UWM might consider football?

[GGGG]

You see them as risk takers, I see them as foolhardy.  Marquette knows its niche and tries to excel within that niche.  I'm fine with that.

[Coleman]

Gotta agree with Chicos here.

Sultan, people were saying the same thing about USF and UConn when they were trying to start their programs. They have made prestigious bowls in 15-20 years of existence.

MU wouldn't just jump into the Big East. You build the program through the FCS. You do what Villanova is doing. If you are invited to jump to FBS, you explore the option. You still might not do it. No one would just make rash uneducated decisions on such important matters.

The fact is, not having having a football team is a major sticking point to getting a national reputation. UW will always have an advantage of the in-state fan base as long as they have a football team. Not to mention, in the long run it could hurt our chances of staying in the Big East. One big conference realignment is all it takes.

Will it cost money? Yes, a lot. Would we suffer through some really bad building years? Of course, every team thats started a football team has. But many of those teams have come out of it with decent programs. UConn and USF are examples. And doing so did not hurt UConn's basketball program (USF never really had a strong one). And Villanova has already remained a basketball power. So I don't think that argument holds water.

I'm not saying WE SHOULD. I'm saying I don't know why people are so against EXPLORING the idea. Kudos to UWM for thinking progressively. They might not do it. But at least they aren't afraid to explore options. I wish MU was as forward thinking.



And a serious related question: do you think UWM trying to establish a football would prod MU into thinking about it? I mean not only would it be an in-city athletics fan base threat, but there are also possibilities for partnership. For example, that stadium everyone cites as being an impossible expense could be split between the schools and shared at an off-campus site. If it was for 2 city universities (including one state school), maybe even the city/county/state would pitch in. Just something to think about.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You see them as risk takers, I see them as foolhardy.  Marquette knows its niche and tries to excel within that niche.  I'm fine with that.

I completely get your POV and it's a solid POV.  No question there are schools that don't do it right and are in the dustbin as a result.  However, long term MU is going to be at a significant disadvantage because of the path we have taken.  A lot easier to go from FCS to FBS then to start right into FBS, which we will never do.  No one has the appetite for it currently.  Baby steps.

I look at all of these "basketball" Catholic schools that have football...Villanova, Georgetown (Jesuit), San Diego, Dayton, Fordham (Jesuit), Duquesne, Holy Cross (Jesuit), Iona, LaSalle, Sacred Heart, Marist, etc, etc and I struggle to see how MU can't be in that conversation.   

Plenty of other small "basketball only" schools that also have football.

There are only two FBS Catholic Universities...Boston College (Jesuit) and Notre Dame.   There is a void but you have to start small.

[GGGG]

I look at all of these "basketball" Catholic schools that have football...Villanova, Georgetown (Jesuit), San Diego, Dayton, Fordham (Jesuit), Duquesne, Holy Cross (Jesuit), Iona, LaSalle, Sacred Heart, Marist, etc, etc and I struggle to see how MU can't be in that conversation.   

What "conversation?"  There isn't any.  They all suck with exception of Villanova....at the FCS level.  And I don't know what that does for you anyway.

The fact is, not having having a football team is a major sticking point to getting a national reputation. UW will always have an advantage of the in-state fan base as long as they have a football team. Not to mention, in the long run it could hurt our chances of staying in the Big East. One big conference realignment is all it takes.

National reputation in what?  The only legit argument made is the BE one, but that is why I think MU chose the other alternative...LAX.

[Coleman]

National reputation in what?  The only legit argument made is the BE one, but that is why I think MU chose the other alternative...LAX.

In people outside of Wisconsin knowing that Marquette is a school in Milwaukee, not northern Michigan.

[GGGG]

We should start a football team to help people with their geography?

But seriously, I don't think Nova's reputation is affected one bit by their football program. 

[Ari Gold]

Chicos-

At some point we're going to have to learn -if we haven't already- that Sultan is an old fart who hates change and college football. You could literally offer Marquette full funding for football and he'd say he wouldn't want it, because "we'd suck for awhile." It's best if we try to progress the future Football at Marquette conversations in a productive direction and just ignore sultan, who seems to love pooping all over this board

[Coleman]

We should start a football team to help people with their geography?

But seriously, I don't think Nova's reputation is affected one bit by their football program.  

I'd argue that the university's overall reputation has been affected positively (mostly through fan interest) more than the basketball program has been affected negatively. And I think that's whats important. In fact, since 1985 when football was instituted, the basketball program has taken off. I'm not suggesting one caused the other, but it clearly didn't hinder it either.

What's the negative?

[Coleman]

The more I think about it, if UWM gets a football team (BIG IF, I know), there's no way Marquette doesn't at least consider it. Keeping up with the athletic Joneses*, and the possibility for shared facilities make it so tempting. And I think for the foreseeable future these schools would be looking at the FCS level, no doubt.

Consider me a fan of UWM for looking into this, if for no other reason than to get MU thinking about it as well.


*I am in no way suggesting we are the ones having to keep up with UWM in men's basketball. Obviously, thats not the case. But them having a football team, and us not, when we had the more historically prestigious football program, would just be embarassing.

[GGGG]

Ari. I love college football. My favorite sport by far. I also know how hard it is to compete with limited resources.

[GGGG]

I'd argue that the university's overall reputation has been affected positively (mostly through fan interest) more than the basketball program has been affected negatively. And I think that's whats important. In fact, since 1985 when football was instituted, the basketball program has taken off. I'm not suggesting one caused the other, but it clearly didn't hinder it either.

What's the negative?

The negative is that it will be a money drain.  And I am not aruging that it will take away from basketball, but it will take away from a University that is relatively poorly endowed and frankly isn't as competitive from a financial aid point than many of its peer institutions.

And Ari, if someone stepped forth to build a stadium and completely endow the football program, I would be all over it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What "conversation?"  There isn't any.  They all suck with exception of Villanova....at the FCS level.  And I don't know what that does for you anyway.


National reputation in what?  The only legit argument made is the BE one, but that is why I think MU chose the other alternative...LAX.

Should the Ivy League drop football since they "suck"?

Holy Cross had a Heisman candidate some years back, they've had 6 players drafted into the NFL since the 1980's...slightly less than the number Marquette basketball players drafted (yes, I realize there are more football players drafted than basketball players)

Dayton does not "suck" winning two national championships in that sport alone (that's one more than MU has won in all of our sports COMBINED). Chuck Noll, Jon Gruden, Hugh Devore, etc might also disagree since they either played or coached at Dayton.

San Diego had a player drafted just 3 years ago by the Tampa Bay Bucs...quarterback Josh Johnson.

Etc, etc.

I'm not expecting them to compete with Ohio State or Wisconsin.  Much like the NBA vs College game argument....you clearly like paid pros (like Wisconsin Badgers.    and the Packers), I love college football and the NFL equally.  I don't see us adding football as a bad thing if done right.  If UWM adds football, it would be an embarrassment that MU could not. 

[cheebs09]

If they add it and it turns out to be an awful decision for UWM, does that still make it an embarrassment? You seem to think that just them starting it will make MU look bad, but it doesn't mean it was a good decision. As an MU student I would really only care if we were playing at a BCS conference level, granted I'm not a big college football fan. I may be in the minority on that, but I think the novelty would wear off after awhile.

[Coleman]

If they add it and it turns out to be an awful decision for UWM, does that still make it an embarrassment?

Yes. Simply because it shows UWM was able to do something, and has something, we don't have. W-L performance is really irrelevant (for the first few years at least. No one will expect a new program to be good). The only way it wouldn't be embarrassing is if UWM would have to shut it down again after only a few years, which I think is unlikely if they do the proper planning.

No one is saying they are going to garner FBS attention. I'd be happy with a draw of 8,000-10,000 a game, which I think would be pretty middle of the road for FCS. That's half of our typical Big East basketball attendance. For a game on a saturday, when no one is working or has classes. It'd be another excuse to drink for students. You're talking at most 6 Saturdays a year. No way we couldn't draw those numbers on six Saturdays, especially if you made the tickets part of the student Fanatics package, which I'm sure they would (and maybe up the price another $50).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes. Simply because it shows UWM was able to do something, and has something, we don't have. W-L performance is really irrelevant (for the first few years at least. No one will expect a new program to be good). The only way it wouldn't be embarrassing is if UWM would have to shut it down again after only a few years, which I think is unlikely if they do the proper planning.

No one is saying they are going to garner FBS attention. I'd be happy with a draw of 8,000-10,000 a game, which I think would be pretty middle of the road for FCS. That's half of our typical Big East basketball attendance. For a game on a saturday, when no one is working or has classes. It'd be another excuse to drink for students. You're talking at most 6 Saturdays a year. No way we couldn't draw those numbers on six Saturdays, especially if you made the tickets part of the student Fanatics package, which I'm sure they would (and maybe up the price another $50).

I'd be happy at 3,500 to 5,000 a game to start. 

For me, it's more about a can do attitude.  Tired of hearing all the constant crap here that MU can't get a football program and it would cost $100M and all this other fairy tale crap.  I hope UW-Milwaukee does it just to prove those clowns making those outlandish claims wrong.  Even better, I hope they do it and play at Marquette at Valley Fields...wouldn't that be ironic as hell.

[🏀]

I'd be happy at 3,500 to 5,000 a game to start. 

For me, it's more about a can do attitude.  Tired of hearing all the constant crap here that MU can't get a football program and it would cost $100M and all this other fairy tale crap.  I hope UW-Milwaukee does it just to prove those clowns making those outlandish claims wrong.  Even better, I hope they do it and play at Marquette at Valley Fields...wouldn't that be ironic as hell.

No self-respecting AD would have scholarship football players play on the football field at the Valley.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No self-respecting AD would have scholarship football players play on the football field at the Valley.

Some FCS schools offer no scholarships for football.  It will be interesting to see what approach is taken if UWM adds a team.

[🏀]

Some FCS schools offer no scholarships for football.  It will be interesting to see what approach is taken if UWM adds a team.

Wouldn't it be entirely on their Title 9 position?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wouldn't it be entirely on their Title 9 position?

Doesn't matter...if you are scholarship or walk-on, still counts against Title IX.

Now, what some schools have done is add football to help ADD male students to the school and provide a better male to female ratio, or proportionality as the call it.  Of course, the use of proportionality is a fatally flawed execution of Title IX, but that's what you get from the "A" students that run things in this world. 


Title IX was a load of crap back then and it's a load of crap today.  As is typical, the idea is fine but the execution pathetic.

[🏀]

Doesn't matter...if you are scholarship or walk-on, still counts against Title IX.

Now, what some schools have done is add football to help ADD male students to the school and provide a better male to female ratio, or proportionality as the call it.  Of course, the use of proportionality is a fatally flawed execution of Title IX, but that's what you get from the "A" students that run things in this world. 


Title IX was a load of crap back then and it's a load of crap today.  As is typical, the idea is fine but the execution pathetic.

That I did not know.

So if it was an entire walk-on only program, there would have to be those positions for a women's sport as well?

[Coleman]

That I did not know.

So if it was an entire walk-on only program, there would have to be those positions for a women's sport as well?

I don't know everything about Title IX, but I think its all about $$$$

So you wouldn't necessarily have to match player for player in another woman's sport. I think the key thing is you spend an equal amount of money or have an equal amount of sports, etc. I don't think this would be a major hangup if we had a FCS Football team without spending $$ on scholarships.

[Abode4life]

I don't know everything about Title IX, but I think its all about $$$$

So you wouldn't necessarily have to match player for player in another woman's sport. I think the key thing is you spend an equal amount of money or have an equal amount of sports, etc. I don't think this would be a major hangup if we had a FCS Football team without spending $$ on scholarships.

No it is not technically about $$$.  It is about giving men an women an equal opportunity to participate in sports.  Meaning, If you have a football program, and you spend $25 million dollars on it, you don't have to spend $25 million dollars on a women's sport(s). 

My friends and I have had multiple talks about this, so we had to look it up in the past.  The wording is a little bit hazy but it has to do with proportional equality.  I think it depends on enrollment, so if you have more males than females, you can get away with having more male scholarships.  If you have more females in your student body then you would have to have more female scholarships.  It also talks about providing the same general quality in facilities, but I remember it specifically stated that you do not have to spend the same amount of money for men vs women's sports; you just have to provide the same opportunities. 

[GGGG]

It is a three prong test...

1. There has to be a relatively equal number of "participation slots" as there is male/female ratio
2. There has to be a relatively equal number of scholarships as there is male/femal ratio
3.  For every "first class" facility for a men's sport, there has to be one for a women's sport.

That is another very valid reason to not start up a football team.  We would have to add a woman's sport of some type and/or drop a men's sport or drop a number of scholarships from a men's sport.

[Coleman]

No it is not technically about $$$.  It is about giving men an women an equal opportunity to participate in sports.  Meaning, If you have a football program, and you spend $25 million dollars on it, you don't have to spend $25 million dollars on a women's sport(s). 

My friends and I have had multiple talks about this, so we had to look it up in the past.  The wording is a little bit hazy but it has to do with proportional equality.  I think it depends on enrollment, so if you have more males than females, you can get away with having more male scholarships.  If you have more females in your student body then you would have to have more female scholarships.  It also talks about providing the same general quality in facilities, but I remember it specifically stated that you do not have to spend the same amount of money for men vs women's sports; you just have to provide the same opportunities. 

Right but opportunities (scholarships) cost money, no?

[Coleman]

It is a three prong test...

1. There has to be a relatively equal number of "participation slots" as there is male/female ratio
2. There has to be a relatively equal number of scholarships as there is male/femal ratio
3.  For every "first class" facility for a men's sport, there has to be one for a women's sport.

That is another very valid reason to not start up a football team.  We would have to add a woman's sport of some type and/or drop a men's sport or drop a number of scholarships from a men's sport.

I'd happily drop Men's LAX (and keep women's) to support football.