Marquette and football

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Brewtown Andy]

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

[77ncaachamps]

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!

[brewcity77]

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

[4everwarriors]

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

[GGGG]

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?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[GGGG]

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.

[Mutaman]

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

Or Rutgers.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[GGGG]

... 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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

... 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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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?

[GGGG]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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?

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.