelevant.
As Lacrosse? Right now the club hockey team draws more fans than Lax an NCAA hockey team would be MUCH more relevant.
-
As Lacrosse? Right now the club hockey team draws more fans than Lax an NCAA hockey team would be MUCH more relevant.
I think LAX was done for a specific purpose...to tie us more to the east coast BE schools. It is also a cheaper sport. 12.6 scholarships v. 18 for hockey. Lacrosse has a practice facility, hockey would have to rent theirs. I'm sure renting Hart Park is cheaper than the BC.
-
I think it's fair to assume that the hockey market in our section of WI is largely untapped.
I think the Admirals attendance shows there isn't much of a market to tap.
-
I think LAX was done for a specific purpose...to tie us more to the east coast BE schools. It is also a cheaper sport. 12.6 scholarships v. 18 for hockey. Lacrosse has a practice facility, hockey would have to rent theirs. I'm sure renting Hart Park is cheaper than the BC.
I agree it was done for a specific purpose and at that moment it made sense. Cheap sport to tie us closer into the BE w/I football. But with most those schools gone it in hindsight probably would've been better doing hockey for an opportunity to possibly make some money over time.
-
Hockey would be just as irrelevant.
I'm not sure if you are underestimating hockey or overestimating tennis/track and field
-
"Niche" is the perfect word for it.
Not trashing hockey. I like hockey and thoroughly enjoyed this year's NHL playoffs. I used to enjoy the North Stars and Gophers. But I'm a realist.
The Flyers, Rangers, Blackhawks and Stars can sell out their arenas, but that doesn't make Penn, NY, Ill and Tex "hockey states." Even Detroit -- "Hockey Town" has far more Tigers and Lions fans than Wings fans. Probably even more Pistons fans.
Being from Detroit I can say that's not true. I'd say the Lions are number one, then the Wings and Tigers are tied for second depending on who you ask. The Pistons are very distant 4th and were even when they dominated the early-mid 2000s. Detroit loves their hockey.
-
The Admirals average 5,624. They reached their best in 11-12 with 6,226. It's safe to assume that a handful of those are hardcore hockey fans that we could draw. In terms of NCAA attendence similar schools like BC average 6,384 and Notre Dame 4,885 . Numbers 6 and 13 respectively. It should be noted that in order to house D1 hockey the arena does not have to be that big. Heck there's smaller ones than the AL out there. So if you put in the hockey capacity there that's one option. Option two is the bradley center only renting the lower bowl, which I believe the admirals do for a lot of games?.
What about just using Cellular One or whatever the former MECCA is called these days?
-
The Admirals get about 5,600 per game. I really doubt they would outdraw them. And even if they do, I'm not sure what the point of adding the sport would be.
But there are a bunch of schools in the midwest that play hockey. The NCHC is a very good conference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Collegiate_Hockey_Conference
Do NCHC schools give out scholarships? If so, wouldn't MU then have a Title VII problem?
-
Do NCHC schools give out scholarships? If so, wouldn't MU then have a Title VII problem?
If you mean Title IX...then yes they would. ;)
-
Ah but where in WI? Cause that could be the reason.
You keep making a big deal about a sport that is popular 200 miles north of Milwaukee. Where do you think Marquette would be playing it's home games, Superior? Maybe Rhinelander?
-
We need to have a write in campaign to get Derrick Wilson an invite to Next years NFL Combine. I think some team would be willing to take a flyer on him. That would be the closest Marquette comes to football.
But not as a quarterback: he can't pass. ;)
j/k
-
MU will go back to football at the same time they change back to Warriors--never.
-
Would rather MU add hockey than football. Beyond that, would rather MU add baseball and softball.
-
But not as a quarterback: he can't pass. ;)
j/k
Nah, he needs to stick with BBall. He keeps the defense honest. They honestly do not have to guard him.
-
Football is a black hole of expenses. I was involved in MU's Club Football back in the early '70's. The ASMU gave the Team $25,000 for a season. Not chump change at that time. I pointed out that at that same time Notre Dame spent a similar amount for athletic tape and similar training products.
MU had some good players when it folded the team but the money to keep up with the big boys of football just wasn't there. Post World War II there was a growth spurt in collegiate football. Marquette tried to keep up but in the end the resources just weren't there
The start up money required to begin a team would need a huge capital investment and it would take years to make the program self sustaining much less a cash generator.
Even if MU could afford to field a team where would they play? Don't say Miller Park. That's impossible on so many levels.
No one would be happier than myself for a viable football team at MU. Perhaps starting in DIII or DII but I also would like Government to function in Washington DC too. One can dream but when you wake up you would need a tremendous will with very deep pockets to make it happen!
Amen Brother.
The obstacles to football are so huge on so many levels they don't make sense.
Let's see:
1) Stadium -- You mentioned the lack of an available stadium. I don't see the State, the City or some generous donor donating $500 million or more for a D1 stadium. Not now, not ever.
2) Athletes -- Uh, we would comet against the Big 10, Notre Dame and the SEC for quality football players. Unless we hired Jimmy Johnson or Nick Saban, we're not getting anyone for at least three generations.
3) Money -- If we suddenly went football and joined the ACC, first we assume they would have us. Second, what would the revenue split be. Uh, not much.
4) Fan interest -- Milwaukee is Buckytown and Packerland when it comes to football. Nothing else matters. It would take at least 100 years to break into fan support at that level.
We couldn't afford college football in 1960 and we sure as heck can't afford it today. If a program like Fordham dropped football years ago (seven blocks of granite land, Vince Lombardi) and there's no chance of bringing it back there, then it is a no-brainer for Marquette.
-
I am not sure I would even follow MU football. Thirty seconds of dead time for every 15 seconds of action has made the game boring for me. And the two teams in the Championship is decided by a computer not a playoff.
-
And the two teams in the Championship is decided by a computer not a playoff.
Not any longer.
-
Not any longer.
And never has been in FCS.
-
I know why Marquette disbanded football, and see why we would never try and get hockey, but why has the school never pursued baseball and softball? Milwaukee, as shown with the Brewers and numerous Cub fans that make the travel up constantly, is a BIG baseball town. I'm sure that in the Spring (and even early Summer), the school would be able to get a lot of students to a stadium.
Other Big East baseball programs include: Creighton, Xavier, St. John's, Seton Hall, Butler, Georgetown and Villanova. Our addition would make it an even 8.
I really don't think it would be too difficult to build two facilities that houses 500-1,000 for baseball and a couple hundred for softball.
-
Amen Brother.
The obstacles to football are so huge on so many levels they don't make sense.
Let's see:
1) Stadium -- You mentioned the lack of an available stadium. I don't see the State, the City or some generous donor donating $500 million or more for a D1 stadium. Not now, not ever.
2) Athletes -- Uh, we would comet against the Big 10, Notre Dame and the SEC for quality football players. Unless we hired Jimmy Johnson or Nick Saban, we're not getting anyone for at least three generations.
3) Money -- If we suddenly went football and joined the ACC, first we assume they would have us. Second, what would the revenue split be. Uh, not much.
4) Fan interest -- Milwaukee is Buckytown and Packerland when it comes to football. Nothing else matters. It would take at least 100 years to break into fan support at that level.
We couldn't afford college football in 1960 and we sure as heck can't afford it today. If a program like Fordham dropped football years ago (seven blocks of granite land, Vince Lombardi) and there's no chance of bringing it back there, then it is a no-brainer for Marquette.
Each one of these arguments appears to set an unrealistically high minimum bar. Big Ten or SEC level player requirements? Packer or Badger level fan support? Anything wrong with starting with modest goals?
1. Stadium: $500 million for a D1 stadium? Hardly. Charlotte just built one to start their D1 Football program for $45 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Richardson_Stadium
2. Athletes: We can only play football if be beat out the Big Ten, Notre Dame or SEC for players? Again, hardly. FBS has 125 teams, so even taking out the Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame, that leaves 100 or so other teams that somehow manage to scrape together enough players to field a team. And aonther 100 or so teams in the FCS.
3. Money: First, ACC membership would never be our first step. However, if the ACC would have us the revenue split would be a lot more than "not much." I think their teams get $17 million per year.
4. Fan Interest. So equality with the Packers is the minimum initial goal? I guess we should drop our soccer program rignt now because they don't have the same fan interest as the World Cup.
The consideration here should be the long range planning. Start with the possiblity that there will eventually be a football/basketball split in D1, with the 125 FBS programs getting tired of spitting the basketball tournament money 350 ways. And those 125 programs include most of the top basketball programs, including all the elites.
If you start with that assumption, then in order for for MU to maintain basketball at our current level, we have to be in a position to meet FBS membership--and unlike the straw man argument above, NOT make competing for a championship on day one the minimum requirement.
Villanova and Georgetown are much closer to that--with existing FCS football programs in place it would take a lot less to elelvate their programs and join FBS--not in an elite conference, but at least maintain a level where their basetball program would still compete with Duke and Kentucky and UNC and Michigan State and UCLA etc. Even Butler and Dayton are closer to being able to upgrade their program than we are.
The challenges are not insurmountable. Its been about decade since the last major fundraising progam at MU took place--Magis raised $350 million back then. MU's next major effort will be larger, and if football becomes a priority, then it's added as small line item on a big overall goal. The $100 million cost to launch a program becomes a small part of, say, an overall $750 million 10-year fundraising campaign.
This is a years if not decades long process. Fundraise. Built a stadium--which would house our soccer and track&field programs as well. Launch an FCS team. Build the operational infruscture and experience running a football program. And when necessary to maintain our basketball program playing at the highest level, upgrade the program to FBS.
The downside is that there is a chance--not saying its absolute, but certainly a chance-- that without football, within 20 years all our sports (including basketball) will wind up competing in a second-tier division/association to be the best of these teams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_non-football_programs
-
The challenges are not insurmountable. Its been about decade since the last major fundraising progam at MU took place--Magis raised $350 million back then. MU's next major effort will be larger, and if football becomes a priority, then it's added as small line item on a big overall goal. The $100 million cost to launch a program becomes a small part of, say, an overall $750 million 10-year fundraising campaign.
Of course that's $100M that couldn't be spent elsewhere...endowment...basketball program, etc. Unless you can show that the donors for this $100M wouldn't choose to donate at all to the next campaign, you would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
-
I know why Marquette disbanded football, and see why we would never try and get hockey, but why has the school never pursued baseball and softball? Milwaukee, as shown with the Brewers and numerous Cub fans that make the travel up constantly, is a BIG baseball town. I'm sure that in the Spring (and even early Summer), the school would be able to get a lot of students to a stadium.
The college baseball and softball seasons start in February, and end by mid-May.
I really don't think it would be too difficult to build two facilities that houses 500-1,000 for baseball and a couple hundred for softball.
But where to put it.....
-
The challenges are not insurmountable. Its been about decade since the last major fundraising progam at MU took place--Magis raised $350 million back then. MU's next major effort will be larger, and if football becomes a priority, then it's added as small line item on a big overall goal. The $100 million cost to launch a program becomes a small part of, say, an overall $750 million 10-year fundraising campaign.
And, according to Dr. Lovell, it won't.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/wild-lovell-look-ahead-to-historic-transition-at-marquette-university-b99297303z1-264555721.html
You're also forgetting about the expenditure required to even out the scholarships laid out for both male and female student athletes. MU can't just drop every other men's sport, so it would require starting about 5 more women's sports, which means facilities and staff for all of those as well. It would also require a massive amount of scholarship money donated to the Blue & Gold Fund, because it's not covering the scholarships that Marquette can offer right now (http://www.anonymouseagle.com/2011/9/20/2437616/marquette-football-undefeated-since-1960-and-staying-that-way).
The downside is that there is a chance--not saying its absolute, but certainly a chance-- that without football, within 20 years all our sports (including basketball) will wind up competing in a second-tier division/association to be the best of these teams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_non-football_programs
There's also a chance that within 20 years that football as we know it doesn't exist, depending on how many parents don't want their sons playing.
-
.
-
UNC-Charlotte already owned the land they built the football field on. Any discussion of building a football field needs to take into account real estate for the field, the practice facilities, parking. Since it would have to be in proximity to MU, you are talking about already developed land. There may be brownfield considerations. And getting rid of all of the old buildings. And eminent domain issues. And destroying neighborhoods. When all of that has been taken care of, the real estate acquisition, the environmental issues, the practice facilities, the corresponding female scholarships, the parking.....then you can spend the $45 million on a football field that seats 15k.
-
Of course that's $100M that couldn't be spent elsewhere...endowment...basketball program, etc.
That's true of every dollar raised. So what?
Unless you can show that the donors for this $100M wouldn't choose to donate at all to the next campaign, you would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
First, nobody's donating to "this $100M". They would be donating to an overall $750M development campaign which includes a mix of high-level university goals across endowment, athletics, facilities, etc.
Second, can you show me any evidence that before it launched, someone at MU made your argument that Magis would be a bad idea because donors might choose not to donate to the next campaign? Or better yet, can you find any evidence that Magis actually resulted in the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" situation you suggested?
Thrid, if you don't run both a campaign now and one in the future, how do you collect from those who are willing to pay both Peter AND Paul? If you skip this campaign over fear of depressing donations for next one, you miss out on all those who would have been willing to donate for both.
-
That's true of every dollar raised. So what?
First, nobody's donating to "this $100M". They would be donating to an overall $750M development campaign which includes a mix of high-level university goals across endowment, athletics, facilities, etc.
It took Marquette eight years to raise $357 million in the Magis campaign.
http://marquettewire.org/2014/05/01/tribune/tribune-news/mu-needs-new-fundraising-efforts-with-new-leadership/
-
It took Marquette eight years to raise $357 million in the Magis campaign.
http://marquettewire.org/2014/05/01/tribune/tribune-news/mu-needs-new-fundraising-efforts-with-new-leadership/
Gotcha. We shoudn't set long any term goals or try to raise funds because it might take more than a few months.
-
Gotcha. We shoudn't set long any term goals or try to raise funds because it might take more than a few months.
Actually you are right.
*We* shouldn't set long term goals because *we* don't have a good enough understanding of the environment in which Marquette operates.
-
*We* shouldn't set long term goals because *we* don't have a good enough understanding of the environment in which Marquette operates.
But you have enough operational understanding to argue the other side?
I'll remind you of your self-admitted lack of operational understanding next time you comment on anything.
Bottom line--none of the objections raised here are insurmoutable. Its certainly not going to take $500 million to build a stadium. MU could certainly develop a plan that would initially launch at the FCS level with a long term plan to get to FBS.
Look at what the arguments are:
--Placing artificially high hurdles (we have to have Packer-like fan support or compete with Big Ten or SEC programs from day one.
--Suggesting it would take $500 million for a football stadium when it could be done for far less
--Implying that we sholdn't fundraise because it might take a long time
--Saying we can't discuss it becuase we don't have "a good enough understanding of the enviornment".
--Suggesting that normal operational costs (additional scholarships, parking) can't be covered.
None of these are showstoppers.
Will answer be easy? No. Fast? No. But that doesn't mean "It Can't Possibly Be Done!" as so many here emphatically state time and time again.
And I'm not even saying that it should be done. All I'm pointing out are the flaws in the arguments here that it can't be done. If the will to relaunch a football program is there, it is certainly doable--none of the oft-stated objections are insurmountable.
-
First, nobody's donating to "this $100M". They would be donating to an overall $750M development campaign which includes a mix of high-level university goals across endowment, athletics, facilities, etc.
Second, can you show me any evidence that before it launched, someone at MU made your argument that Magis would be a bad idea because donors might choose not to donate to the next campaign? Or better yet, can you find any evidence that Magis actually resulted in the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" situation you suggested?
Thrid, if you don't run both a campaign now and one in the future, how do you collect from those who are willing to pay both Peter AND Paul? If you skip this campaign over fear of depressing donations for next one, you miss out on all those who would have been willing to donate for both.
What? You are making no sense.
Marquette, as with every other organization, determines its priorities for fund-raising and then figures out how much in can raise over a certain period of time. It then readjusts its priorities (if it has to), figures out who to target for what priorities, and solicits them accordingly.
Let's say they determine they can raise $750M. If you add in a $100M football priority, something must be dropped to get to $750M. (No one will set a goal higher than they can raise.) So adding football clearly means that something would have to be dropped from that list of priorities.
Fortunately Marquette has figured out that football is money waster and is going to raise $100M for more important things.
-
New UH Cougar stadium on site of old one, (no new real estate) 40 k seats $120 Million
New Tulane stadium on campus (no new real estate) $75 million
New Baylor stadium, 45k seats, $250 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulman_Stadium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDECU_Stadium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLane_Stadium
None of them had to acquire 100 acres of land in downtown Milwaukee.
-
New UH Cougar stadium on site of old one, (no new real estate) 40 k seats $120 Million
New Tulane stadium on campus (no new real estate) $75 million
New Baylor stadium, 45k seats, $250 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulman_Stadium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDECU_Stadium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLane_Stadium
None of them had to acquire 100 acres of land in downtown Milwaukee.
Thank you for proving my point about the ridiculousness of the $500 million number. That's the price of Charlotte, Houston, Baylor and Tulane COMBINED. And you would still have $10 million left over.
And the fact that you suggest 100 acres is required for a stadium disqualifies you from further comment.
-
Girls, you are both pretty.
Is bringing back football impossible? No.
Would it be extremely difficult and make no sense for the university to pursue? Yes.
-
What? You are making no sense.
Marquette, as with every other organization, determines its priorities for fund-raising and then figures out how much in can raise over a certain period of time. It then readjusts its priorities (if it has to), figures out who to target for what priorities, and solicits them accordingly.
Let's say they determine they can raise $750M. If you add in a $100M football priority, something must be dropped to get to $750M. (No one will set a goal higher than they can raise.) So adding football clearly means that something would have to be dropped from that list of priorities.
I question how you have enough understanding of the enviornment in which Marquette operates to make such comments. ;D
My point, simply statated, is that if launching a football program becomes a priority, then the objections raised here aren't insurmountable. Nor can the objection stated here be reasonably used as arguments against making football a priority.
You're missing the point that my initial premise already assumed that MU went through all that prioritization that you ranted about--and after all that decided that football is one of those priorites worth pursuing.
Your next response should start with this assumption...In the scenario I'm writing about, MU already went through a full and thorough prioirtization process and determined that adding football is a university priority.
My point is that the objections stated so far--a $500 million stadium, requirement for fan support akin to the Packers, requirement to field a Big Ten/SEC level team, fundraising might take a long time--are either ridiculous on their face, or not as insurmountable as claimed.
Would it be extremely difficult and make no sense for the university to pursue? Yes.
If you start with the premise (as I did) that over the long term there may be a D1 split between the FBS/FCS teams and the non-football teams; AND you want your basketball program to compete at that highest level, then it does make sense to at least start looking at adding football.
I know the strong desire is to assume that nobody moves our cheese and our basketball program will always be a part of whatever universe includes the UCLAs and Wisconsins and Notre Dames and Dukes of the world. I'm starting with the premise that this that might not be the case.
So with that as the perspective, would you not agree that it makes some sense to at least start to look at our options?
-
I question how you have enough understanding of the enviornment in which Marquette operates to make such comments. ;D
My point, simply statated, is that if launching a football program becomes a priority, then the objections raised here aren't insurmountable. Nor can the objection stated here be reasonably used as arguments against making football a priority.
You're missing the point that my initial premise already assumed that MU went through all that prioritization that you ranted about--and after all that decided that football is one of those priorites worth pursuing.
Your next response should start with this assumption...In the scenario I'm writing about, MU already went through a full and thorough prioirtization process and determined that adding football is a university priority.
My point is that the objections stated so far--a $500 million stadium, requirement for fan support akin to the Packers, requirement to field a Big Ten/SEC level team, fundraising might take a long time--are either ridiculous on their face, or not as insurmountable as claimed.
Well since it obviously isn't a priority for the University, this is pretty much a silly exercise then.
-
Thank you for proving my point about the ridiculousness of the $500 million number. That's the price of Charlotte, Houston, Baylor and Tulane COMBINED. And you would still have $10 million left over.
And the fact that you suggest 100 acres is required for a stadium disqualifies you from further comment.
None of them had to purchase property in an already densely built up urban area or demolish buildings they didn't already own. But maybe Milwaukee will just donate the property as payback for all of the jaywalking tickets they inflicted on MU students.
-
Thank you for proving my point about the ridiculousness of the $500 million number. That's the price of Charlotte, Houston, Baylor and Tulane COMBINED. And you would still have $10 million left over.
And the fact that you suggest 100 acres is required for a stadium disqualifies you from further comment.
Baylor's new stadium has a 110 acre footprint, just FYI.
-
Each one of these arguments appears to set an unrealistically high minimum bar. Big Ten or SEC level player requirements? Packer or Badger level fan support? Anything wrong with starting with modest goals?
1. Stadium: $500 million for a D1 stadium? Hardly. Charlotte just built one to start their D1 Football program for $45 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Richardson_Stadium
2. Athletes: We can only play football if be beat out the Big Ten, Notre Dame or SEC for players? Again, hardly. FBS has 125 teams, so even taking out the Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame, that leaves 100 or so other teams that somehow manage to scrape together enough players to field a team. And aonther 100 or so teams in the FCS.
3. Money: First, ACC membership would never be our first step. However, if the ACC would have us the revenue split would be a lot more than "not much." I think their teams get $17 million per year.
4. Fan Interest. So equality with the Packers is the minimum initial goal? I guess we should drop our soccer program rignt now because they don't have the same fan interest as the World Cup.
The consideration here should be the long range planning. Start with the possiblity that there will eventually be a football/basketball split in D1, with the 125 FBS programs getting tired of spitting the basketball tournament money 350 ways. And those 125 programs include most of the top basketball programs, including all the elites.
If you start with that assumption, then in order for for MU to maintain basketball at our current level, we have to be in a position to meet FBS membership--and unlike the straw man argument above, NOT make competing for a championship on day one the minimum requirement.
Villanova and Georgetown are much closer to that--with existing FCS football programs in place it would take a lot less to elelvate their programs and join FBS--not in an elite conference, but at least maintain a level where their basetball program would still compete with Duke and Kentucky and UNC and Michigan State and UCLA etc. Even Butler and Dayton are closer to being able to upgrade their program than we are.
The challenges are not insurmountable. Its been about decade since the last major fundraising progam at MU took place--Magis raised $350 million back then. MU's next major effort will be larger, and if football becomes a priority, then it's added as small line item on a big overall goal. The $100 million cost to launch a program becomes a small part of, say, an overall $750 million 10-year fundraising campaign.
This is a years if not decades long process. Fundraise. Built a stadium--which would house our soccer and track&field programs as well. Launch an FCS team. Build the operational infruscture and experience running a football program. And when necessary to maintain our basketball program playing at the highest level, upgrade the program to FBS.
The downside is that there is a chance--not saying its absolute, but certainly a chance-- that without football, within 20 years all our sports (including basketball) will wind up competing in a second-tier division/association to be the best of these teams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_non-football_programs
If we wanted to do Football again we would have to do it as a Pioneer Football League team. Even then there are obstacles. Lets look at what is achievable first. Pioneer Football is non scholarship so no Title IX issues. Second, the stadium becomes less of an issue. The teams in that League play in 5 to 10,000 seat fields. We could configure Valley Fields with temporary Bleachers on the track surface during the Football season . Playing at Valley makes if an amenity for the students and I am certain there would be enough student support to pack the place. Although I don't expect much revenue from this. The obstacles are we would need administrative,locker room and training facilities for the team. In addition we would need funding for the operating expenses coaches , travel , insurance etc. We would need a donor to get the program started and to fund it going forward. Basically I think someone would have to really want to see this happen and do a lot of research and be willing to put up the money . When that happens we will get a football program. In the meantime I still think our best bet is to start a write in campaign to get Derrick Wilson an invite to the NFL combine.
-
Baylor's new stadium has a 110 acre footprint, just FYI.
Does that disqualify Equalizer from further comment?
-
Does that disqualify Equalizer from further comment?
Probably.
#equalized
-
If we wanted to do Football again we would have to do it as a Pioneer Football League team. Even then there are obstacles. Lets look at what is achievable first. Pioneer Football is non scholarship so no Title IX issues.
Unless I am mistaken I don't think this is correct. Title IX isn't just about scholarships it's about money spent.
-
Baylor's new stadium has a 110 acre footprint, just FYI.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't trying intentionally to mislead on this.
The entire site at Baylor--which also to include a track and field stadium, intramural fields, substantial park-like areas, RV parking and even a marina--is a total of 93 acres.
The stadium footprint itself is a small portion of that 93 acres. The stadium is the white rectangle on the left edge of the image.
(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2280249/StadiumMap.JPG)
For comparision purposes, The First Energy Stadium (Cleveland) site is just 31 acres, Paul Brown stadium in Cincinnati occupies 22 acres, the new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara is on a 17 acre site. And those are sites for large 60 to 70K seat NFL-class stadiums.
MU would NOT have to buy anything close to 100 acres in downtown Milwaukee. Its as silly as suggesting that the minimum price tag would be $500 million.
Does that disqualify Equalizer from further comment?
No. It makes PTM mistaken.
-
Girls, you are both pretty.
Is bringing back football impossible? No.
Would it be extremely difficult and make no sense for the university to pursue? Yes.
You forgot the third question:
Is there a prayer it will happen? No.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
-
Unless I am mistaken I don't think this is correct. Title IX isn't just about scholarships it's about money spent.
I dont know the actual detail of Title IX, I thought it was roughly equated to scholarships. Maybe there is some formula. I think the point is non scholarship brings the costs way down and makes it a glorified high school team with a travel budget.
-
I dont know the actual detail of Title IX, I thought it was roughly equated to scholarships. Maybe there is some formula. I think the point is non scholarship brings the costs way down and makes it a glorified high school team with a travel budget.
And a coaching staff...and a training staff....and a stadium....and a locker room....and support staff....
Football is expensive, even without the schollies.
-
Each one of these arguments appears to set an unrealistically high minimum bar. Big Ten or SEC level player requirements? Packer or Badger level fan support? Anything wrong with starting with modest goals?
The challenges are not insurmountable. Its been about decade since the last major fundraising progam at MU took place--Magis raised $350 million back then. MU's next major effort will be larger, and if football becomes a priority, then it's added as small line item on a big overall goal. The $100 million cost to launch a program becomes a small part of, say, an overall $750 million 10-year fundraising campaign.
Two final point. First, FBS does us no good. We cannot preserve a high division 1 basketball program with an FBS football team. If we establish football, its to preserve our overall position in basketball and hopefully someday to compete at the highest levels. The best we could hope for is to be Vanderbilt, Duke, Northwestern etc., and as I noted, that will take decades at best.
Secondly, as to fundraising, I have been generous to Marquette ever since I was graduated. There is no way, now how, nothing, nada, that would drive me to contribute to establishing a football program. Marquette has so many needs and with a $40,000-plus annual cost and thousands of young people priced out of a Marquette education, it would be the absolute height of irresponsibility to spend massive amounts of money on a third tier football program. Period.
-
Secondly, as to fundraising, I have been generous to Marquette ever since I was graduated. There is no way, now how, nothing, nada, that would drive me to contribute to establishing a football program. Marquette has so many needs and with a $40,000-plus annual cost and thousands of young people priced out of a Marquette education, it would be the absolute height of irresponsibility to spend massive amounts of money on a third tier football program. Period.
Which is probably why Dr. Lovell doesn't support it.
-
And a coaching staff...and a training staff....and a stadium....and a locker room....and support staff....
Football is expensive, even without the schollies.
Agreed, that is why I am saying someone who have to fully fund it, do all the logistic research , create the plan etc and make it one stop shopping no brainer deal. Not likely to happen.
-
(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2280249/StadiumMap.JPG)
Wow.
They have an MLK Blvd in Waco?
-
This isn't true. At all.
Go back and look at the WCHA. LOTS of good/great teams that aren't from Hockey East, and didn't move to the B10.
EDIT This will save you some time.
Some great hockey programs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Collegiate_Hockey_Conference
The ECAC has won the last two NCAA championships:
Union in 2014 & Yale in 2013 and Yale beat fellow ECAC member for the title.
-
It seems to me that the biggest reason we won't ever have football is that basketball is an absolute cash cow at Marquette for a lot of administrators. Maybe one of the biggest cash cows in all of D1 basketball. And there is absolutely ZERO incentive for anyone involved with athletics at Marquette to upset that apple cart. Even a mildly successful, break-even program could distract attention or draw away donations from the financial benefactors of the basketball program within the administration.
For my many sins I am living in the Quad Cities, and I can tell you that Augustana College has a beautiful new stadium and support facilities that could not have cost them $500MM to put together. Even podunk St. Ambrose is putting together a stadium. I'd love to see a program at Marquette, but it's never going to happen unless the people making plenty of money on our basketball program want it to happen.
-
It seems to me that the biggest reason we won't ever have football is that basketball is an absolute cash cow at Marquette for a lot of administrators. Maybe one of the biggest cash cows in all of D1 basketball. And there is absolutely ZERO incentive for anyone involved with athletics at Marquette to upset that apple cart. Even a mildly successful, break-even program could distract attention or draw away donations from the financial benefactors of the basketball program within the administration.
For my many sins I am living in the Quad Cities, and I can tell you that Augustana College has a beautiful new stadium and support facilities that could not have cost them $500MM to put together. Even podunk St. Ambrose is putting together a stadium. I'd love to see a program at Marquette, but it's never going to happen unless the people making plenty of money on our basketball program want it to happen.
The ONLY way I could see it ever happening is if you get an uber-wealthy alum to make an unprecedented donation (like in the hundreds of millions of dollars range) to do it, along with an ongoing endowment to keep it afloat.
Beyond that, there's no way the university would invest its limited funds into such a venture and there's no reason it should.
-
It seems to me that the biggest reason we won't ever have football is that basketball is an absolute cash cow at Marquette for a lot of administrators. Maybe one of the biggest cash cows in all of D1 basketball. And there is absolutely ZERO incentive for anyone involved with athletics at Marquette to upset that apple cart. Even a mildly successful, break-even program could distract attention or draw away donations from the financial benefactors of the basketball program within the administration.
For my many sins I am living in the Quad Cities, and I can tell you that Augustana College has a beautiful new stadium and support facilities that could not have cost them $500MM to put together. Even podunk St. Ambrose is putting together a stadium. I'd love to see a program at Marquette, but it's never going to happen unless the people making plenty of money on our basketball program want it to happen.
It's not so much that it would distract from basketball, it's that football would drain all of athletics' budget. Football is a black hole of expenses. It only pays out if you are in a big six conference.
-
The ONLY way I could see it ever happening is if you get an uber-wealthy alum to make an unprecedented donation (like in the hundreds of millions of dollars range) to do it, along with an ongoing endowment to keep it afloat.
Similar to the $100M donation that Penn State received to create its hockey program.
-
Will let you guys know when I'm ready to donate the $100M. It could be awhile...
Also, not a penny will go to football. :-*
-
For my many sins I am living in the Quad Cities.
Those must have been some really, really bad mortal sins. Did you ever consider confession? Even there, your penance is finite.
I lived in the Quad Cities from 1978 to 1982. I met some nice people and found some nice bars, but my after-college life really began after I left the Quads for a real city.
-
Those must have been some really, really bad mortal sins. Did you ever consider confession? Even there, your penance is finite.
I lived in the Quad Cities from 1978 to 1982. I met some nice people and found some nice bars, but my after-college life really began after I left the Quads for a real city.
Trying to get out as soon as I can. Finished grad school a month or two before the Dow was cut by 1/3 or so in 2008, and my best job offer was here. It's basically a one (two, including the arsenal) employer town. Can't wait to get out.
-
It seems to me that the biggest reason we won't ever have football is that basketball is an absolute cash cow at Marquette for a lot of administrators. Maybe one of the biggest cash cows in all of D1 basketball. And there is absolutely ZERO incentive for anyone involved with athletics at Marquette to upset that apple cart. Even a mildly successful, break-even program could distract attention or draw away donations from the financial benefactors of the basketball program within the administration.
Given the landscape of college sports right now, I think a time is coming where MU will need to discuss protecting that cash cow with a football program, or getting out of major athletics completely.
-
Given the landscape of college sports right now, I think a time is coming where MU will need to discuss protecting that cash cow with a football program, or getting out of major athletics completely.
I know this sounds like sacrilege, but if college athletics really get to some sort of insane tipping point, I'd probably be in favor of getting out of it all together.
I love MU athletics, but if they no longer fit the overall mission of the school, then maybe they are better off without.
Again, this is assuming that college athletics gets to some sort of insane cash grab that we can't even imagine yet.
-
Trying to get out as soon as I can. Finished grad school a month or two before the Dow was cut by 1/3 or so in 2008, and my best job offer was here. It's basically a one (two, including the arsenal) employer town. Can't wait to get out.
But the locals love the place and never leave right?
-
But the locals love the place and never leave right?
Oddly enough, not that much. It's a lot different from NE Wisconsin, where I'm from, where people don't leave much or even move around.
It's a very transitory place. When people retire from my company, often as not I see lifelong residents announce that they're getting out permanently. I also don't see many, if any, Big 10 graduates around town. (Iowa City is only 60 minutes away.) If you went to a decent college out of town, you aren't coming back.
The depopulation of small towns in the Midwest is a story that doesn't get enough attention.
-
But the locals love the place and never leave right?
Great book on Iowa for anyone interested is "Methland," which deals with the economic and drug problems of Iowa. Incredibly enough, I read it when I had a lot of down time job searching.
-
Oddly enough, not that much. It's a lot different from NE Wisconsin, where I'm from, where people don't leave much or even move around.
It's a very transitory place. When people retire from my company, often as not I see lifelong residents announce that they're getting out permanently. I also don't see many, if any, Big 10 graduates around town. (Iowa City is only 60 minutes away.) If you went to a decent college out of town, you aren't coming back.
The depopulation of small towns in the Midwest is a story that doesn't get enough attention.
Yeah, agreed. Unless you are located near a city of some import (and in Wisconsin I would include Madison and Milwaukee among those), there just isn't much in some of these towns any longer.
-
Oddly enough, not that much. It's a lot different from NE Wisconsin, where I'm from, where people don't leave much or even move around.
It's a very transitory place. When people retire from my company, often as not I see lifelong residents announce that they're getting out permanently. I also don't see many, if any, Big 10 graduates around town. (Iowa City is only 60 minutes away.) If you went to a decent college out of town, you aren't coming back.
The depopulation of small towns in the Midwest is a story that doesn't get enough attention.
I worked in the media in the QCs in the 1970s and early 1980s. At the time I started, the region was the Industrial Miracle, with Deere, IH, Caterpillar, JI Case and Alcoa all employing thousands and thousands of blue collar, unionized workers.
Within five years beginning in 1981, Case shut its entire QC operation (Bettendorf and Rock Island), IH shut down the huge Farmall Plant in Rock Island (from which the city has never recovered), Caterpillar shut down North Davenport (after retooling it five years before) and the Rock Island Lines railroad went bankrupt and abandoned Silvis (see that large empty tract of land as you come in on Interstate 88/Illinois 5 from Sterling and Chicago). I'm betting that 25,000 to 35,000 people lost their jobs, minimum.
Other than Deere and Company and the Arsenal, nothing is there except for a few tractor suppliers (I'm assuming McLaughlin Body still is around). I'm sure I am overstating somewhat, but the economy there is a real world-class disaster and if Deere's headquarters weren't in Moline, one wonders whether there would be 50,000 people left!
-
Oddly enough, not that much. It's a lot different from NE Wisconsin, where I'm from, where people don't leave much or even move around.
It's a very transitory place. When people retire from my company, often as not I see lifelong residents announce that they're getting out permanently. I also don't see many, if any, Big 10 graduates around town. (Iowa City is only 60 minutes away.) If you went to a decent college out of town, you aren't coming back.
The depopulation of small towns in the Midwest is a story that doesn't get enough attention.
Agreed. But that where the opportunistic minorities and immigrants will go.
-
Unless I am mistaken I don't think this is correct. Title IX isn't just about scholarships it's about money spent.
Title IX is about three prongs or tests, a school is in compliance if it meets any one of the three.
Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the undergraduate enrollment.
Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex.
Fully accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.
-
I worked in the media in the QCs in the 1970s and early 1980s. At the time I started, the region was the Industrial Miracle, with Deere, IH, Caterpillar, JI Case and Alcoa all employing thousands and thousands of blue collar, unionized workers.
Within five years beginning in 1981, Case shut its entire QC operation (Bettendorf and Rock Island), IH shut down the huge Farmall Plant in Rock Island (from which the city has never recovered), Caterpillar shut down North Davenport (after retooling it five years before) and the Rock Island Lines railroad went bankrupt and abandoned Silvis (see that large empty tract of land as you come in on Interstate 88/Illinois 5 from Sterling and Chicago). I'm betting that 25,000 to 35,000 people lost their jobs, minimum.
Other than Deere and Company and the Arsenal, nothing is there except for a few tractor suppliers (I'm assuming McLaughlin Body still is around). I'm sure I am overstating somewhat, but the economy there is a real world-class disaster and if Deere's headquarters weren't in Moline, one wonders whether there would be 50,000 people left!
My Great Uncle lives in DT Chicago and has for quite some time. He got his start selling mining and farming equipment for IH and then later for Komatsu/Dresser. He lived all over the world in the 60's & 70's before some of these places went to hell: Afghanistan, Pakistan, China (pre-opening for business) and finally the 80's & 90's until retirement in Russia (where he would spent half his time in Chicago & the other half in Moscow). When he worked for IH, apparently by being in Sales, he need not live in the QC.