American Athletic Conference

[1972Shocker]

If we add football because there is a conference that indicates that doing so will substantively increase our odds of membership (even short of a guarantee), I can buy that the gamble is worth it. If we add football just hoping that it will change the opinions of conferences that already expressed no interest in us, I'm not a fan.

I am not sold that such a gamble would be worth it since one of the only conclusions reached in the report is that playing as an independent is not recommended at either the FCS or FBS level. If we decide FCS is the appropriate place we need to come to terms with the MVFC up front. If we decide to go the FBS route we can play as an independent for a couple of years before joining an FBS conference but I personally would not want to do that without an invite in hand or a guarantee of an invite. Otherwise, we could be stuck on an island as an independent.

I think something like that could happen in the future depending on how the conference alignment landscape changes and WSU needs to be prepared to be able to respond to those opportunities aggressively and decisively. And those preparations need to be continuously updated and fresh on an ongoing basis.

I was a little surprised to read in Suellentrop's article that WSU had studied reviving the program 8 times previously since dropping the program. Now whether any of those studies were really serious I could not say or were just done as window dressing to support a no football decision.

I understand the chicken and the egg conundrum but starting up a football program without the assurances of a conference affiliation just seems too much of gamble to me.

[The Mad Hatter]

I am not sold that such a gamble would be worth it since one of the only conclusions reached in the report is that playing as an independent is not recommended at either the FCS or FBS level. If we decide FCS is the appropriate place we need to come to terms with the MVFC up front. If we decide to go the FBS route we can play as an independent for a couple of years before joining an FBS conference but I personally would not want to do that without an invite in hand or a guarantee of an invite. Otherwise, we could be stuck on an island as an independent.

I think something like that could happen in the future depending on how the conference alignment landscape changes and WSU needs to be prepared to be able to respond to those opportunities aggressively and decisively. And those preparations need to be continuously updated and fresh on an ongoing basis.

I was a little surprised to read in Suellentrop's article that WSU had studied reviving the program 8 times previously since dropping the program. Now whether any of those studies were really serious I could not say or were just done as window dressing to support a no football decision.

I understand the chicken and the egg conundrum but starting up a football program without the assurances of a conference affiliation just seems too much of gamble to me.

Sorry, I should have clarified, I meant starting football in the Missouri Valley (which itself is not a given as we have seen from administrator comments) without necessarily having an invite from a bigger conference. I absolutely agree with you (and the report) about not going independent.

[1972Shocker]

Sorry, I should have clarified, I meant starting football in the Missouri Valley (which itself is not a given as we have seen from administrator comments) without necessarily having an invite from a bigger conference. I absolutely agree with you (and the report) about not going independent.

Yes, that might be a worthwhile gamble to commit to FCS as long as we have a conference affiliation in hand and see how it goes from there.

I see that Section VII - Football Planning Considerations lists the next step in the process as determining FCS/FBS conference goals followed by deciding on a funding model. Once those decisions are in place the next step is the go or no go decision.

I would refine the next two steps just a bit to determine the FCS/FBS conference goals and to secure a place in an acceptable conference plus establishing the funding mechanisms.

[SB Shock]

Does google have an SB Shock translation tool to help read this post in normal English? I feel like half of this post was written by a Nigerian prince who wants to share his inheritance with me if I only send him $1000 first.

I just tried to summarize the points the report made in a concise manner. Only the last paragraph was my opinion.

SB is a known "no football" guy here on SN. If you truly want the meat and potatoes of the report I suggest you read it yourself, because the above has SB's personal biases build in.

Yes I do have personal bias because I saw the impact that football had on WSU athletic department (negative) and the lack of community support when I was at WSU (and I attended almost every football game while I was attending until they cancelled the program).

What is going to be different this time around? Now I could be swayed if bringing football is going to mean an upgrade in conference and a significant donor shows up. But there is two significant facts that came out of this report that hurts the "football at-any-cost" crowd.

1. It won't grow the university enrollment.
2 Don't go independent, get a conference invite.

[Shockerman]

From the Eagle's article:



I'd be skeptical of any coaching success or longevity at those types of numbers. $580,000 for a coach's salary and first year recruiting budget for FCS FB? Five years into an FCS program, a total budget of $2.5million for the entire coaching staff?

The best you can possibly hope for at those pay scales is to be a stepping stone. Those kinds of numbers in football would lead to coaching success like Missouri State sees in basketball.

You would be surprised to know that NDSU's coach, (best program in the FCS by far), makes about 300k plus incentives. I believe JMU's coach is the highest paid at 400k and change. 99.9% of FCS programs would kill to have 2.5 million to spend on coaches salaries. That is MAC level money. However, you are right about the job being a stepping stone. However that is true for virtually everybody outside of the P5. The money we are paying Marshall is nothing compared to what the big cats pull down in FBS.

[SHOCKvalue]

The money we are paying Marshall is nothing compared to what the big cats pull down in FBS.

????

Marshall is something like the 10th highest paid MBB HC in the entire country.

EDIT: I figured out you meant football coaches. Is the scale that much different though as compared to MBB? Doesn't Bill Snyder make about the same as Marshall? I'm thinking he actually makes less, IIRC.

[RoyalShock]

First, a disclaimer: My position on football is two-tiered: 1. I don't want football, however 2. If football gives WSU at least an 80% chance of getting into a better basketball conference, I might support it. That said, I think I can still objectively discuss the numbers.

As we've known for several years, WSU's financials look very, very good in relation to our peers - and even the "group of 5" - especially in regards to a low percentage of institutional support. That means there is room for additional "allocated" revenues. The question will always be, how much of an increase in fees will students be willing to support, if they're willing to support any at all?

The Winthrop study is sobering. It doesn't say what schools they looked at in their report, but it certainly indicates that the enrollment bump from adding football is, at least in part, a myth. (A few more freshman males, no statistically significant bump in undergrad enrollment.) So, it's dubious whether football can be counted on as a factor in Bardo's enrollment goals.

WSU would need to get started ASAP on a new dorm, as the consultant's plan is to raze Fairmount Towers to make room for the practice facility. Considering another dorm has already been discussed, that may mean two new dorms, meaning even more bonds getting issued. I don't know the particulars of issuing bonds, but I wonder how much bond debt can be issued relative to university revenue in a relatively short span.

I can see the potential there for a successful program if a conference move and some moderate success were to happen relatively quickly, but I think there are several geographic stumbling blocks that will be extremely difficult to overcome.

[1972Shocker]

But there is two significant facts that came out of this report that hurts the "football at-any-cost" crowd.

1. It won't grow the university enrollment.
2 Don't go independent, get a conference invite.

I think it is clear going independent is not an option and that I doubt anyone would argue that point.

I know the letter from the Winthrop president claimed that some unidentified research showed that overall undergraduate enrollment would not improve. However, I must have missed where the consultants stated this as a "fact" based on their research. I don't think that is a conclusion that CSS arrived at. Although the comment made in the Winthrop letter does give one reason to at least pause a bit.

At some point WSU and/or CSS would I think have to try to quantify and/or evaluate the benefits they expect to receive from the addition of football and/or other sports.

[jdshock]

????

Marshall is something like the 10th highest paid MBB HC in the entire country.

EDIT: I figured out you meant football coaches. Is the scale that much different though as compared to MBB? Doesn't Bill Snyder make about the same as Marshall? I'm thinking he actually makes less, IIRC.

At least according to this site, HCGM would be somewhere around the top 25 in football as well. And the absolute highest paid football coaches are roughly the same as Coach K, if not a little less.

[pogo]

I believe the numbers were gathered a put into the report to clarify what no one really knew but everyone had a WAG. The numbers will be used to see if there is a way to bring football back at what level. At least now we know how deep the well is and how much its going to take to fill it. I honestly believe the study was done to generate discussion and possibilities to its feasibility, and who is interested in stepping up and to what level and for how long.

[1972Shocker]

It was of some interest that CSS, at the direction of WSU, did not conduct its own facility review. I don't know if that might come later or if that is an indication that WSU is locked into a Cessna Stadium renovation as their approach if football is added.

It also appears they are planning on using Cessna Stadium as a soccer facility as well if they decide to add women's soccer since all 3 renovation options include $204,000 to move the jumping pit and the pole vault pit outside of the Stadium to accommodate a soccer field layout. However, it does appear that in all options the track will remain.

Not sure that locating the practice facility on the Fairmount Towers site is the most ideal situation but maybe it is the best option available.

[Shockerman]

First, a disclaimer: My position on football is two-tiered: 1. I don't want football, however 2. If football gives WSU at least an 80% chance of getting into a better basketball conference, I might support it. That said, I think I can still objectively discuss the numbers.

As we've known for several years, WSU's financials look very, very good in relation to our peers - and even the "group of 5" - especially in regards to a low percentage of institutional support. That means there is room for additional "allocated" revenues. The question will always be, how much of an increase in fees will students be willing to support, if they're willing to support any at all?

The Winthrop study is sobering. It doesn't say what schools they looked at in their report, but it certainly indicates that the enrollment bump from adding football is, at least in part, a myth. (A few more freshman males, no statistically significant bump in undergrad enrollment.) So, it's dubious whether football can be counted on as a factor in Bardo's enrollment goals.

WSU would need to get started ASAP on a new dorm, as the consultant's plan is to raze Fairmount Towers to make room for the practice facility. Considering another dorm has already been discussed, that may mean two new dorms, meaning even more bonds getting issued. I don't know the particulars of issuing bonds, but I wonder how much bond debt can be issued relative to university revenue in a relatively short span.

I can see the potential there for a successful program if a conference move and some moderate success were to happen relatively quickly, but I think there are several geographic stumbling blocks that will be extremely difficult to overcome.

Good points on the Student fees and I believe it will all come down to their vote to raise them. However, I would argue that we are set up geographically to succeed immediately in FCS football. There is currently no FCS program in Nebraska, Kansas, or Oklahoma. There are only 3 terrible programs within the other surrounding states with one in Colorado (University of Northern Colorado) and two in Missouri with Missouri State and Southeast Missouri. With the proper facilities, I think we could be very attractive to area recruits and get off to.a great start with the new program.

[1972Shocker]

Good points on the Student fees and I believe it will all come down to their vote to raise them. However, I would argue that we are set up geographically to succeed immediately in FCS football. There is currently no FCS program in Nebraska, Kansas, or Oklahoma. There are only 3 terrible programs within the other surrounding states with one in Colorado (University of Northern Colorado) and two in Missouri with Missouri State and Southeast Missouri. With the proper facilities, I think we could be very attractive to area recruits and get off to.a great start with the new program.

Good points on the dearth of FCS football programs in the area although we will be competing with very good JUCO football in the state (and perhaps benefiting from that as well). Not sure if you are arguing that FCS should be our niche or just pointing out that it is much less crowded at the FCS level in our geographic vicinity.

[Shockerman]

I just tried to summarize the points the report made in a concise manner. Only the last paragraph was my opinion.



Yes I do have personal bias because I saw the impact that football had on WSU athletic department (negative) and the lack of community support when I was at WSU (and I attended almost every football game while I was attending until they cancelled the program).

What is going to be different this time around? Now I could be swayed if bringing football is going to mean an upgrade in conference and a significant donor shows up. But there is two significant facts that came out of this report that hurts the "football at-any-cost" crowd.

1. It won't grow the university enrollment.
2 Don't go independent, get a conference invite.

1. The report failed to differentiate that Winthrop is a traditional University with a large traditional student population already on campus. Wichita State is largely a commuter school that is trying to change its image. Better comparisons are UTSA and UNC Charlotte, not Winthrop.
2. Agreed 100%

[Shockerman]

Good points on the dearth of FCS football programs in the area although we will be competing with very good JUCO football in the state (and perhaps benefiting from that as well). Not sure if you are arguing that FCS should be our niche or just pointing out that it is much less crowded at the FCS level.

Not sure if FCS would be are niche or not. I just think it would give us a leg up compared to other start ups. BTW, I have been to an NDSU game and I would take that program 100 times over what KU has. They are passionate fans, travel extremely well, pack 20k into their stadium every game, compete nationally and do it all on a budget.